by Greg Krehbiel on 10 February 2017
Liberal and conservative legal views seem to go like this. Liberals talk about whether something is right, according to the way they think of right, while conservatives talk about whether something is legal, according to their reading of the actual law.
When you get a liberal judge, that means that he does mental somersaults to make words seem to say what he thinks they should say.
The 9th Circus Court of Appeals has a long history of this, and leads the pack on having its decisions overturned.
The executive order, while entirely defensible and appropriate as an exercise of the President’s Article II powers, has gotten caught up in a frenzied over-reaction that has overwhelmed and obscured the constitutional and security issues at stake in the controversy. …
It is stunning to realize that a single federal judge (out of roughly 700 federal district court judges) can issue a nationwide ruling that blocks the executive branch from acting in a core area of national security.
Stunning indeed. This is not what judicial review should look like.
The author’s conclusion is that Trump should withdraw the order.
It is thus pointless to make the argument before these judges that some presidential decisions are outside the scope of judicial review. They don’t believe that, and since they get to make the call they are bound to call it in their favor.
I don’t know if that’s the right approach. I think the courts need to be put in their place, but I’m not sure what’s the best way to rein them in.
2017-02-10 » Greg Krehbiel