Federal judges on ALL LEVELS have ordered the Executive Branch to follow the rules on its actions….
The United States highest court seems to be dancing around ruling that some of Trump’s actions ARE AGAINST the law and should be changed.
The court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. over the last two decades has not been known for its modesty or caution. Its signature move has been bold assertions of power backed by sweeping claims about the meaning of the Constitution.
It gutted campaign finance laws and the Voting Rights Act, overturned the constitutional right to abortion, did away with affirmative action in higher education and adopted a new interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects an individual’s right to own guns.
But as the first wave of challenges to President Trump’s blitz of executive orders has reached the justices, a very different portrait of the court is emerging. It has issued a series of narrow and legalistic rulings that seem calculated to avoid the larger issues presented by a president rapidly working to expand power and reshape government.
On Monday, the court ruled that Venezuelan migrants who challenged the administration’s plans to send them to a notorious prison in El Salvador had filed their lawsuits in the wrong court, without ruling on the underlying legal issues.
The justices’ new approach appears to have multiple goals: to stay out of the political fray, to maintain their legitimacy and, perhaps most important, to avoid a showdown with a president who has relentlessly challenged the legitimacy of the courts.
Mr. Trump, for his part, has called for the impeachment of judges who ruled against him and has suggested on social media that courts are powerless to tell him what to do. “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” he wrote.
The new cases have arrived on what critics call the court’s “shadow docket,” as emergency applications requiring the justices to move very quickly, on thin briefs and no oral arguments. The terse orders that follow typically decide whether to pause lower court rulings, themselves preliminary and tentative. It is understandable, then, that the justices may be reluctant to make grand pronouncements in that setting.
They have an alternative. They could choose to stay out of the way entirely and let appeals proceed in the usual way, at a stately place that would in the fullness of time produce lasting decisions.
Chief Justice Roberts is surely balancing a number of factors, including protecting his court’s legitimacy and authority, finding consensus where he can and affirming a robust vision of presidential power that must nonetheless abide by the rule of law.
A Convisted Felon seems top staring Down Nine US Supreme Court Justice’s. eh?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.