Supreme Court

Trump Administration Opposes Judicial 'Second-Guessing' of Executive Power in Travel Ban Case

Is Trump's executive order banning travel from seven majority-Muslim countries subject to judicial review?

|

Gage Skidmore

The Trump administration has told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the federal courts have no business taking "the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national-security judgment made by the President himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority."

This statement came as part of the government's brief asking the 9th Circuit to lift the nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) that currently blocks the enforcement of President Donald Trump's controversial executive action banning travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries. The 9th Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments today about whether or not that nationwide block should be lifted.

The TRO came in response to a constitutional challenge filed against the Trump administration by the states of Washington and Minnesota. Those states allege that Trump's travel ban violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection, due process, and the non-establishment of religion. They also challenge the president's statutory authority to act in this manner. Federal Judge James Robart issued the TRO last week after deciding that the state challengers had a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The executive order was then blocked from going into effect while the underlying legal challenge proceeds in federal court.

The Trump administration wants the block lifted and the travel ban restored. Among other things, it maintains that because the president acted here in the name of national security, his executive order is effectively beyond the reach of "even limited judicial review."

Over the weekend on Twitter, Trump himself cast even greater aspersions on the authority of the federal courts to sit in independent judgment of his executive actions. After denouncing Judge Robart as a "so-called judge" whose opinion "essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country," Trump went on to add, "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system."

Setting aside the constitutional merits of the legal challenge, it seems to me at the very least that the Trump administration is on shaky ground when it claims that the travel ban should be immunized from judicial review on account of its ostensible connection to the president's "formal national-security judgment."

After all, the federal courts have repeatedly reviewed executive actions that were carried out in the name of national security. As the Supreme Court recently stated in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), "national security and foreign relations do not warrant abdication of the judicial role."

For example, consider Rasul v. Bush (2004), in which the Supreme Court held that U.S. federal courts have jurisdiction to review "the legality of Executive detention of aliens in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not 'ultimate sovereignty.'" That case recognized habeus corpus rights for non-citizen detainees held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration had argued that the federal courts had no business nosing around down there in the first place.

The next move in the legal battle over Trump's travel ban rests in the hands of the 9th Circuit, which is expected to decide this week whether or not to leave the TRO in place. It seems likely, however, that this matter will soon be on the fast-track to the Supreme Court.

Related: Trump vs. the Judiciary

Advertisement

NEXT: Will Your Old Emails Finally Get Fourth Amendment Protections?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Among other things, it maintains that because the president acted here in the name of national security, his executive order is effectively beyond the reach of “even limited judicial review.”

    What administration welcomes checks and balances in any area of executive action? Trump’s extraordinary sin is that he’s unsubtle about it.

    1. I think it is a kind of sin. It’s one thing to de-legitimize the media, they do that to themselves, it’s another to invite open war between the branches and try to get people to pick sides based on utilitarian ends.

      We’re already far enough down that rabbit-hole as it is.

      1. When the branches are getting along is when you need to worry.

        1. I don’t expect them to get along. I do expect them to follow a decorum that doesn’t facilitate the descent into authoritarianism.

        2. But not the only time you need to worry.

        3. I am scared of the whole Ent, Fist, regardless of what it’s doing with its branches.

      2. “invite open war between the branches”

        Description seems a little extreme. People in charge of safety are always going to push for more enforcement power. That is why we have checks and balances and that is why we have a constitution. So that liberty isn’t trumped by power.

        1. Then make a constitutional argument to the people as well as in the courts.

        2. Then challenge the message, not the messenger. And don’t claim “national security” is a root password to the Constitution.

          1. don’t claim “national security” is a root password to the Constitution.

            i tried finding Damon’s article from Feb 2015 bemoaning exactly that point. no luck

      3. I disagree. Open war is the preferred avenue. Fuck subtlety. Let’s have it right out in the open. Clear as day.

        If all Trump does is wake people up about why the Constitution really exists (to restrain Washington in general and any single branch of Government), he’s had a successful Presidency.

