Without a doubt, Trump's recent travel ban has brought forth several controversies and has caused distress among several people within and outside the country. In the article, it talks about hawaiii wanting to have "broader appeal courts to review Trump's travel ban. As we've already learned, on of the most important powers of the judicial branch is judicial review. This is when the Supreme Court reviews legislative acts to see if it violates the constitution or not. It is also one of the ways that The Supreme Court can check the presidents action. In the article, it says that Trump's revised travel plan will be reviewed by a random panel of judges. Also, instead of a normal panel of three judges, they wanted to have an "en Banc" Court where there are eleven judges instead. However, according to the article, this will make it easier for republican appointees to be placed and Trump would be approved without any opposition. As we learned in class, in order for a case to reach The Supreme Court, the Party must appeal the federal courts decision for a writ of certiorari. Similar to the state of Hawaii, I feel that it is necessary to have this reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consists of a panel of judges that are republican, democratic, conservative, and liberal. It would be much fairer to have this case decided by them. Also the final decision of the court would be used to handle situations like this in the future. Whether or not the courts show judicial restraint or activism is up to them. However, if would be a safer process to go through them instead of regular federal courts. If things go as planned, the case will reach the Supreme Court, and hopefully they will I'll rule it as unconstitutional. What do you guys think? Do you think that the case will even reach the supreme courts level? I also was thinking about how the newly appointed judge would have major influence on the final opinion. Do you feel that Justice Neil M. Gorsuch would make a major difference in the final opinion because Trump appointed him?
ARTICLE LINK
I believe that the ban should be viewed as unconstitutional. It goes against the establishment clause of the first amendement because the muslim ban is saying that there is an because religion or some religion that is superior in the land. Even though there is more conservatives in the court, I highly doubt that conservatives are going to find this type of religious discrimination to be constitutional. The only way it would be constitutional is if is is similar to the official case because we are involved in war like actions like the case of Korematsu. This muslim ban is legal discrimination and hopefully it's unconstitutional. However, the way how the presidency has gone no one knows what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying about the muslim ban being unconstitutional. However, dont you feel that with Neil Gorsuch being the new appointed judge, reasonable ruling would be more difficult. After all, trump made the process of him being appointed much faster. he was able to bypass many obstacles that the other justices would have to go through. Wouldn't he want to side with Trump and not bite the hand that fed him?
DeleteI would like to agree with Charles about the ban being unconstitutional. It clearly is a religion ban yet we are the land of "religious freedom". This ban makes it so that only certain religions are allowed in the country and violates the extracise religion part of the constitution. With the new judge I understand what Bryce is saying about how Trump made it easy for his appointment so it could turn out to be a "scratch my back and I scratch yours" type of situation. I think this could have an effect but if the judges honestly look into constitutionality whether with judicial restraint or activism the ban was clearly wrong.
Deletei agree with what Charles Tones because the ban is taking away from the establishment clause of the first of amendment as charles said the muslim ban is basically segregating them from us keeping them on their on land. They are not the only people who is bringing murder and bombings or whatever trump says they bring. A lot of white people have been killing and murdering. Look at Sandy Hook, it wasnt Isis or any one of muslim decent. I believe the Neil is going to side with Trump because he basically own him
ReplyDeleteAs some of my classmates stated the travel ban should be deemed as constitutional and should result in some type of repercussions or corrective behavior . He violated the first amendment rights to freedom of religion and the fourteenth amendment equality clause. The amount of people he disrespected and inconvenienced by placing the ban could have been fatal for a lot of people. I am not sure that Gorsuch will be in favor of indicting trump if he is put on the seat because Trump chose him specifically will likely play into his decision.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. I also feel that it is very much possible for this to reach supreme court level if Trump continues to push for it. However, I also feel as though the only way to really get this to go to the supreme court is if the public uses the media, like they are supposed to, to put a lot of pressure on the court systems and government. I say this because while the public can not directly influence whether or not something is taken to the supreme court, they can still increase the likely hood of it happening eventually. In regards to your last question about the new justice, I feel like he definitely could have an impact but not a super significant one because while he may have influence, he is still only one vote
DeleteI don't understand why they are still allowing Trump to continue his travel ban. He is only banning countries in thee middle east that the main religion is islam and that is unconstitutional. The judges shouldn't even need to discuss the situation because it was clear all through out his campange that he was going to ban the muslims so as soon as the order came out they should have took action. they should have took more intitiative because this is the second time he is banning the same region
ReplyDeleteI believe that there can be a negative influence now that Justice Neil Gorsuch is appointed. As we all know Trump is a very greedy person. He is willing to do whatever he can to get what he wants. This can result in as lot of bias laws and acts that would only benefit people like him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Hawaii wants because it finally means someone wants to stand against what Trump is doing. But the fact that someone is actually doing something instead of just saying something is great. Like how everyone else is saying this ban is unconstitutional but more important people need to realize that too. More people that can actually have an immediate impact on whether or not Trump will leave office. Some people in his own cabinet need to see that what they are doing is wrong and they need to advise him otherwise.
ReplyDelete