Following an unsatisfactory ruling by Judge Robart in the state of Washington and an equally dissatisfying opinion from the Night District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, analyses have to be made and new plans created.
The Ninth and Robart’s court essentially gave due process rights to people in Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Iran. People outside this country possess no constitutional rights whatsoever. Additionally, despite that, 77% of refugees arriving in the US since the travel stay suspension have been from those seven enumerated countries. One-third of that 77% are from Syria alone.
Even Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is telling us the obvious.
9th Circuit court’s coup d’etat flouts immigration law, precedent
BY DR. JOHN C. EASTMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 02/10/17 02:20 PM EST
Like it or not, Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States on Nov. 8, 2016, and sworn into office on Jan. 20, 2017. He won the election, in significant part, because he promised to enforce our nation’s immigration laws more vigorously and to enhance significantly the vetting of refugees and other aliens seeking admission to the United States, in order to ensure to the extent possible that terrorists were not coming to our shores.
Nevertheless, there is now a concerted effort by many on the left (and even some on the “Never Trump” right) to block President Trump at every turn in order to prevent him from implementing the agenda on which he was elected.
For instance, according to FoxNews.com:
As of Wednesday, Trump was still waiting on confirmation for 10 of his 15 Cabinet nominees. By this time in 2001, then-President George W. Bush had his entire Cabinet confirmed. Then-President Barack Obama was just three short of a full Cabinet on Feb. 8, 2009.
Senate Republican leaders asserted this week that — based on numbers provided by the Partnership for Public Service, Plum Book, and Congress.gov — Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point in the presidency of any incoming president since George Washington.
Continuing with Dr Eastman:
Regrettably, that effort now seems to include using the courts to achieve political ends that could not be achieved through the electoral process.
The 9th Circuit’s order upholding Judge Robart’s nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) is nearly as bereft of legal analysis as was the original TRO.
For example, in determining whether Trump was likely to succeed on the merits, one might have expected some discussion of the relevant statute that unambiguously gives the president the authority to do what he did here (and what President Carter, in response to the Iranian take-over of our embassy in Tehran, did back in 1979).
That statute, Section 1182(f) of Title 8, provides:
“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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restriction he may deem to be appropriate.”
It does not get much clearer than that, yet the 9th Circuit does not even cite, much less explain away, that statute.
Why? Why not refer to the obvious? Because, after all, Leftists absolutely insist there are no agendas whatsoever entering into the lives or opinions of federal judges, right? Except that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants to change the Electoral College most recently.
Nor did the 9th Circuit cite the language in controlling Supreme Court precedent that makes unmistakably clear that the decision whether or not to admit aliens or any class of aliens is an inherent aspect of sovereignty vested by our Constitution in the legislative and executive branches of our government that is “largely immune from judicial control.”
Instead, the 9th Circuit held that the denial of visas to foreign nationals from countries that President Obama himself had certified as being hotbeds of terrorism likely violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, despite the fact that another controlling decision of the Supreme Court has quite clearly held that foreign nationals have no right whatsoever to enter the United States, and hence no property or liberty interest that is subject to the Due Process clause.
Again, does this not sound familiar to you? Dr Eastman summarizes wonderfully.
Whether or not a particular judge or panel of judges likes the policy judgment made by the president, it is the president, not the judge, who was elected to make that decision.
Indeed, the notion that a single federal trial court judge can take it upon himself to determine national security and immigration policy, in the face of explicit determinations made by the president with the full support of law actually adopted by Congress, is so far beyond the judicial role as to pose a serious threat, not just to our national security, but to the rule of law.
That a panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the order does not place it on more solid footing but rather merely expands the lawlessness to a higher court. One can only hope that the Supreme Court will put a stop to this usurpation, and quickly.
Otherwise, we as a nation have a much bigger problem to confront than terrorists seeking entry to the United States.
Some have distilled the decision to some solid bullet points, like Ben Shapiro.
1. States Suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” If Aliens Can’t Come To University Classes.This is absolutely absurd. It would strike down virtually any immigration law. All immigration laws restrict classes of people from entering, numbers of people from entering. Some of those people would undoubtedly go to university, or teach there. Does this mean that states can now sue to overturn all immigration laws?