      4. He just insulted the judge on the Twitter; he isn’t defying him. I’ll allow it.

    2. I have it on good authority from many of the commens section here at Reason that trump is a very smart, bright, excellent minded guy. Smart guys aren’t subtle.

      1. I’m done with phones.

      1. TDS cuts both ways, Pompey.

    3. They don’t welcome it but they usually don’t insist that Marbury v. Madison never happened.

    4. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

    5. I have to agree with Trump on this one. I don’t believe the Judicial has any reach on how the Executive or Legislative Branch decides how it deals with non-citizens entering our country. This is far beyond their purview and these judges should be chastised for it. This is grossly legislating from the Bench, and it is an usurpation of power by the Judicial. I honestly believe they should be disbarred for this.

      I mean, really, put this into context. The judges are basically saying that the executive cannot stop possible foreign enemies from entering the US unless the judges decide that they are actually enemies. That is incredibly dangerous to national security.

  2. Trump’s speaking and writing style may be rather daft and incoherent , but was he saying that court had no authority to judge his executive order or that the ruling had no real legal basis?

    Because I do not think he is required to agree with the ruling, especially one that comes from a circuit court.

    1. He’s not required to agree with the ruling but he should be expected to lay out a legal argument as to why. Something a tad more sophisticated than a populist appeal of “stupid judge is gettin’ in my way”.

      1. The dastardly quote itself said “…pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority.” Sounds a lot more legal to me than your take. Specifically, if he has the authority to decide who gets blocked and why in this kind of short-term security concern issue, then indeed the courts have no business deciding if he blocked people he is allowed to block and if he blocked them for a valid or invalid reason.

        1. The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

          Legal arguments aside, Trump is flirting with a populist appeal to authoritarianism by resorting to insults intended to diminish the perceived authority of the judicial branch. It’s certainly been done before and it’s certainly been worse (FDR) , but that doesn’t make it right.

          Trump could have stated that the judge had overstepped his authority and that the administration would immediately appeal, but he, as usual, resorted to playground insults.

          1. Trump is flirting with a populist appeal to authoritarianism by resorting to insults intended to diminish the perceived authority of the judicial branch.

            duh.

            The Department of Justice argued in papers filed Monday, that the ability of the federal government to protect national security would be “irreparably harmed” if a federal judge did not lift his injunction blocking implementation of President Trump’s executive order

            “A stay pending appeal is necessary to ensure that the [Department of Homeland Security] is able to most effectively protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of the border,” the motion reads. “Absent a stay, DHS will sustain irreparable harm,” the motion continues, “harm that would not be cured, even if Defendants ultimately prevail on that appeal.

            guess which word here was changed?

            1. More than one word … “President Obama’s executive amnesty program.” in place of “President Trump’s executive order”

          2. Eh, fuck the judicial branch too. Another horde of little Napoleons with God-complexes. I’m more than fine with cutting them down a peg too. They do have a somewhat better tradition of ethics and recusing themselves from self-serving decisions than politicians (an extremely-low bar), but they can be way worse with the “I am the law” attitude.

            1. I’d be more respectful of the judicial if it wasn’t so easy to predict how prog judges are going to rule on any given issue. That they’ve made judicial activism a thing is not something that leads to confidence in the court.

              When justice is no longer blind you no longer have justice.

              1. Yes, I really liked Gorsuch’s quote along these lines the other day: “a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.”

            2. That was the whole idea of checks and balances … to make ambition counter ambition and in so doing reduce the power of any branch of (or even person in) the government.

            3. I agree. Doctors and judges and politicians can be so insufferably arrogant about the power they wield over ordinary or average people. “Little Napoleons with God-complexes” appears to be one of the perks of these jobs that attracts more than the typical share of sociopaths.

