ranger wrote:
"Didn't these lower court judges just get spanked by John Roberts just a few weeks ago for rulings based on political affiliation and personal beliefs and not the law?"
It was actually Clarence Thomas who made such comments.
But... they are totally non-binding.
Sooner or later, Mr. Trump should use one of these rulings to issue -- for lack of a better term -- "the Trump Doctrine".
To wit:
- Rulings by federal judges at the trial level shall not establish or overrule existing federal policy, and the enforcement of such decisions will be honored only at the discretion of the Executive.
- Such rulings will receive an immediate and timely appeal to the federal appellate level, where they will be heard by an en banc bench of appellate judges.
- The appellate judges will either affirm or overrule the decision of the lower court, but even the appellate-level decision will not have the effect to overturn such laws or policies. They will serve only to "force the issue upward" if they so desire.
- In such instances, the United States Supreme Court will immediately hear such an appeal (providing the Court is in session). Only a U.S. Supreme Court opinion will become the final arbiter as to whether an issue is "Constitutional" or not. Only the U.S. Supreme Court will have the power to overturn or modify an existing federal law, or change or modify existing Executive policies.
In my opinion, this IS "a hill to die on".
It's an issue that must be raised, fought for, and.... won.
