How does the court block Mr Trump?
The lack of a NE theme in the first country of Donald trump’s state of the union address must have been his performance in court. Mr Trump has repeatedly broken the constitution in his first year in office. As usual, he was indicted. And in almost all cases, the constitution wins, and trump loses. So far, the court has proved to be an important guarantee of constitutional freedom. The record is extraordinary.
In the “no Muslim” case, several courts have declared that the three versions of President trump’s travel ban are invalid, in an effort to keep his campaign promise to ban muslims from entering the country. After denouncing the judge as a “so-called judge”, Mr Trump gave up the first two versions of the ban. The third and most recent versions, such as the first two, were also declared illegal. It is now heading to the Supreme Court.
The court also rejected the President’s prohibition on transgender service, and he did not even consult the military, who had previously determined that transgender service was not a problem. Two federal courts have initially lifted the ban.
A federal court in the district of Columbia has blocked the trump administration’s efforts to ban immigrant parents from accessing abortions. The head of the refugee immigration office, Scott Lloyd, has refused to allow four undocumented minors to have an abortion. Every time the ACLU sues, women get the care they need.
The court is also a “dreamer”, with undocumented immigrants whose parents bring their children here. In December, a federal court ordered the administration to allow dreamers to extend their applications to avoid deportation under a plan known as “Childized Arrivals,” or DACA.
Another federal court insisted that, under the trump of government opposition, a citizen of the United States in the absence of any charges secret as “enemy combatants” are allowed to contact a lawyer and transfer shall not be in the absence of notice, in order to ensure that he has the right to question the legitimacy of his detention.
In terms of health care, Pennsylvania, a federal court has preliminary prevents the trump of President barack Obama called for rollback, require employers in employee health insurance plans shall bear the cost of birth control. Another court barred the trump administration from taking federal money from cities and counties that adopted “asylum” policies and refusing to enforce federal immigration laws.
Lawsuits are to trump’s “sincerity” voters committee brought shame to end, the commission by the Kansas secretary of state, Krishna, sarkozy (Kris Kobach) leadership, to support the republican voters to stop trying to lay the foundation. Trump’s close command commission explained that “today, I signed an executive order to dissolve the committee, not cost to taxpayers in the endless war law”, the committee not only by a great number of civil rights groups sued, even being a member of his own.
Why is the court so willing to stand up? The courts are not always doing their duty, even though the federal judiciary is intended to examine officials who disregard constitutional limits. One reason they may now be doing so is that Mr Trump’s contempt for the constitution is actually the court itself. Courts not only defend constitutional rights, but also defend their role in the legal system.
But don’t underestimate the significance of another factor: public opposition to Mr Trump’s move. When public protest, national security officials and major companies joined have challenged the President’s action, and points out that the attorney general to join the chorus of critics, the court is more likely to do their job. Widespread opposition means judges are not isolated.
The Supreme Court has yet to weigh these disputes. It will rule on the current version of the travel ban by the end of June. At the same time, the lower court’s ban on travel bans is not encouraging until it is awaiting review. We will soon find out whether the Supreme Court will act like a lower court, playing a role in the legal guardian of a President who sometimes does not seem to understand the concept.