Byron York nails federal judge James Robart

Posted on by

Who, as it turns out, knows next-to-nothing about the state of immigrants in America.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

by Byron York

James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump‘s executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried.

Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State’s claims. Indeed, for all except the most partisan, it is likely impossible to read the Washington State lawsuit, plus Robart’s brief comments and writing on the matter, plus the Justice Department’s response, and not come away with the conclusion that the Trump order is on sound legal and constitutional ground.

“A judge is just a lawyer who curried favor with a politician.”
— Russell Baker, NYT columnist

True, as you get to become a federal judge by being nominated by a senator from your individual state. In the Ninth DCA, remember, covering California, Oregon and Washington, you’re getting six Demorat senators who are going to do nothing but nominate Demorat judges. Can I get a “duh” from the audience?

Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart’s restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president’s constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment” about risks faced by the United States.

Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?”

“Your Honor, I don’t have that information,” said Bennett.

Who does? Judge Robarts swears he does but he either 1) knows nothing, or 2) simply pulled the figure out from his judicial arse.

“Let me tell you,” said Robart. “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you’re here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

No support for that? ISIS has, in fact, said time after time that it insinuates members into refugee streams throughout all the European nations. The Washington Post throws out a number: 60. Byron York writes about Judge Robart’s ruling:

Now, it turns out Robart might not know as much as he let on. Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest analyzed public sources of information, seeking to learn more about people convicted of terror-related offenses. The Justice Department provided the subcommittee with a list of 580 people who were convicted — not just arrested, but tried and convicted — of terror-related offenses between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2014.

But more specifically:

The subcommittee investigated further and found that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born and that an additional 129 were of unknown origin. Of the 380, there were representatives — at least 60 — from all of the countries on the Trump executive order list. And with 129 unknowns, there might be more, as well.

Byron York continues with his original argument:

Perhaps Robart has been briefed by the intelligence community on conditions in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and the rest. Perhaps Robart has received the President’s Daily Brief. Perhaps not.** In any event, the Justice Department argued — reasonably but not successfully — that it is the president, and not a U.S. District Court judge in the Western District of Washington State, who has the knowledge and the authority to make such decisions.

“Your Honor, I think the point is that because this is a question of foreign affairs, because this is an area where Congress has delegated authority to the president to make these determinations, it’s the president that gets to make the determinations,” Bennett said. “And the court doesn’t have authority to look behind those determinations.”

Again I repeat, at the risk of becoming the Department of Redundancy Dept., President Trump’s authority to primarily do as he did is granted under 8 USC 1182.

Please read the rest of Mr York’s excellent article which essentially states this: a federal judge overstepped his bounds. Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in again and thinks the Ninth District Court of Appeals may just reverse Judge Robart and reinstate the executive order as he believes Washington and Minnesota lack the requisite standing.

Also please see my first post about Trump’s travel stay here, where I go into great detail about the executive order, its roll-out and legality.

Finally, Judge James Robart is an odd-duck cipher; a Bush-appointed Republican who goes askew on strange issues. From BlueLivesMatter.com:

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

by Officer Blue

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

Seattle, Washington – U.S. District Judge James Robart on Monday expressed a strong anti-police bias when dealing with a case involving Seattle police union’s contract negotiations. Judge Robart went on a rant about deadly force statistics against black people and proclaimed, “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart is presiding over a 2012 consent decree requiring the city to adopt reforms to address Department of Justice allegations of biased policing and excessive force. The proposed changes will have a major effect on all union members, including discipline being investigated and determined by non-law enforcement investigators. The changes make it faster and easier to discipline an officer if the public believes that the officer was wrong, whether or not that was actually the case.

Continuing to build an image in his mind of being some sort of folk-hero, Judge Robart went on to say that 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population. Judge Robart then declared that “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart’s rant is actually a perfect example of why law enforcement officers cannot be excluded from the process of disciplining other officers. The statistics on police shootings that Judge Robart cited were completely out of context, and ignore the reasons that shooting occur.

Milo Yiannopoulos talks about immigrants and refugees having destroyed Europe.

I don’t believe Americans or Europeans hate immigrants or immigration. What they do dislike is watching their countries — particularly the EU — being consumed from within by hordes of individuals in such numbers as to almost ensure no assimilation whatsoever. Sadly, it is from the EU that we should learn. Again, thank the Atlantic Ocean.

Bottom line? I believe the law is on President Trump’s side. That does not mean there weren’t visual problems with its roll-out and coordination. And it doesn’t mean that judges don’t have axes to grind or agendas to keep.