      2. he should be expected to lay out a legal argument as to why.

        nonsense.

        the court of public opinion isn’t a court of law. Presidents aren’t lawyers, they’re salespeople.

        1. Yeah, laying out the legal argument is DoJ’s job.

  3. Trump’s speaking and writing style may be rather daft and incoherent , but was he saying that court had no authority to judge his executive order or that the ruling had no real legal basis?

    Because I do not think he is required to agree with the ruling, especially one that comes from a circuit court.

  4. The EO is time-sensitive right? So a judge blocked it, and presumably it isn’t currently being enforced, is the clock ticking or is it “paused”?

    1. Maybe he can issue a second EO stating that his other EO has now been unblocked. I have no doubt this has gone through his mind.

      1. I don’t see why he couldn’t change the EO thus making any ruling moot, of course then the process will start over since it doesn’t matter what Trump does the left will protest

  5. , it seems to me at the very least that the Trump administration is on shaky ground when it claims that the travel ban should be immunized from judicial review

    Of course. Because the shit they say in public is just jawboning. The actual arguments they make in court will be when they make a legal case.

    What did Obama and the press do when a judge halted Obama’s own executive orders on Immigration? did they make narrow legal arguments for the legitimacy of the order, while praising the proper role of courts?

    No, they whined that National Security was being threatened, that “the children” were going to suffer, and demonized the Judge as some racist arch conservative (which he probably was, but it doesn’t change the legal case)

    The point being, no president who gets smacked down by the courts ever takes it like a gentleman. As FoE says above, if anything its a slight-difference in rhetorical style, but zero difference in substance.

  6. Immigrant visas and green cards appeared to be the issue legally. If that got resolved how can there be a tro on it?

    My understanding is full eo isnt illegal…just parts above

    1. Minnesota and Washington are claiming that the EO provides preferential treatment for ‘religious minorities’ (which it does) and therefore violates the First Amendment. From what I’ve read this is a very shaky conclusion, especially since the previous administration acknowledged that genocide was occurring against Yazidis and Christians and that we have long prioritized genocide victims over general refugees.

      1. Wait, so now “victim” status is irrelevant?

        1. You got it confused. The Pyramid of Victimhood would rank ‘those who suffer genocide’ at a prim spot atop the pyramid. But, the problem is when those groups also happen to be Jewish or Christian (especially Christian). They then get relegated below regular refugees, because of ‘privilege’ and such. Yazidis should be OK, because they’re unknown and the religion is ‘eastern’ and therefore ‘hip’.

          1. Just as whites cannot be victims of racism, Christians cannot be victims of genocide. They are just pissed because formerly oppressed groups are standing up against their long-held privilege. C’mon, this is Prog 101.

  7. “Setting aside the constitutional merits of the legal challenge, it seems to me at the very least that the Trump administration is on shaky ground when it claims that the travel ban should be immunized from judicial review on account of its ostensible connection to the president’s “formal national-security judgment.””

    Agreed on the notion that the Courts should be able to review all executive actions, though this line of argumentation is made by every executive with regards to national security.

    I also don’t like him insulting judges. I think it is a bad precedent that was started by Andrew Jackson (who actually ignored the courts) and picked-up again by the previous administration that saw fit to admonish the Supreme Court at a state of the union address.

    But, from what I understand, as has been written about regarding the ruling in Reason, the rationale behind the suspension of the travel ban is on shaky legal ground.

    1. from what I understand, as has been written about regarding the ruling in Reason, the rationale behind the suspension of the travel ban is on shaky legal ground.

      I think part of it is simply to get the story in the press that in truth, the Executive has vast authority to be as racist and exclusionary as they want as far as immigration/refugees/non-citizens are concerned.

      i’ve seen roundups of “past actions in american history” that seem to show enormous deference by the courts on the matter.

      Even if they lose in court, it keeps the press covering the subject of “trump’s racist administration”, which serves a political purpose.

