Trump may have a made a mistake by doing things openly.
He could have ordered an unofficial travel ban as well. Visas for Syrians or Somalis have only been delivered on a case-by-case basis for years. Trump could have discreetly ordered to make the scanning process even more rigorous, actually blocking all demands, and nobody would have noticed.
Why should he do something like that? He is the president of the United States, and he is having the liberty to change and modify the policies regarding immigration. It is the judges who are overstepping their jurisdiction.
This is correct, but Trump must wait until Gorsuch is confirmed for the Supreme Court, and then go with a broad question to them:
Can circuit court judges trump an executive order of Trump?
If the question is not posed broadly, then these renegade judges can go time and time again, over ruling a President.
With Gorsuch confirmed and the Court then 5-4 instead of 4-4 as is current, then a decision can be rendered that solves this matter once and for all.
Notice they have largely left the challenges alone. After Gorush makes it in, suddenly, it will get appealed to the highest court in the land. I'm curious to see what else gets pushed to the court once makes it in (its pretty much inevitable at this point).
I'm curious. You have a fairly opposite political view than I do. Should any circuit court judge be capable of squashing a POTUS executive order?
Before answering, consider that POTUS can and will flip from one party to the other.
Of course they should. I could give a fuck if they were Green Party, it matters not.
The executive order byoasses Congressional oversight, hence it should be subject to additional legislative scrutiny to compensate for this, and ensure no abuse of power. The parties all suck in their current iterations. Sponsorship must be removed from politics before this ameliorates. I want what is moral and right, with an emphasis on harm mitigation for all involved parties.
And, it really is unconstitutional as fuck, and pretty dumb to boot. Please explain to me how a ban of countries that don't terrorize us specifically is going to help our security. If Saudi Arabia had made it on the list, I wouldn't be typing this. Oh, and the passage giving Christians preferential treatment for refugee status. I'm Christian myself, and even I can see the problem with that.
Really? Legislative oversight for a EO?
Regardless, legislative oversight here is substituted by Judicial oversight. So my question remains.
Think about it. Any of many judges, each with their own perverse ideas or dogmatic political ideas, whatever, should be able to over ride the President?
use empathy and ask yourself the same question. If Obama had used an executive order to legalize abortion, would you want that to be irreversible? So to answer your question again, yes, a circuit court should be able to squash a POTUS executive order.
No piece of legislation should be permanent. People are imperfect and times change.
And, you know,
Trumps shit was unconstitutional, there is that.Unconstitutional? Really? Are you an expert on that? At the bare minimum, have you read the 9th circuit case and do you understand the counter arguments? If not, please don't pretend.
Still, you miss my point. There are 178 federal appeals court judges.
Give them the power to over rule a POTUS decision, whatever a POTUS did, some one or several of them could object.
This is a clear case of a category of issues that are termed "Constitutional crises," situations where there is a problem with the application of the US Constitution.
Not in its entirety, but yes, I actually have read the commentary. But I am far from an expert. Are you?
You sound angry man.
Please don't underestimate my intelligence, I respect yours. Priori statements by Trump associates fucked this for Trump, yes, I believe that statements of intent (is this is a Muslim ban) should reflect in judgements, as this applies to all other citizens (if I make ridiculous public statements concerning the civil issue at hand, of course it would effect judgement). Calling something a Muslim ban is a clear violation of freedom of religion. The primary fucking amendment. Your were saying, originalist? And I am merely illustrating the constitutional argument. We won't address the preference of religion, and lack of legal process denied citizens.
No crisis here. Your boy did a dumbass thing, and got called on it.
If the system was so broken, with all 178 judges, why has it only failed now, during a Trump Presidency?
Your move.
And no more diirect ad hominems. Attack my ideas, not me. But, this is fun, I don't have a ton of fucks to give, and they pay me for it.
Edit: oh, I mispoke earlier, meant judicial when I said legislative. Just reread, you pointed it out for me already. Appreciated