Ninth Circuit upholds Washington judge’s ruling

Above, 9th DCA judges Richard Clifton, William Canby, Michelle Friedland.

The Ninth District Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco has just affirmed the ruling of Judge James Robart in the state of Washington regarding President Trump’s immigrant/refugee travel stay. That means the Trump travel stay has been held as unconstitutional and overturned.

From the NYPost.com:

Federal appeals court rules against Trump’s travel ban

by Bob Fredericks and Daniel Halper

A federal appeals court on Thursday unanimously upheld a judge’s order that slammed the brakes on President Trump’s temporary refugee and immigration ban.

The stunning 3-0 ruling by the 9th Circuit court of Appeals in San Francisco means the travel ban — which caused chaos and massive protests at airports across the US— won’t take effect.

The president responded with a tweet, promising to challenge the ruling.

“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Trump said.

The case will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

The three judges who heard the government’s appeal of the order were Democratic appointees William Canby and Michelle Friedland and GOP appointee Richard Clifton.

On one hand I am surprised it took the 9th quite some time to craft its opinion. On the other hand, the opinion is completely in keeping with the Leftist nature of the court itself.

As you recall, it was lower-court Judge James Robart in the state of Washington who temporarily halted the stay after stating that Washington and Minnesota were likely to win their case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base.

The unanimous decision means that the case either goes to the Supreme Court or back to Robart’s court.

The full text of the Ninth Circuit’s decision can be found here.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian organization that filed an appeals court brief in support of Trump’s ban, said:

This decision is disappointing and clearly puts our nation in grave danger. The fact is that President Trump clearly has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue this order. It is clear: radical Islamic terrorists are at war with America. President Trump’s order is a proper and constitutional way to protect America.

Jessica Levinson, law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said:

It’s really important that the opinion is unanimous because judges that were appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents came to the same legal conclusion. This is probably going to the Supreme Court, but I don’t think it’s going anywhere good for Donald Trump — even if the Supreme Court rules along party lines and is deadlocked, because the lower court’s decision would stand.

A portion of the Ninth’s opinion read:

To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides.

Nevertheless we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.

I submit that a great deal on insight can be gleaned by listening to the tone and tenor of the three Ninth Circuit judges as illustrated here, making one wonder: were the arguments of the government cogent or had they not considered their audience?

It is no surprise that Demorats and Leftists nation-wide are thrilled to no end by the decision and will use it as a rallying cry to continue to obstruct President Trump and his administration on every level.

Apparently 8 USC 1182 makes little difference to federal courts as I wrote in my post here.

Additionally, have courts forgotten about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the:

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate.

Who last utilized this act? That would be Demorat President Jimmy Carter in 1979, 38 years ago, in order to specifically keep Iranians out of the United States. It would seem to me that application by Carter, according to the Ninth Circuit, focuses on a specific country and a specific religion. Not illegal then? Why not?

Carter did more. He made all Iranian students who were already in the United States, check in with the government. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979. Not illegal then? Why not?

I should care to point out that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an “applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”

Doing what I call the “logical extension,” would it not be reasonable to conclude that since the Koran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, all Muslims should be refused immigration to country? Just asking.

The argument provided by Judge Robart in his Washington opinion stated that refugees had essentially committed no acts of violence or terror in the US. Other than being a naked lie issued from an individual who is educated but apparently has learned little and lives in a bubble, I should also care to point out a sampling of such attacks in the US:

  • Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan went on a jihadi stabbing rampage at Ohio State.
  • In 2016, an Iraqi refugee Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan was accused of planning to bomb a local mall in Texas.
  • In September 2016, a Somali-Kenyan immigrant named Dahir Adan went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
  • Somali refugee Mohamed Osman Mohamed was arrested for planning to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon back in 2010.
  • In 2012, Abdullatif Ali Aldosary, an Iraqi refugee, bombed a Social Security Office in Arizona.
  • Two Iraqi refugees were convicted for having aided Al-Qaeda in Iraq in killing American servicemen. These so-called “refugees,” lied on their applications, and as proof that the screening process is ineffective, were allowed entry without issue.
  • Both Boston Bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, were asylum-seekers fleeing Russia and living in Kyrgyzstan before entering the United States.

Everyone also conveniently forgets — Demorats and the federal courts in particular, that following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror:

SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

This once more profoundly illustrates the critical need to confirm the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch as a SCOTUS associate justice because, likely, this case and others will end there.

