Supreme Court probably right to uphold travel ban. Terrible policy, and Congress's responsibility. But Congress ceded a giant national security exemption to the president. And who determines what qualifies as "national security"? POTUS. Bad law. Easily abused. But still the law.
-
-
Travel ban is another lesson in norms-not-laws. Congress gave POTUS powerful national security exemptions on trade and immigration. Assumed presidents would use these in good faith (rarely, only in emergencies). Trump's using them in bad faith. But the law doesn't say he can't.
Show this thread -
Congress should immediately retake its Constitutionally-designated power over trade and immigration. End the "national security" tariffs and "national security" travel ban. That would make Americans safer and more prosperous, and restore checks-and-balances to the system.
Show this thread -
Not the judiciary's job to improve national security strategy or stop Congress from voluntary ceding power. That's the responsibility of the people and their elected representatives, not 9 unelected judges Think, liberals: Do you really want SCOTUS to have such power? This court?
Show this thread -
Short version: Travel ban is terrible policy. Makes Americans less safe. Violates American values. Sign of Congressional weakness and institutional rot. But legal. (END)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ew, but... good point. :/
-
Yeah... that's where I'm at.
-
It's the same bullshit as the Posse Comitatus issues: POTUS can just say, "Eh, you can use the military because I say so." Because no one ever thought the president of the damn U.S. would use that power except in dire emergency. ><
-
Not that we've explicitly had to deal with that yet (as far as I know), but... I'm sure it's *going* to be an issue. Soon.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So why overturn korematsu?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I am watching history repeat itself because hatred is a powerful threat to all humanity.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Does this "has authority, justification irrelevant" reasoning apply to, say, dismissing Comey for the stated purpose of impeding an investigation of his own activities?
-
Or does intent matter?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.