"This court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent," Trenga explained. "And while the President and his advisers have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 (the first executive order) that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2 (the revised ban) the court cannot conclude for the purposes of the motion that these statements, together with the President's past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority."Judge follows a simple logical path:
- The concept of a travel ban is within the President's lawful authority.
- The order does not "facially" discriminate. In other words, no text within the ban exists that could be taken as discriminatory.
- Previous statements suggesting discriminatory intent (without any intent written into the E.O.) is not a basis for overturning an otherwise perfectly legal ban.
I should point out that this Judge acknowledges that a Travel Ban is constitutional, which the previous Judges have not acknowledged. In fact, previous Justices have made a point to completely ignore the statutes on the subject.
I would also take issue with the underlying concept that something being reported in the media (such as a statement by Rudy Giuliani - who does not work for the President) is a valid legal point to bring up in hearing in the first place. The plaintiffs do not appear to have any witness testimony or even sworn statements from anyone involved, and even if they did, the information would clearly be considered hearsay.
We are quite literally in a situation where some of our Federal Justices are simultaneously ignoring the law, while using media stories (that have not been validated)... in order to come to legal conclusions. God help us all.
8 comments:
Winning
Note,,, The USSC Nomination of Gorsuch is going to be filerbustered by those open minded Democrats, err, wait, some one on this blog called them "Moderate Democrats".
He ran from his issue, he did post a long bunch of non-sense about how he was not about to name them.
I will assist, their are none , not ONE DEMOCRAT Senator is going to support and vote for Judge Gorsuch.
Democrats now force the US Senate to invoke the Ried Rule and confirm Gorsuch.
Next time and their will be a next time , President Trump puts up a USSC nominee it will only take 51 votes.
That is a YUGE Win.
Wow..an adult federal so called judge ruled the way you liked... Yep if you weren't an atheist, it could be considered a miracle!!!!!!
judge ruled the way you liked
Yeah... based on the constitution and the law.
Jeff Session announce that "sanctuary cities" will lose Federal funding if they fail to enforce immigration law.
Winning, nice Job, Jeff Session was/is a very good choice.
He knows how to get things done and will be fair about it.
I am waiting to see the parade of Moderate Democrats they will come forward and vote for Gorsuch.
Yeah... based on the constitution and the law.
Unlike those decisions you didn't like.....Keep digging CH.....the hole is deep enough !!! LOL
Those decisions staying Trump's immigration have nothing to do with either federal law (which explicitly gives Trump authority to make immigration policy) nor the constitution (Which gives the power to the president to conduct war and foreign policy as well as control our international borders).
But it has everything to do with politics.
That's why it's dangerous to allow liberal presidents to appoint liberal judges to lifetime appointments.
They will reliably decide in favor of a liberal agenda ignoring precedents, law, and the Constitution.
Post a Comment