Trump’s two options after 9th circuit ruling are win-win long-term

Donald Trump

Listening to pundits, there seems to be two possibilities for Donald Trump’s next move with his travel ban. He can take it to the Supreme Court or he can scrap it and start from scratch. Both options have upsides. Both are also risky.

If he takes it to the Supreme Court, he can request that it’s rushed through. This puts him in a pickle with an eight-seat court. A tie would uphold the 9th circuit’s decision. If he waits for Neil Gorsuch, then his narrative of national security gets questioned. Even if he tries to push it through, there’s no guarantee that a ruling will emerge quickly. It will probably take weeks. It could take months.

The second option is to rescind and rebuild. As hard as that sounds, it may be the swiftest option. As Alan Dershowitz noted, he now has the help of the DoJ with Jeff Sessions in place. He can also appeal to Congress to participate in some way, though they’re not known as being the quickest on the draw. Dershowitz is wrong when he says that doing so will require Trump to admit he’s wrong. If he goes down this road, he’ll easily be able to say that his original executive order was righteous, but with an activist judiciary in place, he’s forced to make changes in order to keep the nation safe.

As crazy as this sounds, long-term this is a win-win for Trump. If he goes to the Supreme Court and wins, he’s vindicated. If he loses in the Supreme Court, he can start over anyway with a different order and will then have a further mandate to pack the courts. If he rescinds and revises, he’ll still be able to point the finger at the obstructionist courts. Short term, this is hurting the nation’s security, but long-term this may be best regardless of which path he chooses.

If I’m betting, I’d put my money on him pushing it up to the Supreme Court. If I’m wishing, I would love to see this prompt Congress to act quickly and put together strong legislation that would dramatically improve the vetting practices within our immigration and foreign travel systems. It would also give Trump the opportunity to put out an executive order with real muscle behind it, making the temporary ban something that has an actual end in sight with Congressional action as the goal. That’s how it should have been done in the first place.

The wildcard in all of this would be the terrorists themselves. They could easily change the calculus with an attack.

Image courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

Conservative News

JD Rucker

JD Rucker is Editor of this site as well as Soshable, a Federalist Christian Blog. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, and co-founder of the Federalist Party. Find him on Twitter or Facebook.

  1. Trump’s decision to attack the credibility of the courts (all courts) and with his minions urging him to ignore the courts because “they’re liberal” is a real danger to our Republic and has poisoned the well among those that support and require adherence to the US Constitution.

    Do not think that supporting Trump against the courts is somehow “good” when he is on record attacking the courts and riling up his minions to not just attack the rulings but to advocate that government executives ignore the rulings of the court and implement the actions the courts have found to be unconstitutional.

    If you REALLY represent Federalism, you should be against Trump’s attempt to usurp the Constitutional Authority of the Courts and declare that the courts have no standing to judge HIS EOs just as you should criticize the courts for historically liberal stances when they rule in a liberal way.

    In this case, the ruling of the 9th appears to be based in law, in the Constitution, and in common sense.

    No one has disproven or even attempted to dispute the actual arguments made by the court. Instead, the cry is that Trump was authorized to limit immigration by Congress and that that authorization alone absolves him of any responsibility to insure that Constitutional protections granted by the 14th Amendment are maintained.

    Furthermore, the claim is that the courts do not have standing to rule on Trump’s EO because they were never granted the power to rule on EOs by the Constitution. The claims by Trump’s minions then go on to claim that the courts are trying to “grab power” by ruling against Trump’s EO out of liberal malice alone. The 9th Circuit ruling was that Trump’s EO as an unconstitutional restriction of the rights of “persons” residing in the US and is therefore unconstitutional and should be voided. The 14th amendment talks to “persons” not “citizens” having rights (I checked), so the argument that “only citizens” have Constitutional rights fails as well.

    The Constitution does not grant (nor has the court attempted to use) “power to enforce” any ruling. It is the Law Enforcement Officials in Trump’s Executive Branch that are honoring their Oath to the Constitution (as opposed to any fictional oath to Trump himself) that are refusing to execute the order as written BECAUSE of the court’s ruling.

    For Trump to push this through the USSC is in no way a win as it would set a precedent for a president to ignore the rulings of our courts and (with only an EO) over-reach a delegated authority from Congress with an EO that denies Constitutional Freedoms to US residents that is also immune from court scrutiny. Alternatively it sets a precedent for a president to ignore court injunctions and rulings and to write whatever laws he wants into existence via Executive Order – EOs that are effectively immune from judicial scrutiny – regardless of the constitutionality of that EO.

    Federalists should be more concerned about Presidential over-reach as they are about activist judges because unless Presidential over-reach is stopped, we will have a dictatorship and judges, Congress, and our Constitution will no longer matter for they will no longer apply to or affect our new US government dictator.

  2. While Trump is certainly over reaching on several fronts, the Ban EO is not one of them. It is certainly constitutional and appropriate. I also believe it is correct to call out the leftist judges for their unconstitutional rulings, which is what the 9th circuit just did–talk about overreach!! I believe the Federalist Party on many, many occasions has voiced their opinion about Presidential overreach, and congressional overreach, with a need for us to return to states rights. As such, the post from IllinoisPatroit is not well taken.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana