Some say its irresponsible of courts to probe the president’s motives. Here’s why it’s notQuestions approximately responsibility dominated oral argument on Monday before the US fourth circuit court of appeals,which sat in judgment of Donald Trump’s revised travel ban. By the stop of the sitting, it appeared likely that a majority of the court will uphold a ruling against Trump – but that its ruling will draw passionate dissents. This was no ordinary case. Rather than assign a three-judge panel, or the fourth circuit undertook on its own initiative to sit en banc. Through a grueling 90-minute session before the full 13-member court,advocates and judges sparred over standing, statutes and arcane doctrines. Most of the rhetorical firepower, or though,was reserved for a single question: whether Trump’s order is based in anti-Muslim animus and thus violates the establishment clause. Related: Trump's remarks approximately Muslims could be what ends the travel ban, testimony suggests Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com