View Single Post
Old 02-07-2017, 11:22 AM   #22
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Ask these people

The top legal officials in 16 states, including Pennsylvania and Iowa which voted for Trump, filed a memorandum in support of efforts to halt the travel ban. The state attorneys general from these states argue they have standing as the executive order inflicts harm on states, including disruption at state universities and medical institutions.
The massive regulations that the Federal bureaucracy pumps out every year inflict those types of "harms" and more on states, universities and medical institutions as well as every citizen and business in this country. Progressive jurisprudence has ruled that is just fine. Regulation, by its very nature, is "harmful" to someone or something. Government, by its very nature, is "harmful" to someone or something. As Scottw pointed out, the judge himself pointed out that "Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches."

His own words contradict what he has ruled. He has judged the wisdom of a policy promoted by the executive branch.

He has stated what the work of the court is not. I don't know if he has stated what the work of the court exactly is. But if the work of the court is to apply the law, and if law overrides feeling and personal desire, and the fact of the law is that the executive branch has constitutional power to promote a policy, which in this case it does under federal immigration law, then fact overrides feeling, and the Constitution does not give the court the power to override the law, regardless of how repugnant or "unwise" that law may be in the mind of the court. The Constitution gives, and only gives the Court the task of deciding if the policy resides in the executive branch's domain. Which in this case, it clearly does.

Of course, the 9th circuit is often a court of so-called "social justice" rather than a court of law.
detbuch is offline