Although this might “just” be the effect of appointing justices for their preexisting beliefs, as opposed to any particular loyalty to Trump specifically.
There is a litmus test case that will be heard shortly by SCOTUS with respect to Trump’s financial records and Deutsche Bank.
most justices follow the beliefs of Prez who appointed them. Except for Souter who turned out to be pretty liberal after being picked by Bush Sr. That is why you hear “no more Souters”
I disagree. The outcome of these cases are pro-Trump, but the end result is that it allows any presidential administration to enact its own policy.
Judge shopping is easy. If the Supreme Court allows these types of executive decisions to be struck down while they are litigated, in the future no president will be able to do anything.
the problem with Souter was he had very little paper trail. Nobody is going to pick a guy like that again from either party.
Notice that the Republicans on the Supreme Court didn’t even bother to explain their decision? If there were a legitimate reason, they would have.
Since your governance has been stampeding in the other direction for awhile, maybe curtailing Presidential power isn’t such a bad thing.
Are you aware of many (any?) instances where the Court has provided an explanation for its grant or denial of such an application? I’ve read many dissents and more than a few concurrences, but I don’t remember the last time I saw a majority opinion in such a situation.
It must be curious that the Court almost never has a “legitimate reason” for its actions (even when they’re apparently unanimous).
Right. Because the Justices would stand by the principles they’re stating and not rule differently in a future case where a Democratic President was presenting the same case.
Exactly. There is never a majority opinion in those grants or denials and the comment was a cheap shot with no validity or basis in anything.
But hey, at least I know that when my cert petitions were denied without comment that my argument was super-awesome not only that but so super-awesome that the judges were stunned into silence by their inability based upon political whoredom to explain why it was denied!!!
No. You are conflating actions being withheld until they are proven to be legal with being struck down and not allowed to happen at all.
The President should not be allowed to simply do whatever he wants, even only temporarily. Any decision he makes that is (1) possibly illegal and (2) causes irreparable harm if enacted should be held up until it is proven not to be illegal. To do otherwise is to allow irreparable harm.
A president is not restricted from enacting every policy. They are only restricted from policies that have not been established to be legal and which can be shown to cause irreparable harm.
There is no reason to enact these policies immediately, as the US does not have a current immigration problem. There is no surplus of legal immigrants where we need swift action. There is no reason that we could not have the process play out.
The Court is acting contrary to how the law is supposed to work. The principles I laid out are the same principles in civil law. If you can both show that you have a case and that irreparable harm will happen, you get an injunction. The party doing the allegedly wrong thing is forced to stop until and unless they are proven to not be doing anything wrong.
And, just like in that scenario, the preliminary injunction does NOT prevent the defendant party from acting–it only delays that action until it is shown to be legal.
It’s not necessary to prove that they’re personally loyal to Trump. If they’re allowing their personal ideology to interfere with their ability to render valid decisions and enabling him in the process, it’s just as damaging to the Constitution. If the Court allows Trump to withhold his taxes from Congressional investigation, then they’re legislating from the bench and invalidating a law that was specifically written to put a check on presidential power.
Lots of countries have similar laws for immigrants. Why is it only a problem when the United States does it? :dubious:
You know that the Supreme Court of the United States can only rule on laws passed by the US, and not laws passed by other countries, right?
Well, duh. But why aren’t there threads whining about the immigration policies of Canada, Australia, or France?
Because what we’re discussing isn’t a law. It’s an executive order being issued by the President, who is not supposed to have legislative power.
First of all - it shouldn’t be surprising at all that conservative justices would rule in favor of a conservative presidency. That almost goes without saying.
Secondly - it’s documented (USA Today article) that the 4 liberal justices vote together as a united bloc even more often than the 5 conservatives vote in lockstep. When’s the last time any of the liberal justices ever split with their three colleagues on a crucial 5-4 or 6-3 decision? They are basically a granite-hard, tight-as-superglue bloc of 4 progressive justices. They are just as guilty of consistently ruling in favor of their own internal political leanings, if not even more.
Executive orders have the force of law, do they not?
Four people are more unified than five people? Gasp!
Um…because the majority of the posters live in the US, and we’re discussing American laws and lawmakers.
If you’d like to discuss immigration policies of Canada, Australia, or France, feel free to start your own thread on that. That discussion has no place in a thread that specifically mentions the Supreme Court and Trump.