Lawless
Under Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, the president has authority to use a proclamation to suspend the entry of “any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States [who] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” for however long he deems necessary. This provision was included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Washington Post.
The roll out was a mess, it had to be cleaned up, but at the end of the day, there really isn't a question of authority. And yet the 9th Circuit just upheld the restraining order stopping the EO. How did a District Court judge rule this way to begin with? And even though the 9th is the most overturned circuit in the country (sometimes referred to as the 9th Circus), how could they ignore clear statute to make this ruling?
Because they acted according to what Candidate Trump had said, and what was said behind closed doors. In other words, these "so-called" justices ( I agree with the usage, by the way) ignored the written EO, and assumed the intent. They ignored the law, and went to touchy feely BS.
Can you imagine the Supremes on Obamacare ruling: "Well the President said he was going to unite the country, and since this law was passed without a single vote from the other side, we find this law unconstitutional" Or ruling a tax increase signed by President Bush 41 to be unconstitutional because he said "Read my lips, no new taxes!"
While the idea of Judicial Review was never meant to be, we have to, unfortunately, live with it, until someone decides we don't. And since we have to live with it, the only thing the judges SHOULD measure is whether the law meets Constitutional Standard. The only way to do that is to read it, and judge the merit. They may have read it (doubt it), but they didn't judge what they read, they judged what they felt the "REAL" intent was.
This is where we are now. Laws only mean what the justices think, WITHOUT regard to what they say. And if laws can be twisted to mean whatever, then our society is doomed.
The roll out was a mess, it had to be cleaned up, but at the end of the day, there really isn't a question of authority. And yet the 9th Circuit just upheld the restraining order stopping the EO. How did a District Court judge rule this way to begin with? And even though the 9th is the most overturned circuit in the country (sometimes referred to as the 9th Circus), how could they ignore clear statute to make this ruling?
Because they acted according to what Candidate Trump had said, and what was said behind closed doors. In other words, these "so-called" justices ( I agree with the usage, by the way) ignored the written EO, and assumed the intent. They ignored the law, and went to touchy feely BS.
Can you imagine the Supremes on Obamacare ruling: "Well the President said he was going to unite the country, and since this law was passed without a single vote from the other side, we find this law unconstitutional" Or ruling a tax increase signed by President Bush 41 to be unconstitutional because he said "Read my lips, no new taxes!"
While the idea of Judicial Review was never meant to be, we have to, unfortunately, live with it, until someone decides we don't. And since we have to live with it, the only thing the judges SHOULD measure is whether the law meets Constitutional Standard. The only way to do that is to read it, and judge the merit. They may have read it (doubt it), but they didn't judge what they read, they judged what they felt the "REAL" intent was.
This is where we are now. Laws only mean what the justices think, WITHOUT regard to what they say. And if laws can be twisted to mean whatever, then our society is doomed.
Comments
Post a Comment