This is why we celebrated the Trump win. The spectre of constitutional crises every day.
Thursday evening the 9th Circuit court of appeals ("Dude...affirmed!") affirmed the order of the District Court Judge.
The constitutional crisis in the Nixon administration started with the Saturday night massacre, and ended six months later when the Supreme Court upheld the district court judge's order requiring the white house to produce the tapes. Nixon resigned in August 1974 and Gerald Ford declared "our long national nightmare over." (Over/under on Pence saying that is November, 2018).
In May, 1861, two months into office, President Lincoln suspended the great writ of habeas corpus and then defied the US Supreme Court. As Judge Hirsch has probably recounted dozens of times to dazed young PDs and ASAs, John Merryman, a State Legislator from Maryland was arrested for hindering the movement of Union Troops. Merryman was held at Fort McHenry. His lawyer (not Sy Gaer) filed a for a writ of habeas corpus to bring the body of the defendant to a district court. Lincoln issued an executive order (well before Trump ever did) that suspended the right for the great writ of habeas corpus on military bases. The commander of the fort followed the order of his commander in chief and refused to deliver Merryman.
US Supreme Court Chief Judge Roger Taney paused briefly in his penning the Dred Scott decision to rule that Lincoln did not have the authority to issue an order suspending habeas corpus. Lincoln sat tight. He didn't respond. He didn't reply. And he didn't order Merryman released, and we had our first constitutional crises.
We are a blogger of the people. We don't mingle with hoi polloi, but we sometimes visit and observe. And Thursday night was an exercise in the people's version of constitutional law. We sat transfixed, nursing a cheap (for us) Cabernet while a twenty-something SoBe bartender with rings in her nose, lips and ears, and a sleeve of tattoos not covered by a revealing tight black tank-top lectured us about standing, the 9th circuit, and that their order had no basis in the establishment clause of the first amendment. Fascinating.
We wrote- what seems like an eternity ago- that Article III judges were all that stood between our president and a dictatorship. While we disagree with the 9th circuit's analysis, we are proud to live in a country where a Judge can tell a president "NO" and No means No -Lincoln and Taney not withstanding.
Lincoln refused Taney's order two months into his presidency while struggling to deal with a rebellious Maryland border state. Not to be outdone, 45 has provoked a crisis less than thirty days into office while struggling to deal with a rebellious white house staff.
Here's the order from the 9th.
From Occupied America...fight the power.
The Dred Scott decision was in 1857. I guess you are using alternative facts Rumpole.
ReplyDeleteScott Africa
Say what you want about Scott, but he's done a great job with the judicial appointments.
ReplyDeleteBTDT
86% percent reversal rate. Fake court
ReplyDeleteSome men just like to watch the world burn. I'm enjoying the hell out of this.
ReplyDeleteI was a C student at a third rate law school in Gainesville and even I know this opinion is made up nonsense.
ReplyDelete#MAGA
New "Constitutional rights" for non citizens outside the US! Terrific.
ReplyDeleteAnd we thought Griswold and Roe were politically motivated abominations!
Be happy.
I suspect this isn't over, and lots of people will rue the day this happened.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/02/10/harriss-first-bill-lawyers-immigration-detainees/
ReplyDeleteThe decision from the Ninth Circuit is like most of the other 86% of their decisions that are reversed by the Supreme Court. The law is faulty; the logic tortured. In your passion to seize anything left, you should at least pay some attention to what the law is and also to the precedent that this decision for what will, no doubt, be a brief life could cause. Do we really want two ancient and one relatively new far left judges examining and approving Executive decisions. Why not consider that this type of thing could have been done to the venerable, never wrong, and almost perfect President Obama? And, I assume that while it is unacceptable to make a comment about a district judge because it might intimidate him, it was just wonderful and supercool to criticize the entire Supreme Court for Citizens United during the State of the Union address which I think is far more troubling that what President Trump did.
ReplyDelete6:33, Rumpole is talking about Dred, not Rick. But, yes, Rick's been making pretty good appointments to the Florida bench.
ReplyDeleteThe 9th Circuit decision is an example of results-oriented jurisprudence based on policy instead of on law or constitutionality. It had to go that route because of the stupidity of acting president Steve Bannon's executive order. The 9th Circuit reasoning goes this parental way: baby, you are supposed to poop in your high chair and not make a mess of yourself, but since you decided to poop on yourself and smeared the poop all over the floor, I had no choice but to hose the poop off your butt.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of the analysis do you disagree with? This is a legal blog. Tell us!
ReplyDeleteOrlando cop who mistook doughnut glaze for drugs is disciplined
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/os-doughnut-glaze-mistaken-for-meth-cop-disciplined-20170209-story.html??cw_pecmid=2099788237cw_pesid=1486745121cw_peln=sfl8pbrd=2089072007em=true
Only a C student at a 3d rate law school could become a MAGA lawyer.
ReplyDeleteUh, Obama saying the opinion was wrong is nothing like so called Judge tweet. Neither were appropriate, but trumps was way worse.
ReplyDeleteGlad that the "Abed One" was not presenting the governments case. He would have won in the 9th....
ReplyDelete9:33..........I was obviously talking about Scott's appointment of Luck to the Third DCA, but thanks. I meant to post it in response to Rump's previous comment.
ReplyDeleteLOL.
BTDT