Posted by Tina
The Supreme Court today upheld Trumps Travel Ban in a 5-4 decision that focused on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Read the full decision at the link. I found the opinion of Justice Thomas interesting because of the admonition to lower courts (and lawyers):
I join the Court’s opinion, which highlights just a few of the many problems with the plaintiffs’ claims. There are several more. Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. (case) Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country. (cases) Further, the Establishment Clause does not create an individual right to be free from all laws that a “reasonable observer” views as religious or anti-religious. (cases sighted)
The plaintiffs cannot raise any other First Amendment claim, since the alleged religious discrimination in this case was directed at aliens abroad. (case) And, even on its own terms, the plaintiffs’ proffered evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination is unpersuasive. Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy that the plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case. The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions—have become increasingly common.1 District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.
If district courts have any authority to issue universal injunctions, that authority must come from a statute or the Constitution. No statute expressly grants district courts the power to issue universal injunctions. So the only possible bases for these injunctions are a generic statute that authorizes equitable relief or the courts’ inherent constitutional authority. Neither of those sources would permit a form of injunctive relief that is “[in]consistent with our history and traditions.” Ibid…
Thomas continues his opinion, which includes history lessons that slap at lower courts and lawyers that bring and rule on cases such as this one when they should be better versed in both the Constitution and the law. The cases are often political in nature and amount to attempts to effectively write or dilute law, bypassing the Congress.
Read more commentary:
Unfortunately, two women who serve on the court are too totally PC and ignorant to understand that feelings, thoughts, and campaign rhetoric are not law and do not have the force of law. Nothing in Trumps rhetoric was included in the language of the proclamation. The supreme Court does not address pain and suffering but rather the constitutionality of it’s cases.
Sotomayor and Ginsberg:
Our nation’s highest court has played therapist for far too long. The universe constantly seeks balance.
I recommend extensive therapy followed by continuing education on the Constitution.
“Unfortunately, two women who serve on the court are too totally PC and ignorant to understand that feelings, thoughts, and campaign rhetoric are not law ….”
I read a commentator who nailed it. The Roberts opinion treats Trump like a normal President, addressing a national security issue, and the ladies say, “Hell, no.” Trump is a racist, a bigot, and a fool, pandering to his mob of like-minded, with no thought at all to the damage this may do to national security. (This last bit is mine.)
But good can come out of evil. All this and other things have got some of the folk in the Congress thinking that, perhaps, their craven ceding of legislative authority to the Executive, lo, these, fifty years … was a mistake. Duhhhhh.
And maybe, after the mid-terms, we can do some work in this regard.
“…the folk in the Congress thinking that, perhaps, their craven ceding of legislative authority to the Executive:
The Supreme Court just recognized the authority of the president. It is their job is to decide the constitutionality of issues brought before them. It is not the job of lower judges to challenge immigration authority long established:
:
The problem is activist liberal judges who knowingly overstep their authority.
This is wonderful and now I hope every liberal in America who disagrees with the decision, does what we did long ago and READ THE FREAKIN CONSTITUTION!
Another Win for America, And no I am not tired of winning yet!,
but I’ll wager, a lot a liberals are sick of all Trumps success. Drip, drip, drip whiney little snowflakes,
More good news —
Clinton Emails Reveal Classified Docs, Clinton Foundation Connections
The emails, dated 2010 through 2013, contain classified information and detail collusion between the Clinton State Department and the Clinton Foundation.
If so, it merely demonstrates the swamp in full flower.
As the Clinton Foundation is neither a foreign power, nor a hostile foreign power … wuz spinnin’ yer wheels …
Why do you have so much trouble with these distinctions?
“If so, it merely demonstrates the swamp in full flower.”
If so (they have documentation) it means Hillary was allowed to get away with committing felonies, at least temporarily, through shenanigans and slight of hand at the FBI and Justice, and the American people were given the royal shaft regarding equal justice under the law from administrators with personal and political motivations.
That second remark is unintelligible, Libby. Care to be more specific?
Great news, Justice Kennedy is retiring July 31st.
According to Judge Napolitano , “Justice Sacalia told him Justice Kennedy said when there was a republican president and a republican majority in the senate he would retire.”