One interesting note: the judge in Boston who held for President Trump likely has the Boston Marathon Bombing in the back of his mind, has experienced the reality of close terror and wants to ensure we know whom we’re allowing into our nation.

BZ

P.S.

This is England. This could be the United States — beginning with Michigan — shortly. Remember: “demography is prophecy.”

Wise up, America. Educate yourself about Islam.

Finally, this is President Trump speaking about illegal immigrants and the need to follow the rule of law.

Oh wait, sorry. That was Barack Hussein Obama in 2005. My mistake. A black man can say this about illegal immigration but Caucasoids cannot. A grievous error on my part.

 

 Share

Seattle judge halts Trump immigration stay

Posted on by

Just when you thought the US was beginning to turn and refrain from insisting upon self-implosion, in comes a federal judge to disabuse you of the notion.

From the WSJ.com:

Seattle Judge Used Broad Power to Halt Executive Order

by Ashby Jones and Jacob Gershman

Federal judges don’t often issue nationwide orders, but they have the power to do so

As a U.S. District Judge in Seattle, Judge James L. Robart typically handles federal cases affecting businesses and individuals in the western half of Washington state, an area roughly bordered by the Pacific Ocean in the west and the Cascade Range in the east.

But on Friday, Judge Robart expanded his reach, ordering a halt to President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on immigration and refugees. A federal appeals court early Sunday rejected a request from the Justice Department to immediately reinstate the order, asking for more court filings before it rules on the matter.

The district court ruling applies to the entire country. That makes it broader in scope than others that preceded in recent days. Orders issued in Brooklyn, Alexandria, Va., Boston and elsewhere were mostly “picking apart pieces of the executive order,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Judge Robart’s order halts the Trump directive in its entirety.

Federal judges don’t often issue nationwide orders, but they have the power to do so, legal experts said.

A significant portion of the Bush-appointed federal judge’s ruling (Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-141) revolved around uniformity.

This emphasis on uniformity was key to Judge Robart’s order. He acknowledged the Trump Administration’s argument that any restraining order should be limited to the two plaintiff states — Washington and Minnesota. But Judge Robart rejected the request, concluding that a “partial implementation would undermine the constitutional imperative of a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and Congress’s instruction that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”

Lest we become unhinged like Leftists, let us also recall this.

Judge Robart borrowed language from Brownsville, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who in 2015 issued a nationwide injunction blocking the implementation of Obama administration policies that granted some protection to children of illegal immigrants.

In another high-profile nationwide order, a federal judge in Los Angeles in 2010 issued a nationwide injunction against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which banned openly gay men and women from serving in the military.

However, the opinion does tend to confirm what most of us already suspected: federal courts and judges damned near have absolute and imperial power. There is also another problem with “uniformity rulings.”

Nationwide injunctions have been criticized by legal scholars, who say they can encourage judge-shopping, and imbue a single litigant with outsize power.

“The idea is that you pick a judge who’s friendly, go to court, and stop a big government program before there’s been a trial, or before the judge even has an evidentiary record,” said Mr. Winkler.

Further:

Such orders can raise other complications, too. Other districts are free to make and implement their own nationwide orders, which might conflict with those already on the books.

Partly for that reason, nationwide orders are sometimes put on temporary hold by appeals courts, to stave off uncertainty that might otherwise ensue.

So what were the “interests” considered by Judge Robart in Washington? From ZeroHedge.com:

The DOJ appeal faces an uphill battle: “The Washington suit is so much more broad than anything else we’ve seen because it goes into the economic interests of the parties — that’s a very big development,” Hoffman said of a likely appeal by the federal government. “Appeals of temporary orders occur only in very, very extraordinary measures. I doubt it would be successful.” The reason why Robart was so quick with his decision is because he had the support of some of America’s largest tech companies.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the effects on his state included economic consequences for employers based there, including Microsoft Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. Bellevue, Washington-based Expedia Inc. had about 1,000 customers with flight reservations in or out of the U.S. from the seven countries, he said.  Meanwhile, DOJ lawyer Michelle Bennett, arguing at Friday’s hearing, said the president was acting within the authority granted him by Congress and there was no financial harm to the states. The judge disagreed.

Ponder that for a moment. The judge considered that, because tech companies cannot find a sufficient number of propeller-heads in the United States, they were potentially subject to harm. That is a portion of the basis for his ruling. Because adequate programmers can apparently only source from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya and, for fuck’s sake, Sudan and Somalia?

Doing the logical extension, Robart is intimating that because US universities do not produce a sufficient number of young, qualified technological candidates for today’s computer mechanics and applied science, to refuse Syrian refugees would somehow damage Washington employers? Really? What kind of serious training does it take to yield a barista who knows how to make a machine sound like it’s hocking a loogie into your paper drink cup?

A Boston federal court originally supported Trump but Robart’s decision, being most recent, applies in terms of chronological supremacy.

Map of federal district courts of appeal throughout the United States, by district number.

Here is what will occur: the case will wind itself into the Ninth District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, historically the most leftist federal appeals entity in the Milky Way, to include Andromeda and Orion as well. The 9th is also, historically, the most overturned — at various points up to 90%.

On Sunday, as expected, the Ninth DCA allowed a continuance of Trump’s travel stay suspension. From the WashingtonPost.com:

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

by Matt Zapotosky and Robert Barnes

A federal appeals court on Sunday ruled that President Trump’s controversial immigration order will remain suspended for the time being, allowing those previously banned from coming to the United States at least another day to get here.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit preserves a lower judge’s order to temporarily halt the ban — and based on a schedule the court outlined, the stop will remain in place at least until sometime on Monday. The Justice Department said it would not elevate the dispute to the Supreme Court before that.

Pundits and scholars are united in opining: Sooner or later the issue will have to reach the US Supreme Court.

In the meantime, a number of the suits against the Trump stay have some serious legal problems themselves. From Breitbart.com:

Travesty of Legal Errors in Immigration EO Lawsuit

by Ken Klukowski

Washington and Minnesota’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order (EO) showcases a cavalcade of legal errors.

First, the lawsuit could have been dismissed by the district court (or the court of appeals) in whole or in part for lack of jurisdiction. Second, the district court did not give the required legal reasoning in its order to justify the TRO. Third, the court had no business enjoining the executive order nationwide, instead of just in the two states. But fourth, once the district court issued the TRO, the appeals court had no authority to touch any other aspect of this legal challenge until it reaches the next stage of litigation.

But the please note the following.

The Supreme Court has reiterated countless times that when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in a lawsuit, the only power the court has is to explain why it cannot claim jurisdiction, then dismiss the case.

That’s what should have happened for many of the claims in this lawsuit, rather than taking the extreme step of issuing a TRO.

Which leads to another problem with the TRO: Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to “describe the injury” suffered by the plaintiff. Robart claimed that Washington and Minnesota had carried their burden of showing they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their lawsuit, but never says which ones. The states obviously cannot succeed on a claim they have no standing to raise in the first place. Robart failed to provide the legal reasoning for his decision.

But having made those errors, there is nothing the Justice Department can do until the TRO is superseded by a preliminary injunction (PI). A TRO expires within 14 days of being issued, unless another event overtakes it first.

As indicated prior, there is a fundamental bottom line.

Given the liberal makeup of the Ninth Circuit, however, the Justice Department faces an uphill fight in San Francisco. More likely this issue is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning that President Trump’s EO—and immigration as a whole—could become a major topic of discussion in the confirmation process of the Supreme Court’s incoming ninth justice, Neil Gorsuch.

And therein lies the rub. You see now why holding SCOTUS is critical, absolutely critical for each side of the aisle?

President Trump, of course, does himself and his administration no favors when he fails to keep his mouth shut or his fingers off Twitter. He wrote in response to Robart’s decision in part (above): “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Beyond unendearing yourself to your enemies, similar acts tend to make life more difficult than necessary. President Trump is already beginning to encounter the DC roadblocks that foundational documents term “checks and balances.”

That said, Judge James Robart may be educated but fails to grasp the immediacy and plain text of 8 USC 1182, as well as Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787. He also takes not into consideration the actions of Mr Obama in 2011 and 2015, as well as the immigration drought between roughly 1921/1924 to 1965. On the other hand, truthfully, he is not obligated in any way to do so.

What’s occurring presently is legal blowback from any number of issues, to include the hasty and ill-considered implementation of the order, and the failure to consider the issue of green card visas.

I go back to the topic of SCOTUS and — now — the vastly greater importance of Judge Neil Gorsuch. You can be guaranteed, with no reservations, that Demorats will filibuster the nomination of Gorsuch.

Conversely, any Republican — repeat, ANY Republican — who fails to get his or her arse in line with the nuclear option must be dealt with harshly and without remorse. They must be excised like the worst offensive tick, parasite or invertebrate.

Here is why: with Gorsuch uninstalled or stalled, the Supreme Court remains impaneled at the eight count. It is easy to foresee a straight split on the issue — four pro and four con.

When that happens, the lower court ruling stands.

BZ

 

 Share

BZ and website advertising

Posted on by

Four windows that wouldn’t let me shut them down, displayed on just one “conservative” website. I had to completely shut down my computer in order to extricate myself.

Let me make myself clear up front.

BloviatingZeppelin.net is not monetized and will not be monetized.

I don’t take ads, I don’t ask for ads, I won’t accept ads. I own the domain name, I own the website and, further, I personally fund three other websites for like-minded individuals. You don’t need to know who they are. They know who they are. I also funded the SHR Media Network to the tune of four digits just last year.

Let me be blunt — because you expect it of me.

When you provide some kind of link in social media, Twitter, whatever, and I click to travel to your site, I expect to see your site. The new trend now is to substitute middle-man site monetizers who demand you wait five seconds before you reach the site you clicked. In the meantime two or three or four confusing windows emerge.

Many others also now throw additional windows at you threatening your computer, your ad blocker, your mother, your first-born female child, your pet salamander named Biff. They attempt to make you think you have a virus, and they throw — again and again — pop-up windows against you requiring outside clicks or simply abandoning those sites.

When you threaten Biff, then, I’ve had it. Your site can go to hell. A loving message to those of you who use advertising middle-men? Stop it.

When I see a “middle-man” SKIP AD page displayed, I simply click OUT.

You want to encounter insanity? Click on this, for instance. Good luck. Let me know how pleased you were with the results. And that is from a “conservative” site.

And why is it that I see the same lame ads on all the same sites? Does no one possess imagination any more? Is anyone besides me tired of seeing the close-up of the person with crap under their eyes? Links to sites that make you click through one advert-clogged page after another in order to get to what lured you in the first place — is your ass not tired of this?

Enough with the advert click-bait bullshit. I’m not going there any more. I am done.

Any roadblock you place between myself and your site will result in my leaving, whether you’re conservative or not. I also advocate each and every person reading this post to leave as well.

The MOMENT you are DIVERTED from a site, you should click OUT.

Repeat:

The MOMENT you are DIVERTED from a site, you should click OUT.

OUT.

You wonder why people have ad blockers, like myself?

I now LOVE ad-blockers.

BZ

 

 Share

Berkeley riots: how many arrests from local cops?

Posted on by

As a result of the riots on the UC Berkeley, California campus Wednesday night, were there hundreds of resulting arrests? Fifty arrests? Thirty arrests? Ten arrests? Five arrests? How about this: one arrest. Few news outlets are even asking if there were arrests. Most news organizations are mentioning — purposely I submit — nothing about arrests. How do I know there was only one arrest? Because I telephoned the Alameda County jail and other associated numbers on Thursday and finally found a rushed bureaucrat who gave me that statistic. This was later confirmed on Friday by the American Media Maggots, or AMM. One arrest.

What about this from CampusReform.org? Paid cops who couldn’t perform their jobs.

We paid over $6,000 for over 100 police officers to ensure our constitutional right to free speech—as well as Milo Yiannopoulos—were protected, but all this was for naught.

Again: my opinion, I do not know this for a fact, but I go by what I term the “logical extension” and past history — I’ll wager the UC Berkeley campus police got a phone call from a “university administrator” (Janet Napolitano?) to its chief and the message was relayed from there to the watch commander, the Lieutenant then to the various Sergeants in the organization: stand down. Yes, there were riot-clad police present. But they stood by. I suspect Berkeley PD also received a telephone call and likewise stood down but eventually someone had to do their job and provide a token arrest.

One arrest. After hundreds of protesters rioted, lighted fires, burned trees and property, smashed windows. Sounds like a good idea to just stand by and watch the fun, eh wot? That’s how your local bay area law enforcement values the property and civil rights of taxpayers.

[As an aside, remember that it is Janet Napolitano who stated in January that she would continue to defy immigration laws by making the UC system “sanctuary campuses.” Milo Yiannopoulos was planning to use his Wednesday UC Berkeley speech to call for the withdrawal of federal funds from sanctuary campuses, such as UC Berkeley.] 

Free speech on UC campuses any more? Surely you jest. No such thing. Not there, and not on major campuses nationally.

Would you be shocked to know it is a UC Berkeley “researcher” who states the police always provoke violence at protests anyway? It’s never the protesters fault, you see.

