How can one judge overrule the president?

[kyzr]

It seems crazy to me that one liberal judge can overrule the Constitutional powers of the president. IMHO we need a new Law such that in the case of the travel ban if a low level judge rules against the president it goes up one level to multiple judges before the president is compelled to comply.

The low level judges ruling against the travel ban will obviously overturned at the USSC, so the president should have a higher level of judicial review before being compelled to comply. The low courts that get overturned a lot need to have some sanctions to keep them in line and from legislating from the bench.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He can't in this case. "At his discretion" means the president's discretion, and no other.

The fact that the judge is de facto overruling the president with no authority to do so with the support of Democrats and their media slugs is more a problem than the actual ruling.

 

[mudwhistle]

They're just counting on the clock keeping on ticking.

This is simply a delay tactic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kyzr et al do not understand that we do not live in a Jacksonian democracy.

 

[TheOldSchool]

How can one judge overrule the president?

Constitution of the United States - We the People

 

[yiostheoy]

The review by higher courts normally happens quite fast at the appellate level. So this is already happening. The whole process normally takes a couple of weeks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems crazy to me that one liberal judge can overrule the Constitutional powers of the president. IMHO we need a new Law such that in the case of the travel ban if a low level judge rules against the president it goes up one level to multiple judges before the president is compelled to comply.

The low level judges ruling against the travel ban will obviously overturned at the USSC, so the president should have a higher level of judicial review before being compelled to comply. The low courts that get overturned a lot need to have some sanctions to keep them in line and from legislating from the bench.

No. what’s crazy is signing bigoted EOs which have no basis in fact, are predicated on a hasty generalization fallacy, and are clearly un-Constitutional.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, its citizens subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, Trump being a prime example of that.

 

[Siete]

yet again simple minds fail to understand how the three branches of our government work together as checks and balances in order to protect the people.

 

[Wolfstrike]

i think, what's happening at the moment , is simple challenges to law the, which there is nothing wrong with. I'm pretty sure the Republican government can persist.

The Democrats have everything set up so they can pass major law with a simple majority, then when the Republicans try to change something, every lone judge files a complaint.

The sad truth is, the Democrats have formed a Socialist block, they have actually signed statements that they will support every piece of Democrat legislation no matter what their personal views are.
Which is completely anti-democracy.

 

[kyzr]

Clayton, please see the words giving Trump the Constitutional authority for the travel ban. Foreigners do not have any rights to enter the US. Your rant has no factual or legal basis.
Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States