I agree with you entirely. Did you see the descenting views on the travel ban case? They weren’t legal analysis....they were simply rhetoric and crisiticism. I wonder if the desenting judges realize they aren’t there to sit in judgment of a policy, only to judge whether said policy is legal? They truly came across as small minded legal nitwits when I read their analysis..
Look.......People can consider whether the travel ban was wise policy or not when it comes time to vote....and that includes the judges. If you don’t like the policy, vote against it next election. But, the wisdom of any policy is the last thing and SCJ should be considering when on the bench....and I mean that seriously.
Look.......People can consider whether the travel ban was wise policy or not when it comes time to vote....and that includes the judges. If you dont like the policy, vote against it next election. But, the wisdom of any policy is the last thing and SCJ should be considering when on the bench....and I mean that seriously."
____________
Excellent.
I heard Rush yesterday when he said basically the same thing you did. The majority said Trump was on firm Constitutional ground, and the minority carped a lot.
You’re exactly right.
Ideology aside, does it conform to the U. S. Constitution? If it does fine. If it doesn’t, then strike it down.
One wonders what standard these folks want, if not the Constitution and the rule of law. Would that be whims that come and go with the breeze?
Evidently so...
No, they dont.
The Constitution is no longer about what it plainly says on the parchment.
The Constitution is all about Your Feelz.
If you like it, its Constitutional. If you dont like it, its Unconstitutional.
Get with the program.