As the justices prepare to decide the fate of President Trump's so-called travel ban, the question looms large.
On Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Trump "Travel ban" case, and the core issue will be stark and clear: Do laws mean what they say?
While there are many examples, perhaps none is more obvious than the judicial war on Trump's travel ban.
The travel ban suspends entry of all immigrant and nonimmigrant North Korean and Syrian nationals, but other countries face only suspensions of certain types of business and tourist visas.
Is there a credible statutory objection to Trump's travel ban? Is there a legal danger to Trump's policy that doesn't rely on the distortions of activist "Trumplaw"? Yes, there is, but it's not sufficient to defeat Trump's policy.
The text of the travel ban makes clear that it is being implemented not because of the nationality of the immigrants, but because of the actions of their governments or the instability of their countries.
To what extent will the judges focus on the relevant statutes? To what extent will they ask about Trump's tweets? The answers to these questions will go a long way toward suggesting whether the Supreme Court will follow the law or decide that "This president" should be treated differently than "The president" and join the judicial #resistance.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/donald-trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-resistance/
On Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Trump "Travel ban" case, and the core issue will be stark and clear: Do laws mean what they say?
While there are many examples, perhaps none is more obvious than the judicial war on Trump's travel ban.
The travel ban suspends entry of all immigrant and nonimmigrant North Korean and Syrian nationals, but other countries face only suspensions of certain types of business and tourist visas.
Is there a credible statutory objection to Trump's travel ban? Is there a legal danger to Trump's policy that doesn't rely on the distortions of activist "Trumplaw"? Yes, there is, but it's not sufficient to defeat Trump's policy.
The text of the travel ban makes clear that it is being implemented not because of the nationality of the immigrants, but because of the actions of their governments or the instability of their countries.
To what extent will the judges focus on the relevant statutes? To what extent will they ask about Trump's tweets? The answers to these questions will go a long way toward suggesting whether the Supreme Court will follow the law or decide that "This president" should be treated differently than "The president" and join the judicial #resistance.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/donald-trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-resistance/
No comments:
Post a Comment