      1. Didn’t Root even write an article a couple days ago admitting that the rationale for the injunction against the EO was weak?

        1. i went back and looked at his Trump vs. the Judiciary piece and it seemed like he passed from giving his own opinion on the merits.

  8. I think it is a kind of sin. It’s one thing to de-legitimize the media, they do that to themselves, it’s another to invite open war between the branches and try to get people to pick sides based on utilitarian ends.

    The whole point of the US gov’t is that the branches are pitted against each other so that one does not gain too much power.

    When the branches are getting along is when you need to worry.

    Indeed.

  9. …seven majority-Muslim countries…

    Stop it! Just stop!

    Here are seven majority- or largely-Muslim countries: Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt.

    Just the first has as many Muslims as in the seven restricted countries, and the last has the as many Muslims as the most populated restricted country.

    As detestable as Trump is, as detestable as blanket restrictions on immigration are, and as detestable as this clumsy EO and its application to current visa holders is, it is disingenuous to accrue it to countries containing Muslims rather than countries that are hazards for terrorism.

    1. (To the tune of Under Pressure/Ice Ice Baby)

      So, so, racist.

    2. Yeah, that’s the media line and they’re sticking to it. They don’t want this to be an argument about terrorism or security. They want it to be about racism and they’re happy to be misleading to do it. This is why Trump can get away with calling the media liers. Because they are and everyone knows it.

      1. Maybe he shouldn’t have explicitly called for a Muslim ban if he didn’t want to be called a bigot.

        1. “Bingo”, we have a winner!

          Although, to be fair, running as a Republican makes you a bigot by default

          1. To be fair to other Republicans, they never asked for someone to confirm it so flamboyantly.

            1. Well the percentage of ‘racist’ Republicans is equal to probably any other party. The fact is that the media will define them as ‘racist’, regardless (they compared Romney to the Klan).

              The difference is where the media always says that Republicans are using ‘dog whistles’ when they talk about ‘federalism’ or ‘smaller government’, Trump actually went full ‘bigot’ almost in defiance.

              The moral of the story: if Trump never called for a Muslim ban, the media and the Democrats would have invented a Muslim ban through some hidden message that supposedly served as a dog whistle.

              Surely not defending Trump’s statement, but I’m not going to pretend like Republicans get a fair shake

              1. Isnt it funny how dems can always hear these dog whistles?

                1. It’s the hollow skulls. They allow for much better airflow.

              2. W. gets effusive praise from punditry for going out of his way not to make the War on Terra about Islam, and he kind of deserves it. He certainly didn’t originate the stupid idea that terrorism is by definition violence committed by Muslims, which despite his efforts has now become gut reality.

                But the Republican party has, ever since it became the party of white Southerners, relied almost exclusively on the politics of white racial resentment to win. Usually blacks are the ones who serve as the villain in their narrative, but occasionally they have veered toward using gays as scapegoats du jour when they really need to shore up the evangelical vote, and Muslims are of course a bonanza of fear and resentment.

                Bigotry is not mostly about what people feel and think, it’s how those thoughts and feelings translate into the harming of others. The Republican party has relied on and stoked bigotry for decades in order to win the votes of scared white people. It’s completely undeniable. The only difference with Trump is he’s an actual bigot in 2017 who actually thinks the Muslims are going to kill us all. His abysmal stupidity shouldn’t excuse the rest of his party, I’d think.

                1. You are aware, of course, that Al Qaeda and ISIS are avowed ‘Muslims’ (per their interpretation). I don’t see Republicans as scapegoating Muslims, except for Trump. Hell, I can’t even think of when gays have been scapegoated by Republicans (you are aware that nearly all Democrats also opposed same sex marriage until roughly 2012, right?).

                  Your synopsis actually explains well why Democrats are now a regional party, that are run by paranoids. At least there are diverse voices in the Republican Party now (Paul, Amash, Massie, McCain, etc.) opposing the Trumpists, but I don’t see any sane people in the Democratic Party opposing their march toward irrelevance.

