Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guest
"A substantial majority of the judges who sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond delivered a rather remarkable judgment last week: The president of the United States is not to be believed.
Will the Supreme Court conclude the same thing? And by “Supreme Court,” we mean “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,” whose name was invoked 23 times in the 205 pages of majority opinions, concurrences and dissents in the appeals court’s 10-to-3 rejection of President Trump’s revised travel ban."
Court says essentially that Trump is not to be believed. Will Supreme Court conclude the same? - The Washington Post
"But it’s worth another look at the remarkable rhetoric in Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory’s majority opinion, which concludes that Trump’s “true reason” for the travel ban was not protecting the nation’s security but making good on a campaign promise born of anti-Muslim bias.
As Harvard law professor Noah Feldman put it in an essay for Bloomberg News, “It’s extraordinary for a federal court to tell the president directly that he’s lying; I certainly can’t think of any other examples in my lifetime.” |
SO, once again I will ask this rhetorical question:
An E.O. is issued. A court decides that it is UN-Constitutional because the author has been known to lie? So, the court is deciding on the merit of who the author is, NOT the validity of the E.O. I believe that the court is overstepping it's authority, by judging the character of the author rather than the validity of the order. Basically, what the court is saying is that Trump has no authority as president of the U.S. of A. and therefore cannot be Commander-in-Chief or sign any future bills.
Sorry, but I do not know of anyone that would find that in the least bit credible. If the same E.O. was passed as a bill, the court would not have any means to judge that it is invalid if they can no longer base it on the author's character.
SO, basically what I am saying is that the character of the court makes them biased and they should recuse themselves from judgement. They cannot make a credible and unbiased judgement on the E.O.