
Donald Trump is so adverse to the truth he would struggle to tick the correct box for gender on a medical form.
Animavore wrote:Scotland Vs Trump.
Full judgement: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... el-ban.pdf... The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle ... Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy … Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” ... We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.
… the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context …
This is no less true when the challenged immigration action implicates national security concerns. … courts have a duty, “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty” … “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace ... under all circumstances.” … “courts are not powerless to review the political branches’ actions” with respect to matters of national security. ... To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war. … ‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.” …
Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of—and even invalidate—actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict …
In short, ... it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
@realDonaldTrump
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
http://thehill.com/policy/transportatio ... 4.facebookPresident Trump’s immigration ban — which was put on hold after one week — may have cost $185 million in business-travel bookings, according to a new report from the Global Business Travel Association (GBTA).
Using industry data, the GBTA compared business-travel transaction levels in the week before and the week after Trump signed the executive order on immigration and refugees.
The research found that travel bookings increased 1.2 percent the week before the travel ban, but decreased by 2.2 percent the week after, for a net decrease of 3.4 percent. That amounts to an estimated $185 million loss for the business-travel industry, the report says.
http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-solic ... eral-pick/Donald Trump’s pick for one of the top lawyers in the federal government just decided he didn’t want to hitch his star to Trump’s wagon.
Chuck Cooper, whom President Trump nominated to be the next Solicitor General (the person tasked with representing the federal government in the Supreme Court), withdrew his name from consideration on Thursday evening. According to Politico, Cooper — a Supreme Court litigator who once clerked for late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist — was one of two finalists for the coveted position within the Department of Justice.
Brian Peacock wrote:Gosh, can he write.
"You look into Trump’s eyes and you see the fear and confusion of a man who has just been told he’s got stage-four cervical cancer. He is a super-villain in a world without heroes, a man so obnoxious and unhappy that karma may see him reincarnated as himself. You kind of wish he’d get therapy, but at this stage it’s like hiring a window cleaner for a burning building."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests