Why Judge Robart Blocked the Muslim Ban-Theres no constitutional way to implement an unconstitution

[babylonsister]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/02/why_judge_robart_blocked_trump_s_muslim_ban.html

Why Judge Robart Blocked the Muslim Ban

There’s no constitutional way to implement an unconstitutional order.
By Mark Joseph Stern


It’s over—for now. On Friday night, U.S. District Judge James Robart blocked the entirety of Donald Trump’s de facto Muslim ban from taking effect. His extraordinary ruling, which applies nationwide, froze all relevant provisions of the executive order, finding a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in challenging the legality of the ban. That plaintiff was Washington state, which obtained standing to sue by demonstrating that the order would harm the state’s interests and residents. Just two weeks into Trump’s presidency, a progressive state has already succeeded in thwarting—at least temporarily—a huge part of his cruelest agenda.

Why did Robart rule so broadly? In his time on the bench, Robart has demonstrated a deep commitment to facts—the real ones, not the alternative ones—and the impact of the law on actual lives. A George W. Bush appointee, his jurisprudence shows no obvious partisanship, and his evenhanded courtroom demeanor suggests a commitment to fairness and impartiality. Before Friday, Robart was best known for overseeing a consent decree between the Justice Department and Seattle. This process reached a stalemate in 2016, when the Seattle police union rejected a proposed contract on the grounds that it didn’t reward officers with enough benefits in exchange for complying with the Constitution. Robart put negotiations back on track by sternly censuring the police union.

snip//

That decision marks a huge step forward in the ongoing litigation over the executive order. Robart recognized that it is not just the ban’s immediate application to immigrants in transit that violates the Constitution; it is the ban as a whole. Even if the administration were to somehow execute the ban in a way that respects its targets’ due-process rights, it would still run afoul of basic equal protection and First Amendment principles. Simply put, there is no constitutional way to implement an unconstitutional order. That is the upshot of Robart’s ruling. And it is the argument that civil-liberties advocates must make as they continue to clobber the ban in court.

[manicraven]

1. Love this sentence--it's refreshing in the tRump era of continual lies...

Robart has demonstrated a deep commitment to facts—the real ones, not the alternative ones—and the impact of the law on actual lives.

[Sherman A1]

2. K&R

[leanforward]

3. there is no constitutional way . . .

Thank you your Honor.