While I still have not read word-for-word the actual appellate court decision that upholds the stay on President Trump’s travel ban (that is barring it from being kept in force for the time being while litigated), I have now read a summary of the high points of the ruling. My conclusion is that rightly or wrongly all the administration needs to do is tighten things up. It did a poor job of implementing the order in barring entry to people from certain designated nations and the court claims failed to justify in writing its actions. Just claiming it was done to protect American citizens is a little too general. I mean you could apply that to most anything.
I am a little concerned about the court’s contention that the two states that sued, Washington and Minnesota, have standing because it affected their universities or businesses or citizens. I mean that might be so, but I don’t think their inconvenience would negate the need to take protective actions for the whole nation.
And I think most people, even those who despise Trump (count me in), still want the person who is president to have wide latitude in doing what is necessary to protect the nation and they want the chief executive to be able to act swiftly when need be. I mean that is the reason we have a president. The legislative branch is slow and deliberative (that’s its role), and the judiciary’s role is supposed to be to make sure all is done by the constitution and laws of the land and that the law is applied in equitable fashion to all citizens.
But this case is not over. The administration might re-craft its travel ban in such a way it is more acceptable and/or the case might go to the Supreme Court (or back to the lower court? Not sure) and could still be decided in the administration’s favor. My understanding is that if the case goes to the Supreme Court and the high court is still one member short, the matter could well end up in a tie with any lower court ruling left standing. If the case reaches the court after a new member is added, theoretically administration could then have an ace up its sleeve.
Who says the courts are not political? Not I.
My original post today:
Working at my real job today so have neither had time to absorb the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruling against the Trump administration in its travel ban decision nor write intelligently about it. But it does seem that on this one The Donald may have found that he cannot just sic his civil case attorneys on it and overpower people or businesses who cannot afford the legal costs.
And yet he still could prevail in the Supreme Court I realize.
I have scanned — just once — the immediate reports of the decision and don’t even know if I agree with it according to the court’s ruling, even though I am glad to see Trump get a comeuppance. Someone has to stand up to him.
Trump complains that the courts are playing politics. Well he might be right to an extent, that is to say I don’t think you can completely separate politics from constitutional decisions because various justices read the constitution in different ways from each other based on their judicial philosophy and judicial philosophy to me is akin to politics and leanings toward the right or left of the political spectrum. And the Ninth Circuit is called “liberal” by all.
But later today or within the next few days I am sure I’ll have more to opine on this one.
Whatever, it is nice to see one of the three branches of government functioning. Go get ’em judiciary!