patrick.net

This is a Dred Scott-like decision that will lead to further division in the country and the perception (rightly in this case) that the courts are now the de facto government. It seems the argument for having standing (WA) is of the cost of UW visas and the impact to the university system (how I am reading the decision). So, not letting holders back into the country hurt the UW. This type of argument can be made for literally any reason: don't go to war, Mr. President, because it may impact "something" - whatever the court decides. In fact, it is hard to see how the government can exact any immigration controls that cannot be dictated by the court. No deference to the executive branch anymore.

Dred Scott decision was really the root cause of the civil war as the parity between free and slave states was essentially eliminated by (1) saying the slaves were property and you don't lose property by moving from one state to another and (2) therefore property has no standing and cannot bring an action. This completely upset the political balance as slavers started to move in to the western states that were intended to be free or determined by popular sovereignty (below line). It overturned in every essential way the Missouri compromise and eventually enflamed the Republican party toward an uncompromising strict abolitionist view (ironically, not Lincoln so much as Seward, etc...). In retrospect, it was a great decision (not by the design of the court), but it lead the war and to the freeing of the slaves, which was a true abomination.

I wonder if Trump would defy this and who would back him? He is a populist - and there is hardly any doubt that he doesn't have much support from the political elites in either party. He moved WAY to fast on this with bad lawyers. So much for knowing how to hire the best and brightest. I wonder also if he will take this to the SC or if he won't do that because a decision against him would set a bad precedent.

krc says

(rightly in this case) that the courts are now the de facto government.

Do the courts sign laws into being? Do they actively enforce laws in America? No.

This is a check on the executive acting in a very legislative like capacity. You can disagree with the ruling, but this is an American government working, not failing.

The court didn't magically overreach here. It is doing exactly what it was built for. It probably FEELS like it is doing something wrong, or incorrect, in the face of the desire for the current movement Trump embodies in authoritarian nationalist populism. "I alone can fix it". No you cannot Trump. You must work with others to fix it. It's how it was designed.

Ask yourself, really if this was 'in the wrong' you think Trump would be back to re-drafting the EO?

krc says

This type of argument can be made for literally any reason
argument for having standing (WA) is of the cost of UW visas and the impact to the university system (how I am reading the decision)

You can read it in full. This wasn't solely about university students or for "any reason". I'm sure you watched the news and saw just who got caught up in this slap dash rollout of the hasty order.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

The summation was essentially this:
"Nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay."
"how would the “national interest” be determined, who would make that determination, and when?"
"We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay."