3
3
0
In the most recent opinion of the Supreme Court, they address the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's opinion from May 25 on Trump's EO-2, §2(c). The lower court's opinion that led them to decide as they did was that:
"A reasonable observer familiar with all the circumstances—including the predominantly Muslim character of the designated countries and statements made by President Trump during his Presidential campaign—would conclude that §2(c) was motivated principally by a desire to exclude Muslims from the United States, not by considerations relating to national security"
Thus making it a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Assuming the Supreme Court finds the respondent has standing, what do you think of this argument?
Do you think a reasonable observer would conclude this is government preference towards religion?
"A reasonable observer familiar with all the circumstances—including the predominantly Muslim character of the designated countries and statements made by President Trump during his Presidential campaign—would conclude that §2(c) was motivated principally by a desire to exclude Muslims from the United States, not by considerations relating to national security"
Thus making it a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Assuming the Supreme Court finds the respondent has standing, what do you think of this argument?
Do you think a reasonable observer would conclude this is government preference towards religion?
16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Posted from supremecourt.gov
Supreme Court
Law
Constitution
Republicans
Democrats
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
5
5
0
2LT (Join to see) I think that the decision was an attempt by the lower courts to hold the line of the liberals who appointed them. I think there should be a penalty for obviously politically motivated rulings...
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I think a reasonable observer familiar with all the circumstances - including those nations' inability to properly vet their citizens and provide reliable documentation on them, and the predominance of terrorist support from within those nations...would conclude that the President was fulfilling or attempting to fulfill his primary duty to protect the people of the United States.
(5)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz Those were my thoughts as well when it stated "familiar with all the circumstances". After all, EO-2 did provide those foreign governments a way to get off the list.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2LT (Join to see) Very interesting. Definitely something to watch when the court hears the case next session.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google