                  1. More actual Americans voted for the Democrats in the presidential race and for candidates in both houses of Congress, so let’s not jump to conclusions. Republicans cheat to win. Doesn’t mean their ideas are popular.

                    Yeah Republicans have made a remarkable shift from Karl Rove running the 2004 election on scapegoating gays to being super gay-friendly–for the sole purpose of pitting pro-gay Americans against Muslims (who throw gays off buildings dontcha know). The cynicism is palpable. And lest we forget, they tried and possibly succeeded in using trans panic this last time around.

                    Imagine if they ever ran on an actual idea.

                    1. Nope the house of representatives was 1.5 million more republicans

                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ United_States_House _of_Representatives_ elections,_2016

                      And senate only went dem mainly due to california which ran two democrats. Would have been much closer.

                      Do you understand the house, POTUS and senate aren’t based on total popular vote

                      What cheating went on here? What do you mean? Can’t gerrymeander senate seats or the states trump won

                    2. You’re right about the House. I mean, shut up, it’s my alternative fact.

                      I understand how the federal government works, and I think it’s stupid. We give people who fuck their cousins in rural Idaho a zillion times the representation of a Californian because people in the past wanted affirmative action in government as a reward for the virtue of owning slaves.

                      These institutional barriers (including the ludicrous electoral college) plus gerrymandering plus voter suppression are all on top of what would always be a pro-rural bias in any system in which districts are drawn.

                      Now tell me why Bubba from Idaho who fucks his cousin has better ideas about how to govern than an educated person in LA and I’ll consider the argument.

                    3. California has 55 electoral votes, idaho has what 4?. There needs to be 13 dahos before it can make up for a california. You seem very angry

                      How does gerrymeandering dictate governorships and senators? What is the excuse for that?

                      It seems like you are driving at…the only correct democracy is that one where the democrats rule everywhere otherwise it was stolen from you. You do understand not everyone is a progressive

                      What voter suppression (who was affected) here? Is this like trump’s stoopid claim about millions of illegals? Lol you are hoot

                    4. So basically you are advocating anyone that thinks like you should be the ones governing? yikes a bit totalitarian there

                    5. Gee. Each state has a minimum of 3 Electoral votes and that makes everything all screwed up? Should the smaller states just roll over and let the federal government (which also operates on the states *as states* rather than just on individuals within the states) do whatever the big city states want? You know that we are called the United States because the states *as states* created it?

                    6. “Now tell me why Bubba from Idaho who fucks his cousin has better ideas about how to govern than an educated person in LA and I’ll consider the argument.”

                      Well, for starters because Bubba in Idaho might be more inclined to say that the federal government should broadly speaking leave me the hell alone while an educated person from L.A. is more likely to think that the federal government needs to manage lots of details of my life. For my own good, of course, because it will only be other technocratic, educated people – who of course must agree with this person from L.A. – making these decisions so they’ll be good decisions. And, even if I don’t need those decisions made for me, obviously something like 20% to 40% of the population need those decisions made for them because they have names like Bubba and fuck their cousins.

                    7. Here’s an interesting couple of facts about Tony’s wonderfully offensive stereotype.

                      It is true that both the city of LA and California as a whole have a greater percent of adults with a college degree than Idaho. It’s also true, however, that Idaho has a substantially LOWER percent of adults with less than a high school education.

                      https://goo.gl/LVVfJl and https://goo.gl/2VRd0N

                    8. * Here are

                    9. Karl Rove lol…talk about tinfoil

                    10. More actual Americans voted for the Democrats in the presidential race and for candidates in both houses of Congress, so let’s not jump to conclusions.

                      These facts, even if accurate, are relevant to nothing.

                    11. Shush don’t forget the democrats ran two senators in cali!

                    12. National elections aren’t all one big democratic election. They are 50 individual democratic elections. The rules have been known for well over 200 years.

        2. Meh you would call him or anyone who doesnt go along with your progressive dogma a bigot.

          So i cant really take it seriously your concern here as if you wouldn’t if he didnt say it

          Btw arent you gay? May i recommend not going to the middle east

          1. But he did say it.

            1. I didnt say he didnt. No matter what you would call him a bigot if he did or didnt was my point

              You are wedded to your religion of progressivism which means you cant tolerate dissent

              1. You’re a blooming idiot. Where’s the real AS?

                1. So am i correct in my assessment?

                  1. I wouldn’t have thought Trump a bigot until he started with the birther and wall and Muslim ban things. I didn’t know about his Central Park 5 embarrassment or his racist housing past until he started to run for president. So since he’s demonstrably a big fat bigot, your thesis is running a little thin here.

                    1. So you are confirming my suspicion.

        3. Trump doesn’t seem to care what they call him.

          The argument here was criticizing the media for spreading half-truths in the name of Journalism.

          1. “Trump doesn’t seem to care what they call him.”

            Laugh of the day.

        4. “Maybe he shouldn’t have explicitly called for a Muslim ban”

          You should call him and tell him that since he said something stupid during the campaign that he now has to recluse himself from all national security decisions.

          1. It’s still on his website. The thing I quoted, where he explicitly calls for a ban on Muslims.

            In fact the only reason this policy exists is to make good on that promise. Which is why it’s going to be struck down in every court.

            1. It didn’t apply to everyone though

              1. He said all Muslims. Why are you defending that lumpy moronic sweet potato anyway?

                1. He didn’t do that though. So not sure where you are getting this from

                2. He didn’t do that though. So not sure where you are getting this from

                3. This EO doesn’t do that … not *all* Muslims.

                  Not that I’m defending it, per se. My problems with it are that he retroactively applied it to those with Permanent Resident status and those who have already approved visas and that he moved those persecuted for religious reasons to the top of the list for exemptions. If you’re in danger, you’re in danger. It doesn’t matter what the “cause” of that danger is.

    3. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

      So it’s merely a broken campaign promise?

      1. That statement may hurt him in Court.

        1. or it may help since he did not ban all Muslims for that to happen he would have to ban people from far more nations not a select few nations that happen to be Muslim majority

      2. Perhaps, one of these days, the media become adults and recognize that most of what the President of the United States says is for the sole purpose of giving red meat to his supporters in the electorate.

        Maybe on that day we will stop hearing about his tweets, that by the way have no force of law or of executive authority, and hear more about his actual actions from the office of the presidency.

        1. Just as you said over and over about Obama, dammit!

            1. No I was here. It was always “Don’t listen to Obama’s words, they mean nothing!” Just all the time with that. I mean I like Obama and it was a bit much.

  10. Neil Gorsuch would not admire such things.

    1. That’s honestly the funniest thing about this.

      If it goes to the Supreme Court, it’s the liberal justices who have consistently ruled in favor of the Executive’s branch power when it comes to immigration.

      I can only imagine the headlines if Gorsuch was the deciding vote that struck down Trump’s order.

      1. Progs head and tony will explode

        1. Film at 11? I’ll make popcorn.

  11. Tony can you help me out with money as part of the social contract? Im struggling

    1. I have no doubt.

        1. Can’t, sorry. Republicans control everything. I have no choice but to go into hoarding mode as I await the inevitable recession.

          1. Well you are free to do it on your own. Not sure why republicans are needed.

            I don’t qualify for welfare.

            1. Go read up on what the social contract actually means and get back to me, because you’re doing it wrong.

              1. Who established this social contract? When did you sign it and where? Is it the constitution?

                Why can’t you just be a nice compassionate person and help me (eliminate middle man)

              2. Curious is the social contract established and believed by progressives…is this how your ideology operates that people must obey your orders and ask for permission?

                1. You believe in the social contract too. You believe the state has primacy over the individual when it comes to protecting your property rights, and possibly other things as well. You are just a filthy prog who merely lacks imagination.

