The 9th Circus turned judicial precedent upside down to uphold the lower court improper ruling on the temporary entry restrictions.
They failed to cite the Constitution, which explicitly grants the Executive Branch power over immigration. They failed to cite or address the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act which further defines the power of the Executive Branch over immigration and entry. They failed to cite the 2015 SCOTUS ruling on Hussein's EO covering the exact same seven nations that upholds the authority of the Executive to control immigration and entry. They erroneously expanded Constitutional protections to non-citizens outside U.S. jurisdiction. They held or implied a strict scrutiny standard of review to a national security and explicitly authorized Executive Branch action that did not impact actual Constitutionally protected rights instead of the appropriate rational basis test. And, they applied the standard of review for a TRO completely backwards requiring the gov't show irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits in order to defend the EO, not on the plaintiff to show that in being granted the TRO.
It's an abhorrent ruling by any legal standard. Based upon any one of the above, that ruling should never have happened and should be quickly set aside by an en banc panel or the SCOTUS. Had it been written by even a first year law student on a Constitutional law exam, that student would have failed the course and rightfully so.
Yet, and would this not be a delicious irony, the equally abhorrent ObamaCare ruling by the SCOTUS may be the final dagger that overturns the 9ths insanity. How and why?
In King v. Burwell, Roberts twisted logic into a pretzel and came out with a gem that mandated the SCOTUS must interpret the governmental action in a way that is consistent with what the government says was the intended goal of the action. That's judicial deference to a degree that - in the case of ObamaCare - literally rewrote the act and defied even the text of the act and any rational understanding of provisions (calling a tax something other than a tax in order to have it not be a tax and therefore Constitutional) in order to uphold the government action. He goes even further to expound upon why, even when the text and language of the act is plain - and the "plain meaning test" has been one applied for a LONG, LONG time by the SCOTUS - that the SCOTUS has to twist to application in context in order to uphold the government action if the plain meaning alone would be violative of the Constitution. Think about that for a second...
In this instance, the plain meaning of the Constitution is clear: the Executive branch has the authority to control immigration and entry. The plain meaning of the 1952 INA is clear: Congress specifically authorizes the POTUS and the Executive branch to take actions exactly as they have just taken. The plain meaning of the 2015 SCOTUS ruling is clear: the POTUS has the authority to take actions exactly like those just taken. And, even if the actions taken did not have all that plain meaning support, the SCOTUS - under the precedent of King v. Burwell has to bend over backwards to interpret the governmental action in such a way as to uphold, or even rewrite, it in deference to the Executive branch action.
Watching Roberts and the SCOTUS try to get themselves out of that Gordian knot will be interesting.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
