Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke dismissively about the State of Hawaii while criticizing a Federal District Court ruling last month that blocked the Trump administration from carrying out its ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world.I guess it escaped Sessions's notice that Hawaii is a state, just like Alabama is, except the weather's better than Alabama, the people are more educated in Hawaii (by a long shot), the poverty rate is much lower in Hawaii, the crime rate is higher in Alabama, and white folks in Hawaii are in the minority, unlike in Alabama. All of the foregoing are reasons why ol' Jeff isn't likely happy about Hawaii. And he probably can't get a decent mint julip there, bless his heart.
“I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power,” Mr. Sessions said this week in an interview on “The Mark Levin Show,” a conservative talk radio program.
Oh, and Hawaii has this:
Most of the battlefield memorials in Alabama likely have something to do with their Failed War to Preserve Slavery.
8 comments:
He does have a point though...Why can a single federal judge stop the President from issuing perfectly legal orders?
(Especially one that is close friends with Barry and who had dinner with Barry the night before giving the order).
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." -- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
That is *your* interpretation that the order of President* Trump is "perfectly legal". Obviously, the judge disagrees and, as a judge, he gets to decide what is legal.
Not me. And not you.
Basically, a single Federal judge may rule on a Federal action that impacts a plaintiff before his/her court. That ruling may be appealed, up to the Supreme Court of the United States. A higher level judges may overrule or elect not to if they determine the same as the lower judge. So this is already much more than one judge.
As an aside, where was this wailing when Obama's actions were blocked by a south Texas judge?
I dislike activist judges of both camps.
Activism has no place in the judicial branch.
And how, exactly, can you determine that Trump's EO was illegal, but Barry's wasn't? THe only difference is a matter of scale.
And how, exactly, can you determine that Trump's EO was illegal, but Barry's wasn't? THe only difference is a matter of scale.
B, you're a smart guy. So I am a loss to understand how it is that you blew past my response to your earlier comment.
As I said, I don't get to decide what EO is legal or not. And neither do you. That job belongs to the judges, which is our system and has been since the Constitution was first ratified. Oh, we may debate the legality/illegality of things, but our opinions are worth the pixels on your screen.
Which is to say: Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
The difference between an activist judge and one who isn't is that the one who isn't agrees with me, while the activist favors stuff I would never favor, and therefore is making law instead of interpreting it.
Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank
Actually, B., neither judge has determined either EO is illegal. They have both decided that, based upon presentations, there is a case to be decided that is not clearly favoring one side or the other and that allowing the EO to take effect would cause irreparable harm to a party or parties.
I didn't complain about the south Texas judge, but neither did any of the usual right-wing suspects who are going nuts about the Hawaiian judge. Also, neither judge is activist, they both decided allowing an EO to take effect BEFORE a challenge to it was adjudicated, was a harmful option. This is what we pay judges to do.
How many co-equal branches of government were there again?
-Doug in Oakland
Post a Comment