BlockBuster Term: Justices Could Determine Limits of Courts' Ability To Check Trump Administration

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

washington times
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Wednesday, May 30, 2018

[excerpt]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/supreme-court-term-consider-trump-tweets-and-trave/

The Supreme Court over the next month is poised to upend the way the country picks representatives to Congress, decide whether the First Amendment protects people who refuse to do business with same-sex couples and rule on whether President Trump’s tweets can be used in court to derail his agenda.

After what analysts described as a lackluster term last year, this year is shaping up to deliver a series of blockbuster rulings that will signal to lower courts how they should treat the unorthodox Mr. Trump.

The biggest test comes on the president’s travel ban. His opponents have begged the justices to hold Mr. Trump’s campaign-era tweets against him, saying his comments about Muslims taint the travel policy he announced once he took office.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

washington times
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Wednesday, May 30, 2018

[excerpt]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/supreme-court-term-consider-trump-tweets-and-trave/

The Supreme Court over the next month is poised to upend the way the country picks representatives to Congress, decide whether the First Amendment protects people who refuse to do business with same-sex couples and rule on whether President Trump’s tweets can be used in court to derail his agenda.

After what analysts described as a lackluster term last year, this year is shaping up to deliver a series of blockbuster rulings that will signal to lower courts how they should treat the unorthodox Mr. Trump.

The biggest test comes on the president’s travel ban. His opponents have begged the justices to hold Mr. Trump’s campaign-era tweets against him, saying his comments about Muslims taint the travel policy he announced once he took office.

This is a huge issue, and not because it involves the travel ban.

The idea that courts should determine the constitutionality of laws or executive actions based on the subjective intent of legislators/President, rather than on the letter of the law/policy itself, is dangerous as hell.  They've gone down that road before, and it can lead to a very ugly place.  Time to reign that in.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

This is a huge issue, and not because it involves a travel ban.

The idea that courts should determine the constitutionality of laws or executive actions based on the subjective intent of legislators/President, rather than on the letter of the law/policy itself, is dangerous as hell.  They've gone down that road before, and it can lead to a very ugly place.  Time to reign that in.

Spot on.

[Bigun]

This is a huge issue, and not because it involves a travel ban.

The idea that courts should determine the constitutionality of laws or executive actions based on the subjective intent of legislators/President, rather than on the letter of the law/policy itself, is dangerous as hell.  They've gone down that road before, and it can lead to a very ugly place.  Time to reign that in.

Damned right it is and if they don't get it right we have truly assumed banana republic status!