A final note: any 4-to-4 tie in the Supreme Court now does nothing more than uphold the decision of the applicable appeals court.

The US Constitution is not a proverbial suicide pact. We have the right to determine just who enters the country, as becoming a citizen is a privilege and not a right.

It is too early to fear. It is time, however, to continue to redouble our conservative efforts.

You can be assured the Demorats, Leftists and anarchists will.

BZ

 

16 thoughts on “Ninth Circuit upholds Washington judge’s ruling

  1. I have a question here. What will the courts do if PRESIDENT TRUMP ignores them? What if he continues blocking potential terrorists from coming in from the list of countries created by obama? Last I checked, Trump is the PRESIDENT, and they are…..well judges. Trump is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world and these guys wear black dresses.

    What Trump was asking for was NOT over the top unrealistic. It was not a permanent ban. You can be sure of this. Since the left is showing NO SIGNS of be flexible at all, that President Trump will in no way whatsoever, compromise with them later on when he has the high ground. Of course, they will whine about not coming together, not reaching across the aisle and so on.

    Hey, you assholes started this crap. What with jamming up every confirmation hearing and now this. There is no compromising with the left. And so, I am sure that from here on out, President Trump will be making sure that in the future, he will NOT include the left, and will ensure that his plans will be fool-proof so that they will not be able to throw a wrench into the works.

    What is it they say about payback? It’s a what?

    • Let me state this unequivocally. Power is held truly by those who hold power. Who holds power?

      Our military and our law enforcement.

      Some piece of shit doddering black-robed imbecile doesn’t hold power. Power is held by sheer force of will or hammered metal.

      In terms of this country, can you get your military to fight law enforcement particularly in light of the fact that most of your national guard sources from active law enforcement?

      What’s the bottom line?

      THAT’S the bottom line.

      BZ

  2. Am with you dekare. Pres Trump should hold a press conference and tell the folks that by the ruling the 9th Circuit made on his EO is threatening the security of the nation. With that he should state that his actions were within the bounds of the Constitution and the ruling by the court will be ignored. The left can then run in circles and scream and shout. 9th Circuit is powerless to enforce that ruling if Trump doesn’t want to comply. We need an Andy Jackson moment right now.

    • That’s right, Andrew Jackson on the Indian settlement issue. They Supreme court ruled against him, and after that, Jackson stated, “Now let them enforce it”. They could not, and Jackson went ahead and did what he wanted anyway.

      Of course, the whole Indian thing was a black stain on America, but it’s the point that the courts do NOT run this country. The courts do NOT make the laws (as ms. sotomyer would have us believe). The president has privileged information that these judges do not. They do not have the luxury of knowing what the president knows.

      Imagine the legal dept telling the CEO how to run the company. They can advise, but in the end, the President rules supreme, as long as he is within the confines of the law. These judges are basing their decisions on feelings, and stretching the issue to make it look like law. The fact is, President Trump is in the right.

      • Oh, you mean Sotomayor the Racist, who refers to herself as a “wise latina”? What if, say, Kennedy referred to himself as a “wise white man”?

        BZ

    • Ah, now that makes good decision making, holding a rifle! it certainly helps to interpret the constitution….and, I guess if they have not only held but fired a rifle it is even better!

      • Did they serve? How have they served? Are they familiar with the intimacy of the 2nd? Or have they sought to live in the bubble which protects them every day, apart from the rest of the United States? You forget, I protected judges. I know who they are and how they live, how they’re treated, how they act, what they expect.

        BZ

    • I doubt any of them has stood a watch, or been in countries under despotic rule and talked to the people living there.
      I’m fed up with legislating from the bench, changing things as liberals see fit. What happened to the Rule of Law?

  3. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was ignored completely… And 9th circus has an 80% OVERTURN rate… And they know it… It will be interesting to see what direction Sessions takes in this fight.

  4. Trump is going to post another Travel Ban next week, but doesn’t want to announce it yet.
    He doesn’t want to give America’s enemies advance notice.
    So they can’t rule against him early.

  5. Okay, here is the way to settle this. Since it appears that the plaintiffs were Seattle and San Francisco, and it is only these places that are being harmed by the lack of immigrants, then any and all immigrants that come in from those 7 regions, get sent immediately to those cities. They are then forced to stay there and cannot leave.

    Problem solved.

Comments are closed.