BREAKING: Appeals court denies Trump administration request to reinstate ban

[Gass3268]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling. It would set a dangerous precedent. You cannot have a judge appointed to a life term overrule an executive decision by the President.

Remember, the national security of America is more important than the emotional security of foreign aliens.

Liberals are on the wrong side of history on this one, big time. 

Two Bush appointed judges are now liberals?

[The_Doctor]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling. It would set a dangerous precedent. You cannot have a judge appointed to a life term overrule an executive decision by the President.

Marbury v. Madison. Come on, it's the first major judicial decision of the Republic and it specifically involves an executive decision by the President.  

[DavidB.]

Yeah, so now it's clearly high time to just ignore the courts and go ahead anyway. Why wait for them if they can't keep up with the times?

[Panda Express]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling. It would set a dangerous precedent. You cannot have a judge appointed to a life term overrule an executive decision by the President.

Marbury v. Madison. Come on, it's the first major judicial decision of the Republic and it specifically involves an executive decision by the President.  

Sad to see Reaganfan getting dumber the older he gets.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling. It would set a dangerous precedent. You cannot have a judge appointed to a life term overrule an executive decision by the President.

Remember, the national security of America is more important than the emotional security of foreign aliens.

Liberals are on the wrong side of history on this one, big time. 

OMFG read a book dude this happens all the time, "Liberals are on the wrong side of history" you don't even know your own legal history

[DavidB.]

So what are these judges going to do if Homeland Security decides to go ahead anyway? Send RBG to keep them from doing so? lmao

[The_Doctor]

I can see Kennedy agreeing with this opinion and Trump being smacked down. The key would be the fact that Trump has consistently called for a Muslim ban and Giuliani confirmed it and there's a long paper trail by the Administration to implement an anti-Muslim ban. Additionally, if you showed Kennedy most of the people detained were of Muslim origin, he would probably look favorably on that to say this ban runs afoul of First Amendment grounds.

Basically their motor mouths might really end up causing the ban to be tossed because of the history behind of the order. We'd call this "legislative history" if it was a Congressional statute, but apply it to the Executive Branch. Had they strictly said from the start the geographic ban was purely, 100% geographic, and not included the prioritization of Christians, I could see the order having a better chance of being upheld. Even then so, I definitely see the order still having a 50-50 chance, given the huge deference the Courts show the Executive Branch in its constitutional prerogative to execute the nation's immigration laws (and the typically wide scope).

Circling back to how the judicial branch usually looks at polling, if the President is still looking like a dumbarse by June, I expect Kennedy to decide to vote against the Administration, believing that Trump will be trashed by public opinion and history. If Trump shapes up and starts behaving and stops running his mouth, Kennedy might cut him some slack.

Any way you slice this, this opinion is a big defeat for the White House and how they do things.

[The_Doctor]

So what are these judges going to do if Homeland Security decides to go ahead anyway? Send RBG to keep them from doing so? lmao

That's pretty dumb. You really don't want to have an unchecked executive branch. Just remember, the Democrats will have power back. Every step Trump takes will one day be available to the Democratic successor he has.

Also, what you're describing is pretty close to a dictatorship, not a democracy. You're advocating that basically we become a dictatorship, where the President is not answerable to the one of the two branches of government.

This is amazingly the very rationale Jackson used in 1838 in the Trail of Tears decision where he ignored Chief Justice Marshall. History was not kind to him in that regard; most people regard it one of the stupidest things Jackson did.

Likewise, defending Trump on this and saying he should ignore the judiciary is going to cause a constitutional crisis. And it's not one Trump would win, because his legitimacy is very much in question.  

EDIT: Political, not constitutional. Jackson won by 11% each time he ran; Trump lost the popular vote. Also fixed "Taney" to "Marshall."

[publicunofficial]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling. It would set a dangerous precedent. You cannot have a judge appointed to a life term overrule an executive decision by the President.

Marbury v. Madison. Come on, it's the first major judicial decision of the Republic and it specifically involves an executive decision by the President.  

Sad to see Reaganfan getting dumber the older he gets.

That's what happens when you're born into the world as a 55 year old man.

[Reaganfan]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

[publicunofficial]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

The Constitution being debatable is the whole reason the court system exists.

[Ronnie]

So what are these judges going to do if Homeland Security decides to go ahead anyway? Send RBG to keep them from doing so? lmao

I actually would not be surprised if this happens.  Trump was not elected in good faith, and may very well take steps to undermine our liberal democracy if he and his team perceive he has no choice.

[MaxQue]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

I think it's why they are judges and not you.

They understand law, and you don't. It's simple as that.

Trump is free to ask Congress to pass laws or to start the process for a constituonnal amendment, however.

[Devout Centrist]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, conservatives arguing for unchecked executive power?! F**k this is gold.

[DavidB.]

The constitution is p boring imo. Let's make politics a little bit more exciting!

[Devout Centrist]

The constitution is p boring imo. Let's make politics a little bit more exciting!

Bring back the camps

[Trapsy]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

The EO was incompetently written. He has to rewrite it but the court ruled for political reasons. I agree with you the President has authority to ban travel in the interest of national security but the evidence doesn't support it.

[EnglishPete]

And here's where Trump's tweets and commentary have come to bite him in the arse. Apparently in their view it runs afoul of the Lemon test, and thus, the First Amendment. They're also arguing there's Fifth amendment issues here.

Anyway, the fun money quote:

"The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban"as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order."

Out of interest when was it that SCOTUS ruled that the Equal Protection Clause applies to non-Citizens, since that seems to be necessary to claim that in order to make this case.

[DavidB.]

Bring back the camps

That's not a nice thing to say.

[Devout Centrist]

Bring back the camps

That's not a nice thing to say.

It would be "interesting" to intern foreign aliens though. Internment camps or bust!

[The_Doctor]

Bring back the camps

That's not a nice thing to say.

And whatever you're saying right now is any more intellectual? Snowflake feelings.

[MaxQue]

And here's where Trump's tweets and commentary have come to bite him in the arse. Apparently in their view it runs afoul of the Lemon test, and thus, the First Amendment. They're also arguing there's Fifth amendment issues here.

Anyway, the fun money quote:

"The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban"as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order."

Out of interest when was it that SCOTUS ruled that the Equal Protection Clause applies to non-Citizens, since that seems to be necessary to claim that in order to make this case.

Well, while the early parts of the clause refers to citizens, the two last parts says "any person".

Are you trying to argue non-citizens are not persons?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Hey trump supporters! Eat s**t!! All of you!

[MasterJedi]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling. It would set a dangerous precedent. You cannot have a judge appointed to a life term overrule an executive decision by the President.

Remember, the national security of America is more important than the emotional security of foreign aliens.

Liberals are on the wrong side of history on this one, big time. 

Lol! That's precisely why the courts were made lifetime appointments and the third branch of government, to check the President and Congress.

[JA]

Yeah, so now it's clearly high time to just ignore the courts and go ahead anyway. Why wait for them if they can't keep up with the times?

If your goal is to witness a constitutional crisis and perhaps push our entire constitutional republic to its edge, then yes, that's a brilliant idea. It also seems like the one Trump is most likely to take in the event the SCTOUS strikes down his Muslim ban.

Since you don't seem to appreciate the purpose and necessity for our system of checks and balances, then I suppose you'd like to see what America would look like with an unchecked executive. I can answer that for you: the executive would have no limits on its authority, as it would then define its own limits without regard for the constitution, and our entire government would functionally collapse as power transfers upwards into the Presidency. That's what's called a dictatorship or authoritarian regime. Is that really what you want?