The 9th Circuit’s Dangerous & Unprecedented Use of campaign statements to block Presidential Policy

 

AND LEST WE NOT FORGET THEY JUST GAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NONE …

A great piece from  Eugene Kontorovich, read is all.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has just upheld a nationwide temporary injunction on President Trump’s executive order relating to refugees and visas from certain countries. I think the court’s opinion is weak in most respects, but I will address one of the most interesting and potentially far-reaching aspects.

Generally, the president has vast discretion in issuing visas. One of the major arguments against the executive order is that while in principle a president can limit immigration from the seven affected countries, it would be unconstitutional for President Trump in particular to do so, because in his case the action is motivated by impermissible religious bias. The central exhibit for this argument is his campaign statements about a “Muslim ban.”

While the 9th Circuit did not address this at great length, focusing instead on due-process arguments, it did accept the basic validity of the form of the states’ argument. “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions,” wrote the court.

There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive. The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show “that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history — the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.



If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Did Blogs Kill the NYT Tech Section?
  • Flashback: Actress & Activist Susan Sarandon Said Hillary Clinton Would be a More Dangerous U.S. President than Donald Trump
  • The Flip-Flopper in Chief: Obama in 2010, It’s Inappropriate to Use Presidential Seal While Campaigning …Obama Now: Not So Much, I Take it Back
  • We are just Finding Out about this now … Barack Obama ’08 Campaign fined $375,000 by FEC
  • Liberal & Obama Supporter Attorney Jonathan Turley Says Expansion of Barack Obama’s Presidential Powers Threatens Liberty




  • Comments

    Leave a Reply




    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

     
     
    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Close
    E-mail It