I.m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But last night's Ninth Circuit (in San Francisco) court's decision in President Trump's temporary immigration ban is certainly curious. If you have a legal mind, I point you to John Hinderaker, Esq. of the Powerline blog who has dissected this opinion and also finds it lacking ... see: Powerline Blog. Here are Hinderacker's key legal analyses:
The three judges found that there was a likelihood that someone’s due process rights could be violated by the order. The people in question are not citizens of the seven countries who have never been to the United States, and now want to travel or immigrate here. Those people have no rights under our Constitution, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. Rather, the 9th Circuit panel seized on the idea that a few people covered by the order–those who have come here legally already, and now want to return–have constitutional due process rights.And:
The 9th Circuit panel adopted the anti-Trump view of this situation, and took the position that if there is a single person with due process rights who is affected by the order, the entire order can be blocked ... So, the 9th Circuit reasons, Trump’s order might be valid as to 99% of those affected, but if there are 1% who have due process rights, the entire order must be voided. This strikes me as a radical approach.
So, it appears that our Constitution really is, according to these three ... a lion tamer, a clown and a trapeze artist ... a suicide pact.
2 comments:
Why not quote the dozens of other legal scholars who have the opposing point of view. You are cherry picking here.
I think all the legal scholars you are referring to ... all sit on the 9th Circus (which is overturned about 80% of the time).
Post a Comment