Haven't read the other dissent yet.
Let us know what you find. And please, do take a look into those who supported it as well. It seems like good intellectual hygiene.
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States
would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States, he may by proclamation, and for such period
as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonim-
migrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any re-
strictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
This is already federal law. The majority didn't need to legislate to arrive at the obvious conclusion.
You seem to be rather naive as to the complexity of legal language. There are two red flags in this short section which mark the obvious necessity of informed interpretation of legal language to prevent A) presidential overreach, and B) pure silliness.
For A, what constitutes a presidential finding? Is it a whim, or does it require reasoning, context, and even a superficial attempt to explain the why and how? If Trump gets it in his head, tomorrow, that people from Canada constitute a threat due to his trade war can he, unilaterally and without reasoning, ban Canadians from entering? Must it be considered in light of other existing laws and statutes, and must there be any explanation whatsoever of the expected benefit? You present this federal law as if it is read, understood, and that's that. That's not how the law works. A large part of the purpose of these courts is to do precisely what they're doing - interpret a law like this. Of course, if one looks at an experienced judge in the highest court of the country and dismisses their expertise and knowledge as just "legislating from the bench" then I guess the idea of tossing out the interpretability of a law is quite easy...
As for B, well, that's simple. All of the pronouns in this passage are "he." What if Hillary had won? I guess this law wouldn't apply to them? Is that reasonable? Of course not - because obviously, we interpret the law. It's not some word of God from on high, its meaning self evident because it is the living word of a divine being. We need qualified people to read it through and say "
No, there is some wiggle room here, and it allows for ____." What a trouble state we are in where the most qualified interpreters in the country and dismissed out of hand by regular Joes because all they're doing is "
legislating from the bench"!...
