Originally Posted by Guest

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.