ITT we celebrate judges who actually read and apply the law

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If you're gonna double down, double down with a haiku. Amateur hour

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Pet usual, SD is right, everyone else is wrong:

More than four months after President Trump's 'travel ban' executive order was halted by a series of lower court decisions, the Supreme Court has weighed in and handed the White House a stirring - if only partial - victory.

The unanimous decision, which allows most of the travel ban to be enforced (for now) with a critical caveat, is not only a political victory for Trump, but a defeat for left-wing courts that seemed more preoccupied with an animus towards the president than interpreting the law.

VIDEO:
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive travel ban
In its per curium decision released Monday morning, the Supreme Court not only announced that it would hear the full case on the travel ban in October, but that it was also lifting the lower courts' temporary injunctions and allowing the order to be enforced. The caveat: the executive order cannot be applied (at least for now) to foreign nationals who have a “bonafide” relationship with a person (i.e. a family member) or entity (i.e. a university) within the United States.

Still, this is undoubtedly a political win for President Trump, who tweeted “SEE YOU IN COURT” back in February in response to the 9th circuit court of appeals refusing to lift an injunction against the original order.

But it's also a defeat for activist judges who had tried to invent a new legal standard with which to derail President Trump.

From the beginning of the legal battle, it was obvious that the president has authority over national security and immigration issues. Both Congress and the Constitution are explicit on that front. Supreme Court precedent has determined that judges should not try to second-guess the president's motives if the law is facially valid.

The lower courts, however, tossed decades of legal jurisprudence out the window and replaced it with a creative new standard: they analyzed Trump's past campaign statements and his tweets, found them to indicate an animus towards Muslims, and then concluded that the order was thus discriminatory and unconstitutional, all the while ignoring its actual legal merits.

In other words, the text of order didn't matter - it was illegal because it was signed by President Trump.

It was absurd, and even liberal lawyers who opposed the order as a matter of policy admitted this new legal standard would not pass muster. They were right: the Supreme Court, in its per curium opinion, kicked it to the curb.

The Supreme Court acknowledged “the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security," wrote that the lower courts had given deference to "foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all," and concluded that "the Government’s interest in enforcing [the order], and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.”
http://ijr.com/opinion/2017/06/266116-scotus-ruling-travel-ban-win-president-trump-loss-activist-judges/

Sorry amateur attorney dolts

Even Kagan and Sotomayor wouldn't uphold the garbage from the 9th circuit you endorsed.

[Emo EMAW]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/religious-liberty-lives-1498517321?nan_pid=1861112655

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban, sweeping about a dozen liberal activist appellate decisions into the waste bin. The bitterness of this AP write-up is worth reading. https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/Court-upholds-Trump-travel-ban,-rejects-discrimination-claim

Brings to mind a few quotes from my favorite poster on this board.

In other news, the 4th Circuit just ruled Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional - not because of the law as written but because of comments Trump made during the campaign. In other words, the same law signed by a different president would have been ok, which is a really interesting new legal paradigm. I think I hear Gorsuch laughing and cracking his knuckles....

Meanwhile Trump's travel ban (which will soon be found constitutional by the only court that really matters) is looking more and more like a major political winner despite all the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[star seed 7]

It's not even the same version from those quotes bud

[Phil Titola]

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban, sweeping about a dozen liberal activist appellate decisions into the waste bin. The bitterness of this AP write-up is worth reading. https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/Court-upholds-Trump-travel-ban,-rejects-discrimination-claim

Brings to mind a few quotes from my favorite poster on this board.

In other news, the 4th Circuit just ruled Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional - not because of the law as written but because of comments Trump made during the campaign. In other words, the same law signed by a different president would have been ok, which is a really interesting new legal paradigm. I think I hear Gorsuch laughing and cracking his knuckles....

Meanwhile Trump's travel ban (which will soon be found constitutional by the only court that really matters) is looking more and more like a major political winner despite all the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Pretty funny to claim activist judges given how the vote came out and the BS Congress did to delay filling that seat.  Big win though I'm sure....grats

[sonofdaxjones]

Nice meltdown by Soto.

[sonofdaxjones]

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 118f could not be any more clear.

The vote should have been a straight 9-0.

It's sad to see such partisanship on our nations highest court.

SMDH

[Phil Titola]

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 118f could not be any more clear.

The vote should have been a straight 9-0.

It's sad to see such partisanship on our nations highest court.

SMDH

the president saying he wanted to ban "muslims" like over and over is really the only reason it was in question.....he's an idiot.  good vote bud!

[catastrophe]

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 118f could not be any more clear.

The vote should have been a straight 9-0.

It's sad to see such partisanship on our nations highest court.

SMDH

No one takes issue with the president’s powers. The only issue was whether the president can use those powers to clearly discriminate against a religious group even if the order as written is not clearly discriminatory. SCOTUS ruled it was ok, and I’m ok with that tbh. Although it is tough to square with the masterpiece cake decision where the court heavily relied on the fact that the baker was derided for his religion at the hearing.

[renocat]

Thanks McConnel for keeping the liberal off the Supreme Court at the end of the Obama reign.  Thanks Trump for pickin a conservative instead of a flopper like Kennedy.  Today liberalls dot a swift kick in thier manloids.  I love it.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Pretty funny to claim activist judges given how the vote came out and the BS Congress did to delay filling that seat.  Big win though I'm sure....grats

The narrow SC vote and machinations to put Gorsuch on the court (thank God for that) have absolutely zero bearing on whether lower courts were activist. The term “activist judge” refers to a judge who ruled to achieve a desired outcome as opposed to simply reading, interpreting, and applying the law. In this case, the law was quite clear but activist judges (including the libs on the SC) applied a bizarre “yeah but Trump said mean things” standard to reach their desired outcome. Today was a good day for the rule of law no matter what you think of the soundness of the underlying travel ban.

From Jonathan Turley: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/394173-supreme-court-hands-trump-predictable-win-on-travel-ban

The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Hawaii today was more than a predictable reversal of the 9th Circuit appeals court in its dubious ruling that the travel ban was unconstitutional. As some of us noted from the outset of this litigation, the precedent heavily favored President Trump.

What was unprecedented was the degree to which courts relied on campaign statements and tweets by Trump to rule that the entry limits were based on religious animus. The ruling properly returns the courts, and others, to basic principles of legal process. Call it “The Red Hen moment” for the courts, where judges, appalled by Trump’s inflammatory and reckless comments against Muslims, refused to extend him the same deference shown to predecessors like former President Obama. The response from judges, however, seemed more visceral than analytical in ignoring the nondiscriminatory rationales cited by agencies for the policy.

The Supreme Court’s decision is, obviously, a major win for Trump, but it also is a major victory for those who believe courts must rule within the confines of the traditional record of review. CNN was quick to declare that this presidential order was “very different” from the original order. Despite my criticism of the original order — which was poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended — it is not true that this decision was based on different questions. The challengers emphasized that the third order was based on the same threshold questions raised in the first order. The Supreme Court specifically hit the same flaw found in the first, second and third opinions, which was the reliance on the statements made by Trump on the campaign and over Twitter.

The Supreme Court ruled, “At the heart of their case is a series of statements by the President and his advisers both during the campaign and since the President assumed office. The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the president’s statements, but the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”

The dissenting justices still maintained that, regardless of the record created by the agencies, the president’s comments should be treated as dispositive as showing that the policy was “motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” There is little record that the agencies could create to overcome such statements in the view of the four dissenting justices. That is a dangerous approach for courts in reviewing policies and laws. It would allow jurists to pick from an array of public comments as determinative factors in review. While such comments have been given weight in racial gerrymandering cases and some other areas, the reliance by the 9th Circuit and the dissenting justices would have been unprecedented.

[LickNeckey]

Pretty funny to claim activist judges given how the vote came out and the BS Congress did to delay filling that seat.  Big win though I'm sure....grats

The narrow SC vote and machinations to put Gorsuch on the court (thank God for that) have absolutely zero bearing on whether lower courts were activist. The term “activist judge” refers to a judge who ruled to achieve a desired outcome as opposed to simply reading, interpreting, and applying the law. In this case, the law was quite clear but activist judges (including the libs on the SC) applied a bizarre “yeah but Trump said mean things” standard to reach their desired outcome. Today was a good day for the rule of law no matter what you think of the soundness of the underlying travel ban.

From Jonathan Turley: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/394173-supreme-court-hands-trump-predictable-win-on-travel-ban

The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Hawaii today was more than a predictable reversal of the 9th Circuit appeals court in its dubious ruling that the travel ban was unconstitutional. As some of us noted from the outset of this litigation, the precedent heavily favored President Trump.

