Here's an easy way for Trump to beat the appeals court and Judge Robart

I wasn't sure that this would work until I heard Jay Sekulow,  Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), suggest it on Fox News. Mute the lawsuit against President Donald Trump's immigration timeout for seven majority Muslim countries.

Jay Sekulow

Jay Sekulow

Here's how: Issue a new executive order deleting everything that District Court Judge James Robart found unconstitutional in the original executive order, such as the 90-day timeout. Retain in the new executive order the things that Robart didn't challenge. Presto, the lawsuit is mute and goes away.

Not that new lawsuits won't be filed against the new executive order. But Trump, if he could put his ego aside for just a moment, he could be rid of this distraction and concentrate on the other important issues. So far, most of his decisions and appointments have been good, even laudable. But he's got to stop with the seat-of-the-pants, overly emotional decisions of the kind that led to this embarrassment.

Related: A good explanation (even if you don't agree) for the appellate court's decision.

Another view: The Ninth Circuit Just Issued a Dangerous Ruling against Donald Trump’s Immigration Order or can a court consider campaign rhetoric in making a decision about an official action? My view: I hope not.

How to subscribe to my blog: Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

 

Comments

Leave a comment
  • The term is moot.

    You don't seem to have grasped the point, or maybe Sekulow didn't make it clearly. There was some talk of "mooting it" by allowing students and teachers in, thereby denying the states standing (the order kept university personnel out), but someone else would have standing, anyway.

    However, given that the immigration bar hasn't had any trouble having the EO ruled unconstitutional in any number of cases, it isn't what Judge Robart said, but what have should have been done in the first place---write a constitutional EO. However, that may now not be possible.

    The Administration reportedly relies on a portion of the Immigration and Naturalization Act saying that the President may exclude aliens. However, the 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting religion, and (as I explained in a response to Dan Miller on Jan. 31, and the 9th Circuit eventually found) Trump's statements that he intended to bar Muslims taints the process, so that it may not be easy to come up with a constitutional EO, except to do it on the basis that individuals will be screened based on a particularized threat. That would still be a defeat in the eyes of his supporters.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: