What’s Really Going on with Immigration EO Court Case?

The Administration took an extreme position almost guaranteed to lose in any court.

by Deedra Abboud in Political, Social Views, Travel
February 10, 2017 1 comment

While listening to the arguments for State of Washington et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, and then reading the 9th Circuit opinion, I thought…

What’s really going on?

I see two reasons for why the Administration chose to take the extreme position of relegating the U.S. court system to the back of the bus.

[Technically, I see three, but I reject gross incompetence and misunderstanding U.S. law as a rational explanation for the acts of the Administration’s attorneys.]

First, as I have said many times on social media, this is a simple power grab. The Administration wants to test the waters for just how much power it can have without interference from other branches.

What’s most surprising is that the Administration doesn’t seem to realize that a successful power grab like this could then be used by other presidents in the future.

Second, the Administration wants to use the virtually guaranteed court losses [due to the extreme positions] to claim victimhood and ‘liberal’ court bias.

This is a great strategy for stacking the court with more ‘conservative’ judges but the reality is that there are several benches already waiting for appointments.

The Administration could have argued that courts should give substantial deference to the president on matters of immigration and national security.

This principle is established law and considered uncontroversial by the courts.

But the Administration did not do that.

Instead, the attorney for the Administration argued that the court system had no authority to question or review any decisions by the president concerning immigration, particularly when based on national security concerns – even if those decisions violate the U.S. Constitution.

The Administration took a very extreme position.

A position that even the most conservative judge, on the Supreme Court or otherwise, is not likely to confirm.

Confirming this argument would require for the Court to agree the U.S. court system is weaker than the Executive Branch and unable to perform ‘checks and balances’ duties as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Nevermind being a dangerous precedent, that ruling could then be used to exclude the court from reviewing all Executive and Legislative decisions simply by adding ‘national security’ as the motivation.

Executive Orders and legislation concerning warrantless searches, wire taps, detentions, and even internments could become unreviewable by U.S. courts.

Few people realize:

On Dec. 18, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that the wartime internment of Japanese-Americans was constitutional, though it ruled in a separate decision that loyal citizens must be released.

We wouldn’t need to use Guantanamo anymore because random detentions and torture could happen right here in U.S. – with zero oversight or ability to seek relief from U.S. courts.

The Patriot Act on steroids… maybe even ‘national security’ assassinations of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

It doesn’t require a law degree to see the dangers of weakening the U.S. court system… or how that weakening could make all of us unsafe in our own country, especially those expressing any dissent at all.















1 Comment
  1. Tim G says:

    Ok, You’re a Muslim woman. A Democratic Muslim woman running for a public office. Fine. I don’t anyone really gives a sh*t what you gender, race or social standing is. The IMPORTANT part is your platform, your stance. How much is your liberal, democratic agenda going to cost, what’s your stance on ILLEGAL’s? Your STANCE ON POLICY is more important than YOUR VIEWS. I am a Republican from Massachusetts and Yes, I voted for Trump. I have Black Family and Mexican family and have worked with Jews, Iranians, Syrians and just about every other nationality there is, so, despite my Republican bent, I am also an American…just like you. You best bet is to assure your constituents that YOU Stand for for what THEY want. Just don’t say stuff to get that you think will get elected. And please don’t claim a false stance to those that have put money in your campaign fund. Good Luck.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.