What was unprecedented was the degree to which courts relied on campaign statements and tweets by Trump to rule that the entry limits were based on religious animus. The ruling properly returns the courts, and others, to basic principles of legal process. Call it “The Red Hen moment” for the courts, where judges, appalled by Trump’s inflammatory and reckless comments against Muslims, refused to extend him the same deference shown to predecessors like former President Obama. The response from judges, however, seemed more visceral than analytical in ignoring the nondiscriminatory rationales cited by agencies for the policy.

The Supreme Court’s decision is, obviously, a major win for Trump, but it also is a major victory for those who believe courts must rule within the confines of the traditional record of review. CNN was quick to declare that this presidential order was “very different” from the original order. Despite my criticism of the original order — which was poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended — it is not true that this decision was based on different questions. The challengers emphasized that the third order was based on the same threshold questions raised in the first order. The Supreme Court specifically hit the same flaw found in the first, second and third opinions, which was the reliance on the statements made by Trump on the campaign and over Twitter.

The Supreme Court ruled, “At the heart of their case is a series of statements by the President and his advisers both during the campaign and since the President assumed office. The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the president’s statements, but the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”

The dissenting justices still maintained that, regardless of the record created by the agencies, the president’s comments should be treated as dispositive as showing that the policy was “motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” There is little record that the agencies could create to overcome such statements in the view of the four dissenting justices. That is a dangerous approach for courts in reviewing policies and laws. It would allow jurists to pick from an array of public comments as determinative factors in review. While such comments have been given weight in racial gerrymandering cases and some other areas, the reliance by the 9th Circuit and the dissenting justices would have been unprecedented.

I was under the impression an "activist" judge was one that didn't align with your personal idealogies.

[sonofdaxjones]

The vote was the greatest example of judicial activism in US history. 

Again; the laws could not be any more clear.  It should have been 9-0. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I was under the impression an "activist" judge was one that didn't align with your personal idealogies.

Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not. Don't like "judicial activism" because it calls out how liberal judges change the strike zone to achieve their desired result? Just redefine it as anything that doesn't align with your personal beliefs. Dilute disagreeable terms until they are meaningless. Once a word means everything, it means nothing.

This dilution is not to be confused with rebranding - another liberal proclivity.  "Abortion" becomes "Reproductive Rights/Freedom." "Global Warming" becomes "Climate Change." "Illegal Immigrant" becomes "Undocumented Worker." "Liberal" becomes "Progressive." Etc. etc.

[ChiComCat]

I was under the impression an "activist" judge was one that didn't align with your personal idealogies.

Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not. Don't like "judicial activism" because it calls out how liberal judges change the strike zone to achieve their desired result? Just redefine it as anything that doesn't align with your personal beliefs. Dilute disagreeable terms until they are meaningless. Once a word means everything, it means nothing.

This dilution is not to be confused with rebranding - another liberal proclivity.  "Abortion" becomes "Reproductive Rights/Freedom." "Global Warming" becomes "Climate Change." "Illegal Immigrant" becomes "Undocumented Worker." "Liberal" becomes "Progressive." Etc. etc.

:rollseyes:

[Phil Titola]

I was under the impression an "activist" judge was one that didn't align with your personal idealogies.

Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not. Don't like "judicial activism" because it calls out how liberal judges change the strike zone to achieve their desired result? Just redefine it as anything that doesn't align with your personal beliefs. Dilute disagreeable terms until they are meaningless. Once a word means everything, it means nothing.

This dilution is not to be confused with rebranding - another liberal proclivity.  "Abortion" becomes "Reproductive Rights/Freedom." "Global Warming" becomes "Climate Change." "Illegal Immigrant" becomes "Undocumented Worker." "Liberal" becomes "Progressive." Etc. etc.

Can you provide an example of "activist judges" ruling towards a conservative leaning?

[Spracne]

Is this where we post about Justice Kennedy retiring?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[star seed 7]

Sure

[catastrophe]

Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not.

Are you suggesting “terrorism” should only be used to describe acts of violence from Muslims?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1012033922874658816?s=19

The Court is going to be conservative for the foreseeable future.

[catastrophe]

Man, it’s hard to even conceptualize what the impact will be if another conservative makes it on the bench.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

RBG has already lost her mind, she'll quit soon too.

[star seed 7]

Man, it’s hard to even conceptualize what the impact will be if another conservative activist makes it on the bench.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not.

Are you suggesting “terrorism” should only be used to describe acts of violence from Muslims?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.