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.
-
Show this thread
-
I've written many times how the travel ban is terrible policy. -Counterproductive for counterterrorism strategy -Boon to jihadist propaganda while doing little, if anything, to thwart terrorists' efforts -At least partially motivated by bigotry -Haphazard execution made it worse
3 replies 6 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
But the judiciary answers "is this legal?" not "is this smart policy?" or even "is this right?" Law granting POTUS power to suspend immigration for NatSec reasons does not require the president to justify the claim. Saying "it's for national security" is enough.
5 replies 3 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
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.
2 replies 12 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NGrossman81
Bad faith is defined by you. Who says you're right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @milicki2g @NGrossman81
So it's an opinion, not fact. Thanks for clearing that up.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It's a persuasively argued opinion, supported by considerable evidence.
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.