The bases for judicial interpretation are aspects of legal philosophy that judges hold and about which they debate ad nauseam. For example, originalism is a legal theory of judicial interpretation that Antonin Scalia publicly espoused, asserting that the text of the Constitution always be interpreted the same way it was originally intended when written. Structuralism, on the other hand, involves judges determining how a ruling fits into the grand scheme of the Constitution in its entirety.
Clearly, even judges do not agree on what the proper way to interpret the Constitution is. This is why not every appellate court judge did what Seattle Justice James Robart did, suspending President Trump’s temporary travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries. Though the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Robart’s ruling, it is clear that judges do not agree on the constitutionality of the ban. A left-wing op-ed written by Jerry Iannelli of Miami New Times strongly insinuates that Perry’s and Gonzalez’s resolutions are a reaction to the 9th Circuit’s challenge of President Trump’s travel ban, but no evidence has surfaced to corroborate such claims.
