Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Here is a sincere question...how does Trump's ban, interfere with the Constitutional rights, of anyone covered by the Constitution? What was the legal basis for the judge's decision? I didn't see it.
|
This is one report on his reasoning:
The judge’s decision says he granted the temporary restraining order because the states are “likely to succeed on the merits of the claims;” were likely to “suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;” and because “a TRO is in the public interest.” Robart will rule at a later point on whether to permanently stop the Trump order.
The judge’s ruling says the “states themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Executive Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States’ operations, tax bases, and public funds.” The residents of the states are affected “adversely” in the areas of “employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” the judge’s order says.
None of those seem to be about the constitutionality of the EO. Of course, being constitutional under the present norm, is merely a matter of opinion. Probably the most important opinion that he gives is that the plaintiffs were“likely to succeed on the merits of the claims;” He doesn't give any constitutional reason on the merits of the claims. He doesn't need to since it is a temporary stay to be decided further by arguments from both sides.
And if the case got to the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted, at least half, the Progressive half, would concoct some social justice reason they would claim lies in some penumbra or emanation of the Constitution. So the decision of the appellate court would stand. And that being the 9th Circuit in this case, a very Progressive Circuit, the EO would be struck down. Another reason for the left to stall the appointment of Trump's nominee.