Wednesday, May 31, 2017

When The Law Isn't

Precedents are being set, and they are not good ones. *LINK*

President Trump's second attempt at banning immigration from select countries has again been overturned by another anti-Trump judge.
The language of the Immigration and Nationality Act is plain enough: “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.”

The law is clear that the President has sole discretion for any reason he deems, or for no reason at all.

Instead, we have a lawless judge driven by hatred of Anything Trump as opposed respect for the law and constitution he is sworn to uphold...
For the second time out of two...
While fully one half of the nation, and 98% of the media, cheer.

The Republic is dissolving before our eyes.

Bring it.


John said...

The decision by SCOTUS will be telling. If it is a split decision (either way) it will be a green light for the lower courts to expand their role as legislators.

If, on the other hand, they are unified and condemn the overreach of the lower courts we may see an end to some of the hysterics.

The third option, unified against the President, will set the stage for greater civil unrest and perhaps an impeachment attempt that will fail unless the Democrats win the House in 2018 (small chance in my opinion.)

my name is Amanda said...

Sally Yates addressed that statute you're quoting, when Ted Cruz asked her about it, arguing handily with another statute that says the President cannot discriminate based on place of birth, etc. I'm on my phone so I'm linking rather than copying/pasting script:

The president is still a citizen and as such is beholden to the law/the Constituion. There is no law that says he isn't. Executives orders still must adhere to the laws of the land. Thank goodness there are still judges who believe in our laws.

It may be the end of the republic, but I disagree about the reasons why.

Gino said...

Amanda: cannot discriminate upon place of birth, etc.?? seriously? then what is the basis for the existence of immigration law in the first place? or even a national border?

my name is Amanda said...

I don't have the energy or actually all the knowledge necessary to debate the philosophical reasons for the law. Ask a constitutional and/or immigration law expert. :) But I do know that it's in the law, and therefore the objection to the Muslim Ban isn't anti-Trump for the sake of being anti-Trump. It's pro-Constitution.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

This is a question of sovereignty. If the president cannot do what the law says he can do, then the courts are sovereign. I don't know what that is, but it isn't a democracy or a republic (well, maybe the banana kind.)

Of course I've begged the question of whether the law says he can establish immigration policy. I've heard it said that this is so. If the courts decide that it isn't so, then it amounts to the same thing, the courts are sovereign.

Actually, this has been pretty obvious for awhile now. Why else would judicial confirmation hearings be such death matches?

Bike Bubba said...

Taking a look at Amanda's sources, Yates didn't know the citation of the relevant law, cited another section of law without a reference so people could track it down, and she gives precisely the reasoning of the courts which have overturned the travel ban. We might say "the fix was in", except that interestingly, the courts do NOT cite the portion of law (real or imagined) as does Yates.

And really, if we are going to argue that religion cannot be used to govern immigration law, we would simultaneously have to argue that the Founders would have been OK with mass immigration of Barbary Pirates. I can't go there. Yates also ignores the fact that due process and such apply to citizens. She may be able to talk people down, but I'm unimpressed with the actual evidence she presented.

And one hint, Amanda; when a source has that self-congratulatory BS and anonymous sources in it, it's junk, whether it's on the right or the left.