"The 9th Circuit was not interested in evidence ,prior Supreme Court decisions nor the law passed by Congress."
That makes no sense - if they weren't interested in evidence, why did they ask for it? If the administration had evidence it felt would bolster its case, why didn't they present it? I'm really not sure that this list exists - Trump has been absolutely silent about it, and he would normally be all over something like that.
The right of the courts to review anything done by the executive branch in light of the Constitution was established in 1803 (Marbury v Madison). The Executive branch cannot now claim that its actions are unreviewable just because a statute says he can do something - the statute itself is reviewable if challenged in court, and could be struck down. Laws get rejected by the courts, either in part or in full, every year.
In this case, the appeals court found only that there was no reason to lift the temporary restraining order until the merits of the case could be argued - they did not rule on whether or not the ban was constitutional. If the merits are argued, that statute you cite will probably come under judicial review.
The idea that the President can do whatever he wants to do unchecked is not the way this country works. EVERYTHING he does, if challenged in federal court, can be reviewed in light of the Constitution. That's the basic difference between a dictatorship and a democratic republic. |
