Excerpt from the article:
'There is a difference between thinking something is a bad idea (and you could easily argue that the travel ban is a bad idea) and claiming it has no rational basis and is therefore void. The plaintiffs, the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and Sotomayor are committing a cardinal sin of jurisprudence: coming up with the answer they wish was true and working backward to invent a legal justification for it.
...Many of us found the president’s comments on Muslims to be wrong and hateful, and many of us find the travel ban to be the wrong way of improving our national security.
But the theory advanced by the plaintiffs here would be of greater harm still to the rule of law and would create a system in which judges do not “say what the law is” but, rather, say what they think it ought to be. That is the beginning of the end for representative government. That four of nine justices cared more about their personal feelings than the rule of law is far more dangerous to this republic than anything President Trump has ever done.'
Comment: We have some biased doozies sitting on the Supreme Court - a court that is supposed to concentrate on the law without the influence of party loyalty. Kagan's statement about union's loss of revenue is shocking!...what about the individual's loss of revenue when forced to pay dues to a union in order to hold a job. Sotomayor should never have been seated on the Supreme Court and Bader-Ginsburg should recuse herself from any case involving the president as she has exhibited extreme bias toward him...or go ahead and move to New Zealand.
1. Sotomayor is on record stating that she judges by 'feelings and experiences'...and 'policy' is made by the court. Rather than what 'the law is'.?
2, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being criticized for trash talking
Donald Trump in a recent interview and vowing to move to New Zealand if he is elected to the White House.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg under fire over Donald Trump comments | Daily Mail Online
