Alan Delsitz said on Friday that he placed emphasis on Fox Business in the ongoing battle between the government’s executive branch and the Judiciary branch, and that President Donald Trump now has the legal authority to ignore certain injunctions issued by the Free Judge.
When he appeared in “The Evening Edit,” Dershowitz responded to the judiciary overreach and discussed two potential paths the Trump administration could take. Dershowitz said individual judges cannot impose such drastic restrictions on presidential actions.
“There are two things that can happen. One can be that the administration goes before these judges and say, “Look, I’ll retract your opinion. You’re violating the Supreme Court now.” That’s one of the possibilities I could advise.
Dershowitz said the US has witnessed a growing conflict between justice and enforcement, and Trump is pushing the boundaries of presidential authorities more than his predecessor since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
clock:
“It is true, they control the particular litigators in the case, but the Supreme Court said that a single justice, that the judges have no authority to bind the government, so we are not going to be bound by them.
Dershowitz said it’s not surprising that Democrats oppose the executives, but it’s important to remember that just because one branch believes that executives are beyond constitutional power, it doesn’t justify justice beyond justice. (Related: Alan Dershowitz says he is confident of how the Supreme Court will control the awakened curriculum and parental rights cases)
“So it’s not surprising that Democrats respond by pushing the envelope. But just because they think they’ve surpassed constitutional power doesn’t mean that jurisdiction should not exceed jurisdiction. Both branches of the government must remain within the limits of constitutional constraints,” Dershowitz said. “That’s what the separation of power, check and balance means. So this is a very good decision.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the majority of decisions pose an existential threat to the rule of law, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett refuted, Jackson’s position makes even solid defenders of judicial hegemony.
“We don’t get too attached to Judge Jackson’s arguments that are conflicting with precedents of more than two centuries, not to mention the constitution itself,” Barrett wrote in a majority opinion. “We’ll only observe this: Judge Jackson accepts imperial judiciary and reduces the number of imperial leaders.”
CASA, Inc. , immigration advocacy organization, Submit The lawsuit against Trump’s executive order terminates birthright citizenship and says the order violates the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Trump’s orders sought to end the automatic citizenship of children born in the United States from undocumented immigrants.
The case focused on whether the Supreme Court should block a national district court injunction against the order. The court made a split decision, with six conservative judges watching alongside Trump, and three liberal judges upheld Casa, Inc.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan newswire service that is free to use for legitimate news publishers that can provide large audiences. All republished articles must include logos, reporter signatures and DCNF affiliation. For questions regarding our guidelines or partnerships with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
