Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision at the Political Forums; In a 5-4 decision the US Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban based upon Executive Order No. 13780. And ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2018, 02:04 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 54,836
Thanks: 2,197
Thanked 34,915 Times in 20,085 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
In a 5-4 decision the US Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban based upon Executive Order No. 13780.
And yet you won't hear ONE Liberal say this is now "settled law"...

"Settled law" means "Whatever Libs want the law to be at the time"...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2018, 02:10 PM
Aide
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 280
Thanks: 144
Thanked 308 Times in 155 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Riepublcans about to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court the difference between an "Originalist" that applies a textual interpretation to the ConstWithitution and a "Conservative' that applies a Republican interpretation to the Constitution is significant.

This case is significant because the claim by Republicans is that they support Originalism (a textual interpretation) but that didn't happen here.

The authority under the law for President Trump to issue the travel bans is based upon these words in the law. "Wherever the President finds.." and a "finding" is a statement of fact supported by undisputed evidence.

The criteria being used for the travel bans is national origin. So where is the "finding" (facts supported by evidence) that national origin represents a threat to the security of the United States? If the "finding" doesn't exist then President Trump did not have the statutory authority to issue the Travel Bans.

I'm looking at the evidence that a "finding" establishing national origin represents a national security threat simply doesn't exist.

We can start at the very beginning. (Acting) Attornery General Sally Yates, that should have been provided with a copy of the first EO for review before it was released, refused to defend the EO when she read it stating it did not comply with the law or the Constitution.

When the first EO was challenged in federal courts around the country the "finding" that supported the EO was not provided for by the Department of Justice to establish that the threat existed. Judge Leonie M. Brinkema that presided over a case on the first travel ban said judges throughout the country were “begging” for evidence from the government to defend the ban. The DOJ didn't present the "finding" before Judge Brinkema or any other federal judge for the first. second or third travel ban and didn't present the evidence for the "finding" before the Supreme Court.

The Department of Homeland Security during an internal review for President Trump stated that national origin didn't provide the grounds for establishing a national threat.

Every expert on terrorism and national security outside of the Trump administration has stated national origin does not establish a national security threat.

In Trump v Hawaii the five "conservative" justices on the Supreme Court couldn't have applied an originalist (textual) interpretation of the law because to date there's never been any evidence to support a finding that national origin represents a national security threat to the United States. The Executive Orders issued by President Trump did not meet the statutory requirements granting the president to impose restrictions because the finding doesn't exist.

This is a grave concern for all of America because it appears that Republicans want a "conservative" justice that bases their decisions on the Republican agenda as opposed to an "Originalist" that bases their decisions on the letter of the law and the Constitution.

America can live with an Originalist Justice on the US Supreme Court but it can't survive as a Constitutional Republic with a Republican Justice on the US Supreme Court.
No, the fact is that the court did address the "findings" issue and found the President was on sound footings from that perspective.

The court also all but dismissed the positions, of the petitioners, those in dissent and yourself it appears, that the presentation of facts supporting the President's findings be of sufficient detail to enable judicial review. Even after setting that question aside the court stated the President's presentation of findings to be quite detailed.

The court acknowledged that the law in question deferred to the power of the President in almost all instances. This due the relationship of Immigration control, to National Security and thus the Presidents' roles, as Commander in Chief, and Chief Executive, to keep the country safe.

The court rightly understands and stated, that in the formulating of preventative measures to keep the country safe, and in international affairs, the President does not always have to cross all his T's and dot all his I's prior to taking action.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to G_Link For This Useful Post:
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2018, 06:43 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,385
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by G_Link View Post
No, the fact is that the court did address the "findings" issue and found the President was on sound footings from that perspective.

The court also all but dismissed the positions, of the petitioners, those in dissent and yourself it appears, that the presentation of facts supporting the President's findings be of sufficient detail to enable judicial review. Even after setting that question aside the court stated the President's presentation of findings to be quite detailed.

The court acknowledged that the law in question deferred to the power of the President in almost all instances. This due the relationship of Immigration control, to National Security and thus the Presidents' roles, as Commander in Chief, and Chief Executive, to keep the country safe.

The court rightly understands and stated, that in the formulating of preventative measures to keep the country safe, and in international affairs, the President does not always have to cross all his T's and dot all his I's prior to taking action.
I know what the majority claimed but I've still never seen any finding that supports the basis for Trump's travel restrictions.

The executive order imposes restrictions based upon national origin. Where's the evidence that 'National Origin" establishes a threat to the national security of the United States?

As noted this is identical to the Korematsu v. United States where FDR claimed that Japanese-Americans represented a national security threat and sent them to internment camps during WW II. Just because a president claims there's a threat doesn't mean that the threat actually exists. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that Korematsu was proven wrong by history and was wrong from the moment the Court issued that decision.

FDR claimed that the Japanese-Americans represented a threat but FDR never provided evidence to support that claim.

Donald Trump has claimed that people based upon national origin represent a threat but President Trump has never presented any evidence to support that claim.

The evidence was later revealed that the US government had evidence that the Japanese-Americans didn't represent any more of a threat than people from Germany, Italy or anywhere else.

We have current evidence from Trump's own DHS that national origin doesn't establish the basis for a threat.

If Korematsu v. United States was wrong from the moment the decision was created, and Chief Justice John Roberts claims it was, then Trump v Hawaii is also wrong for exactly the same reason.

There is not now nor has there ever been any evidence supporting a claim that national origin creates a threat to our national security.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2018, 07:01 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,385
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
And yet you won't hear ONE Liberal say this is now "settled law"...

"Settled law" means "Whatever Libs want the law to be at the time"...
A unanimous 9-0 decision is a decision where it can be stated it's "settled law" in the United States and that's basically the only time that claim can be made. Anytime there's a dissenting opinion you have to read the dissenting opinion to see if a fundamental Constitutional or Legal issue is being presented that would invalidate the decision by the majority. As noted in the case of Trump's travel ban that dissenting opinion exists because the only thing we have is Trump's statement that national origin creates a threat to the United States. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in officially overturning the decision in Korematsu v. United States the President's claim isn't good enough.

In Trump v Hawaii Chief Justice Roberts established the Supreme Court precedent in Korematsu v. United States that a threat cannot be established based upon a president merely claiming that the threat exists. Trump's travel ban is based upon the identical conditions. Trump has claimed a national threat exists based upon national origin but has not provided any evidence to support that claim. Chief Justice Roberts is violating the precedent he established in the same case he was deciding.

This reminds me of Reynolds v United States that established the precedent of separation of church and state. The Supreme Court established the precedent that religious opinion could not be used as a basis for law and then, after acknowledging that polygamy (that the case was based upon) existed throughout the world, made a decision against polygamy based upon Northern European marriage laws that were all based upon the Christian marriage beliefs.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ban, decision, flawed, hawaii, travel, trump

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0