More Ignorance of the Law from the Bigoted Trump Administration

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘“Judicial second-guessing of the President’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration,” Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a brief.’

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Wrong.

The issue concerning the stay of the removal of those authorized to enter the country has nothing to do with the Political Question Doctrine.

The courts have acknowledged that there is a likelihood of success in establishing that Trump’s EO is in fact a violation of the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the Political Question Doctrine also does not come into play because there is no evidence whatsoever that the EO will have the effect of safeguarding the United States from terrorist attack, or that those authorized to enter the United States themselves pose a ‘threat’ of terrorism.

Consequently, there is no ‘judicial second-guessing,’ and there is a legitimate and warranted concern that Trump’s actions are indeed in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The courts have acknowledged that there is a likelihood of success in establishing that Trump’s EO is in fact a violation of the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Foreigners not in the US don't have equal protection.

 

[OldLady]

Wasn't the Constitution a guide book for how the GOVERNMENT should behave? Aren't its laws and its decisions supposed to be based on those primary principles?
Just asking.

 

[OldLady]

‘“Judicial second-guessing of the President’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration,” Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a brief.’

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Wrong.

The issue concerning the stay of the removal of those authorized to enter the country has nothing to do with the Political Question Doctrine.

The courts have acknowledged that there is a likelihood of success in establishing that Trump’s EO is in fact a violation of the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the Political Question Doctrine also does not come into play because there is no evidence whatsoever that the EO will have the effect of safeguarding the United States from terrorist attack, or that those authorized to enter the United States themselves pose a ‘threat’ of terrorism.

Consequently, there is no ‘judicial second-guessing,’ and there is a legitimate and warranted concern that Trump’s actions are indeed in violation of the Constitution.

Did you see the oral arguments last night? I'm not familiar with the cases they were citing, but it seemed to me that the judges really "piled on" the DOJ lawyer. Maybe that's normal, since he was the one who brought the appeal? Just going by the challenges from the bench, though, it seemed all of them were picking the DOJ's argument apart for ending the suspension of the ban

 

[Athanasius68]

‘“Judicial second-guessing of the President’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration,” Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a brief.’

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Wrong.

The issue concerning the stay of the removal of those authorized to enter the country has nothing to do with the Political Question Doctrine.

The courts have acknowledged that there is a likelihood of success in establishing that Trump’s EO is in fact a violation of the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the Political Question Doctrine also does not come into play because there is no evidence whatsoever that the EO will have the effect of safeguarding the United States from terrorist attack, or that those authorized to enter the United States themselves pose a ‘threat’ of terrorism.

Consequently, there is no ‘judicial second-guessing,’ and there is a legitimate and warranted concern that Trump’s actions are indeed in violation of the Constitution.

Foreigners residing outside the USA have no Constitutional claims regarding due process.
The question of whether the EO will have its desired effect is absolutely a political question. People can agree, or disagree, about it. But There is nothing legalese about it. Trump doesn't need to prove to the judges, in their job as judges, the benefits. He may have to prove this to the judges, as private citizens and voters its benefits. But Trump needs to do that for everyone.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

‘“Judicial second-guessing of the President’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration,” Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a brief.’

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Wrong.

The issue concerning the stay of the removal of those authorized to enter the country has nothing to do with the Political Question Doctrine.

The courts have acknowledged that there is a likelihood of success in establishing that Trump’s EO is in fact a violation of the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the Political Question Doctrine also does not come into play because there is no evidence whatsoever that the EO will have the effect of safeguarding the United States from terrorist attack, or that those authorized to enter the United States themselves pose a ‘threat’ of terrorism.

Consequently, there is no ‘judicial second-guessing,’ and there is a legitimate and warranted concern that Trump’s actions are indeed in violation of the Constitution.

Did you see the oral arguments last night? I'm not familiar with the cases they were citing, but it seemed to me that the judges really "piled on" the DOJ lawyer. Maybe that's normal, since he was the one who brought the appeal? Just going by the challenges from the bench, though, it seemed all of them were picking the DOJ's argument apart for ending the suspension of the ban

It's called the 9th Circus for a reason