Posted on 06/05/2017 4:00:43 AM PDT by SMGFan
Wasn’t that Trump’s Justice Department, Trump’s AG, and Trump’s WH —that is, Trump—who went with the watered-down version?
We have them in name only. The forms have been bastardized. with the travel ban, we are literally, and I do mean literally, a "Rule of Man" regime. The federal courts admit that the same EO promulgated by a different president would not be objectionable.
Travel ban (or whatever label one prefers, "the EO" is technically correct) was and is the issue. The court labeled it unconstitutional religious discrimination (and an EO could conceivably be such, e.g., "It is forbidden for people to practice religious services") to justify the court's order that the EO may not go into effect.
And in order to find that the EO was unconstitutional religious discrimination, they found that while the EO on its face is constitutional, Trump has bad faith relating to expanding the practice of Islam in the US, so the otherwise constitutional EO is unconstitutional.
A couple thoughts. First, Trump is not as risk averse as the run of the mill lawyer is, and he doesn't care how much heartburn he is causing me, you , or anybody else as he expresses himself.
The other thought is something I mentioned to my wife yesterday. Sure, Trump originated this order, but it isn't just "his." The order aims to work to the benefit of the public at large, and certainly to the benefit of those who support the decision. It's as much our order as it is his - just like laws, they (most of them, excluding "private laws") are there for everybody.
-- Let them rule in your favor then take a broad interpretation of it. --
They have already decided how they are going to rule. All that's left to do is backfill the justification. As Trump correctly said, the Court is a political institution, and slow.
London is 40% muslim.
Appreciate your comments Choldt.
I’ll try and stop my hand wringing for now but you hit the nail on the head of what I am thinking and what worries me.
Don’t throw curve balls while the Justice’s are backfilling (justifying) their decision.
[ Yes, it is the least. Just think- anytime we are in a department store, a grocery store or just about anywhere in public some damn Muslim may pull out a gun, blow himself up, or start stabbing people. I say throw every one of these SOB’s out of America NOW. This revisionist history about Muslims in America is BS. My family on both sides came to this country in the 1600’s for both opportunity and to practice Christianity. The Church of England ruled there as did the Pope in Europe. I read the revisionist history crap about Jefferson and damn near puked. Our founding fathers would stop this teaching American kids the Muslim prayer. ]
Muslims did do one thing to help found America, okay TWO things.
1. Forced the Spanish to look for a DIFFERENT route to Asia for trade because they shut down the silk road trading routes to china/india.
( this led to the Spanish nobility to send out Columbus to try to find a new route )
2. Forced the US to create the marines to deal with their extortion on the high seas.
( America’s first foreign war was to kick the crap out of the Islamic Barbary Pirates in Tripoli )
So in the founding of our country Islam provided TWO OBSTACLES that had to be OVERCOME!
In principle, they are or should be deaf to his curve ball remarks. The EO contains all that the court needs to know. Unlike the decision in Kerry v. Din, this EO is not personalized, so wouldn't give the evidence to support "Din is a terrorist sympathizer." And FWIW, SCOTUS ruled in the Din case the a personal denial of entry does NOT have to include evidence supporting the conclusion, unless Din could show the denial of entry was based on bad faith against him, individually.
In practice, the curve ball remarks create political pressure on the Courts. They can either dig in and become more political, or they can act in a principled way. They hold their institutional reputation in their own hands. Trump is goading them, and I would guess he doesn't know which side of the goad they will fall on. Maybe they do their job, maybe they turn even more political as retribution against Trump the person, proving his goad that the Courts are political.
But at least he has that question (political or principled?) out in the open, and now a matter of public debate. I call that a win. Regardless of how the court rules on this EO, it is going to show us just how political (or not) they are, and more of the public will notice than would otherwise.
If they want to travel send them to the moon.
I see what you did there :)
“bacon and pig’s blood jokes and references dried up about three years ago.”
No, they’re still funny - and vey relevant
Let them come, they’ll get their “cometrumppence”.
Don’t worry, he never shows ALL of his cards.
“Case before SC, not smart to keep making comments.”
Words cannot express how happy I am with Trump’s tweeting.
It is a sad state of affairs when the POTUS not only bears the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency, but must also provide the American people with their only reliable source of the truth.
The MSM has abdicated its mission to report objectively and serve as the people’s watchdog over the government. Instead, with few exceptions, they are ‘all in’ for the Left, and it’s Marxist, globalist, redistributionist vision, which seeks to replace that of the Founders.
Where would we be if we did not have this great man running the country and still having the energy at the end of a long day to also serve as the nation’s only honest journalist -and tweet the truth out to 31 million citizens?
And re-issue all the profiling documents that CAIR had got banned.
Exactly, why on Earth would anybody promote a Senator into a job that requires work? President Trump’s pick of Sessions was in my mind dumb and now he is complaining about the DOJ. Also, doesn’t the State Department work for the President? Just tell the State Department to stop all immigration. Something just doesn’t add up.
Screw the travel ban, Do This: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/czech-government-citizens-how-to-fight-terrorism-a7515671.html
You just made my case. Thanks.
The feds are not constitutionally authorized to "ban travel". But they are MANDATED by the Constitution to ban invasion.
The United States...shall protect each [state] against Invasion (U.S. Constitution, Art IV, Sec 4).Trump's unassailable authority to do so is the Constitution which I wish he would cite as his authority for this action. The courts wouldn't have much to say against the plain language of this clause.
That is the SCOTUS interpretation. It is not stated that clearly in the Constitution. Lets see if the SC upholds its own interpretation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.