                  1. That is rule of law…not a social contract. Why won’t you help me out…i thought you cared about struggling people?

                    Or i know

                    you want credit for being compassionate and others have to do the actual work.

                    1. And people follow the law because why? Completely on a might-makes-right basis? Why should government have all the might, then? Because you like the policy of shooting trespassers? Well fuck you, I like welfare, so there.

                      You should like social contract theory because the only things that have attempted to supplant it have been ideologies like Marxism. Libertarianism, precious thing, never really got off the ground because it’s so dumb.

                    2. When you say like welfare…will you give me some of your money cause i like welfare too.

                      Wait i am confused…i thought the world’s problems were due to libertarianism but you are saying it never got off the ground. which is it?

                      Why WONT YOU VOLUNTARILY HELP ME? i am not forcing to….i just was under the impression you cared about others per your posts

                    3. I don’t care about others all that much, I just think via trial and error we’ve arrived at certain conclusions about the most effective and efficient way to organize societies in which individual well-being is respected as a good.

                    4. So you don’t care about people huh? But you talk about individual well being is respected so why don’t you help me here? i don’t qualify and i voted democrat

                    5. If you like welfare Tony, then put your money where your mouth is and help those who need help yourself. You shouldn’t need to have the money to help forced out of you (or anyone else) if you actually cared about the welfare of others.

                  2. Property rights belong to the individual. The state has no primacy over them. All the state has to do is to defend those rights when they are infringed upon just like life and liberty and all that derive from them.

                    1. …which costs no money somehow?

          2. The next recession is inevitable no matter who is in any particular office.

  12. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ========== http://www.net.pro70.com

  13. So whatever happened to the koch brothers? Are they prog allies now?

    Are they secretly controlling trump?

  14. Okay, been out of the country (they let me back in), but as I read this, Trump was given the authority, by congress, under 8 U.S. Code ? 1182 – Inadmissible aliens, to do exactly what he did:

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    Damon’s claim:

    Setting aside the constitutional merits of the legal challenge, it seems to me at the very least that the Trump administration is on shaky ground when it claims that the travel ban should be immunized from judicial review on account of its ostensible connection to the president’s “formal national-security judgment.”

    I’d say they can check to ensure the provisions of the law were complied with, which it was as far as I can see. The other thing the court could do is find the law unconstitutional, which they didn’t. I don’t think the court has the authority to stay the order based upon the Executive’s bad judgement.

    My .02

    The decision is stupid and legal. Blame Congress.

    1. I’d say they can check to ensure the provisions of the law were complied with, which it was as far as I can see. The other thing the court could do is find the law unconstitutional, which they didn’t. I don’t think the court has the authority to stay the order based upon the Executive’s bad judgement.

      i think the purpose of the stay is to keep the story in the papers as long as possible so that the narrative of “Trump the racist” is firmly embedded (as if it wasn’t already)

      iow, i don’t think anyone cares if its affirmed or overturned. the purpose is just to drag it out in public.

      i don’t expect to see any articles bemoaning the use of the courts to advance narrow partisan political narratives, however.

    2. Yep per that it seems the entire thing is legal? But i thought the green cards and immigrant visas per Amash was the not legal part.

      I am so confused

      1. But i thought the green cards and immigrant visas per Amash was the not legal part.

        Did you say you aren’t the real AS?

        If so…

        I see nothing in the above law that stipulates that’s a limitation. If they are aliens he was given the authority to do, pretty much, whatever he wants.

        Maybe once you get a green card/immigrant visa you are no longer an alien? Not a lawyer.

        1. Yep not the real one. Thanks i wonder that last sentence too

          1. That explains so much…

  15. I think it’s the judicial order which is shocking and excessive.

    It is true that it was a “extraordinary step [to] second-guess[] a formal national-security judgment made by the President himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority.”

    F d’A mentions the broad statutory authority above.

    The two legitimate beefs with the order are re green-card holders, whom the administration now says are *not* covered by the order, and the nondiscrimination law re immigrant visas, which if applicable would simply mean that immigrant visa applications from the affected countries would have to resume – tourist and student visas, etc. would not be affected.

    For the most part, the Pres is indeed using a broad statutory authority to decide which immigrants – who don’t have constitutional rights – to exclude.

    The preferences for religious minorities pose legitimate constitutional questions – posed by two states which, I presume, are fervent opponents of any form of affirmative action. /sarc

    And then, as the govt brief notes, states generally don’t have the right to go to court in defense of their citizens or putative inhabitants.

    1. To clarify, states generally don’t have the right to go to court in defense of their citizens or putative inhabitants *against the federal government.*

    2. Green card holders are legally permanent residents of the US. Visa holders not so much, but it sure seems like enacting an ex post facto operation to retroactively invalidate already approved visas. Then there’s the part about moving people who are in danger for religious reasons to the head of the line in front of anyone else who’s in danger for any other reason.

      Then as a purely expedience related question, why would you put someone who happens to be of a minority religion ahead of people who have risked their life to *help* the US regardless of their religion? That’s going to make a lot of things harder when we need locals to help us and can’t say we’ll protect you if anything bad comes of this.

  16. Andy McCarthy offers another view of this matter:

    “To summarize: Since (a) aliens have no enforceable judicial right to enter the U.S.; (b) the president has constitutional authority to act against potential foreign threats to national security; and (c) Congress, which has indisputable power to prescribe the requirements for alien entry into the country, has delegated to the president sweeping power to deny the entry of aliens whose presence ? in the president’s judgment ? would be detrimental to the U.S., that should be the end of the matter. The matter is outside judicial responsibility and there is therefore nothing for the courts legitimately to review.

    http://tinyurl.com/zkg3jsf

    1. Yeah I’m sure the courts are going to go along with the idea that judicial review suddenly disappeared.

      1. McCarthy is, of course, closer than Tony to what I would consider the correct position.

        Still, I don’t like the fact that McCarthy’s emergency backup argument is that “if Congress thwarts the President on immigration, the President can always defy Congress because national security!”

  17. interesting point Trump levels however we do have check and balances to determine constitutionality and if there were truly a eminent danger I’m sure that information could be shared with the judges.

  18. Coming soon, to a country near you: A new EO ordering DHS and ICE to ignore the courts and stating that, because he has final say, the President’s original order must stand because the court has no authority o determine the validity of whatever he does. (“as president, everything I do is legal!”)

  19. So all the liberals are supposed to come around and see the value of limited government, balance of power, and checks and balances, right? It would be very nice if they did, but I’m not holding my breath. They’re too busy whining about how evil Trump is.

    1. This has nothing to do with liberals. Should be obvious given that conservatives are arguing for no judicial review.
      You must be a Republican pretending to be a libertarian

  20. By wielding every ill-gotten power the executive has amassed in a cunning and ruthless assault on the entrenched of both ideologies he will force them to rein in the office of the presidency and strip him of those powers. If the states are strong they can even grab some back for themselves.

    I surmise that his intention may be to become the very best one-term president in two hundred years. Could he be a closet libertarian? That would explain what was going on with the hair.

  21. If Drumpf says that it beyond judicial review because of national security then, any order he signs can be beyond judicial review by saying “national security”

    So at the very least he has to show how it is related to national security. That in turn will let courts evaluate Drumpf’s order.

  22. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  23. Shaky legal ground? Every president since Reagan, including Obama, has issued an EO like this. He is well within his statutory authority and the court has no business interfering. The people subject to the order are outside the US for the most part and have no rights under our immigration laws to a visa. Those who already are here is more of a complicated issue. But a blanket TRO shows this judge was asleep when he made the ruling.

    1. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

      ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

    2. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

      ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.