General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy don't major executive orders get run through the courts first before they are implemented?
So Trump is going to do another revised "Muslim ban". The first one was a fucking mess! All kinds of good people had no idea what they were headed into and it turned out to be in-constitutional. So can he just put out another piece of shit, fuck up a bunch of lives and then have it possibly get turned over again? Not sure the founders thought this through completely or we just have a fucking idiot not using common sense and perhaps himself checking with the courts first.
elleng
(130,908 posts)there is no 'case or controversy' to present to the courts.
Quixote1818
(28,936 posts)homework before doing something so far reaching. Unfortunately we have a fucking dick head at the wheel who doesn't think anything through and doesn't care if innocent people are hurt.
elleng
(130,908 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,702 posts)marybourg
(12,631 posts)to have a case or controversy in front of them in order to make a judgment.
Also - the executive power rests with the President, not the courts. Usually referred to as separation of powers
meadowlander
(4,395 posts)But the policy can't be "run through the courts" if it doesn't exist yet. To go through the courts there have to be affected parties.
The issue is that Trump has 30 year old pinheads writing policies and then can't be bothered to wait for consultation, legal review or to forewarn affected agencies before he scrawls his black mess of a signature all over them.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Granted, they should be run past competent legal counsel before being signed, but even then if they violate case or controversy they move to the courts.
It's that whole "checks and balances" thing.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,702 posts)and they won't get involved in a legal question prematurely. It's called the doctrine of "ripeness."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness
There would also have to be identifiable plaintiffs who have suffered actual, identifiable harm. In the case involving the State of Washington, the WA AG had to show that his state was actually being harmed by the exclusion of certain immigrants, causing injury to state universities and students. Some of the cases in other federal courts were brought by individuals who were legal residents and had been unable to return to the US. So you have to have plaintiffs with standing.
There are supposed to be lawyers who review these things before they are issued; in normal administrations that would happen routinely. But you can't go to court to object to an EO that hasn't even been issued and is therefore not ripe for adjudication. There's no case to decide.
Wounded Bear
(58,656 posts)and the Attorney General, and the Sec of DHS, and the Sec of State are for.
A real president checks with his staff that is supposed to let him know when he's off the reservation. Not much of that in the current WH.
AJT
(5,240 posts)Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)If he will ignore advice and guidance on it again and the lawyers will be ill-equipped to defend it. Also it is taking longer than initially stated. Could there be an actual review of it or more fighting over what to specifically include in it?