Further, SFPD, the San Francisco Police Department, now says it won’t be coordinating any more with the FBI. From Breitbart.com:

Rebel San Francisco P.D. Cuts Ties with FBI on Counterterrorism

by AWR Hawkins

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is ending its coorperation with FBI counterterrorism efforts as part of the city’s larger rejection of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

On January 31, Breitbart News reported that San Francisco Police Chief William Scott, Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, and Mayor Ed Lee sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security informing them that city would not comply with the order.

The SFPD is now cutting ties with the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), because it would couple SFPD officers with federal agents in carrying out the requirements of the immigration order.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the JTTF was formed in 2007,  “when the police force entered into an agreement with the FBI that authorized intelligence-gathering by San Francisco officers of people engaged in First Amendment activities such as religious services, protests and political assemblies.”

Opponent of Trump’s order — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding operation –sent a letter to the San Francisco officials in January, asking them to adhere to “city and state rules” when working with the federal government.

So SFPD did. Not shocking, since I’ve already written about the SFPD being gutless cowards.

Political correctness has now officially infiltrated our police departments, most certainly on the Left Coast and in Fornicalia. As a retired law enforcement officer of 41 years I am disgusted and sickened. The non-actions of the two “involved” law enforcement agencies is reprehensible. They dishonor their badges and their oaths. I am now actually beginning to wonder: can you truly count on Fornicalia law enforcement having the backs of taxpayers?

Anarchy is not unheard-of at the UC Berkeley campus, of course. Let’s hearken back to 1969 under then-Governor Ronald Reagan. One rioter was killed and a police officer was stabbed in the chest with a knife.

As a result of the riots in Berkeley this past Wednesday night, damage is estimated at $100,000 or more, to also include a damaged Starbucks shop which, honestly, I find highly ironical since Starbucks is a backer of most any half-cocked Leftist scheme and swears it will hire 10,000 refugees for its stores — instead of, for example, homeless veterans who oddly enough happen to desperately need jobs themselves.

For further illustration, here is an NYU professor — as she readily admits — going frothingly berserk in front of NYPD officers at a Gavin McInnes event at NYU. McInnes is a Libertarian and co-founder of VICE, a lovely little Leftist news organization that recently emerged with its own news channel on cable. Apparently the Antifa** rioters and protesters utterly failed to realize the background of McInnes. And these are supposed to be the “best and brightest” young persons in the country? FAIL.

From Breitbart.com, concerning the McInnes speech at NYU.

Four Arrested at Gavin McInnes Event as Antifa Protesters Become Violent

by Charlie Nash

Four people were arrested at a New York University event where libertarian commentator and VICE co-founder Gavin McInnes delivered a speech, after “anti-fascist” protesters started to become violent and throw punches.

Following a fight, which started after protesters started to assault McInnes as he entered the venue and ended in a stolen Make America Great Again hat being set on fire, protesters followed McInnes into the venue and attempted to disrupt his show with chants.

“The NYU Anti-Fascists organized the event on Facebook titled ‘Disrupt Gavin McInnes at NYU’,” reported Pix 11, however unlike the riot that anti-fascists started during Breitbart Senior Editor MILO’s show at UC Berkeley on Wednesday, New York police intervened and managed to prevent a large-scale incident from taking place.

Protesters made chants of “get out of here you Nazi scum,” at McInnes, and “hurled expletives at police,” and others who attempted to either enter the venue or keep students and attendees safe.

This tends to prove, as I pointed out above, that NYPD is primarily a professional law enforcement organization which knows how to conduct itself and keep people safe, setting up skirmish lines and making arrests, plural — as opposed to the UC Berkeley Police and the city of Berkeley Police Department, who have proven themselves to be nothing more than the timorous law un-enforcement arm of Leftist regimes and jurisdictions in Fornicalia. With purpose. Dancing at the ends of strings pulled by their Leftist Masters.

This will be the “new normal” around the nation. Free speech is moribund, and Leftists, anarchists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots all want it so.

Again I say, laughingly — because Leftists, Demorats, anarchists and the American Media Maggots are turning out to be such complicit, spittle-frothing boobs — please keep it all up.

Day by day you are doing three things: 1) Proving your further irrelevance; 2) Ensuring President Trump will be in place until 2024, and 3) Allowing the GOP to keep both the House and the Senate following mid-terms in two years.

You blubbering, simpering cretins.

All my love,

BZ

P.S.

**    “Antifa” is the name for “anti-fascists,” a loose collection of motley anarchist mongrels wearing black clothing and masks, too cowardly to allow themselves to be seen as, now, everyone has a camera and makes video at every event in the nation.

 

 

 Share