2. The Federal Government Doesn’t Suffer “Irreparable Injury” If The Courts Overrule Immigration Policy. The court casually states that while the government has an interest in combatting terrorism, the “Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.” The executive branch didn’t explain sufficiently to the judiciary why the executive order needed to be put into effect, and so the executive branch has to go home emptyhanded. Again, this is ridiculous. Are we supposed to wait to be hit? Would the judiciary apply this same standard to, say, gun control laws?
3. Everybody Has Due Process Rights. This is perhaps the craziest element of the ruling: the statement that everyone from lawful permanent residents to aliens with a visa traveling abroad has due process rights. The court even says that illegal aliens have due process rights. The Constitution isn’t just for citizens anymore – which begs the question as to why anyone would bother applying for citizenship.
4. Courts Can Look To Motive Rather Than Text. The court said that they could look at Donald Trump’s statements during the campaign about a Muslim ban in order to evaluate this executive order. This is dangerous. Attempting to read the minds of those who put together laws is far more arbitrary than reading the text or looking at the application of the law. It’s also amazing that the Ninth Circuit would say this now, but that the Supreme Court would ignore President Obama saying for YEARS that Obamacare was not a tax, then rule that Obamacare was indeed a tax.
5. The Court Refuses To Strike Down Portions. Normally, the court works to avoid striking down entire laws or staying entire executive orders. Instead, the court just threw up its hands and suggested that it had done its best, but it couldn’t bother doing a close read.
First, a brief bit of truth about the Middle East.
Second, an interview by Tucker Carlson of the District of Columbia (DC) Attorney General (AG), Karl Racine, who allows us to peek briefly into the minds of the Cabal of Black Robes.
Please note Tucker extrapolating the argument, doing what I call the “logical extension,” as if it hadn’t occurred to an attorney and — perhaps it didn’t. Which in and of itself is a massively short-sighted and extremely troubling issue, particularly when unseen by a highly educated individual like AG Racine.
What Tucker has exposed if you’re reading between his questions is the insular and inbred fashion in which the law exists today via the manner in which it is interpreted by Left-leaning judges.
AG Racine, however, does provide some light, some very noteworthy light, in his response to Tucker’s questions about “what next”?
The government argued that Trump’s executive orders were “unreviewable.” I’m going to go out on a limb a bit and say 1) that was a major tactical error on behalf of the government, because 2) human nature became involved, meaning 3) the judges got pissed off and reacted viscerally — as in “oh really? We shall now show you what is ‘unreviewable.’ ”
AG Racine made one incredibly-important point by intimating the government had not done its homework, when it could not provide one instance in which a refugee had been arrested or charged with terror in the US. Judge Robart said that was because there were none to cite, which is a lie. Racine made the point, however: the government was ill prepared. I cited numerous cases here, however.
Tucker then brought up the issue of Soviet Jews who were allowed into the US up until 1988 simply because of their persecution due to religion — clearly a “religious test.” Again, upon which AG Racine was caught flat-footed in response. Being a student of Paul Ekman and Sgt Carl Stincelli, I noted during the formulation of Carlson’s question the darting concern in the eyes of Racine as he either consulted notes or accessed spheres in his brain from which to respond.
AG Racine then made more interesting points when he said the words of Trump and his aides essentially came back to bite them. Yet Tucker perseveres with the truth when he factually refers to US law having been predicated upon “country of origin.”
However, AG Racine once more provides illumination to Tucker Carlson.
- “Your department of justice did not make any of the arguments you made.”
- “They found the government’s arguments were unavailing.”
The underlying subtext being: had the government made those arguments, would they have prevailed?
Moreover: why did the government not provide those arguments?
Then let us listen to Newt Gingrich bring some history into view with regard to federal judges.
RETWEET THE HELL OUT OF THIS!
Newt: The ACLU has a “fascist mentality,” and as for the 9th Circuit: “Don’t impeach them, just ABOLISH them!” pic.twitter.com/icdhC3gjLP
— Newt-Trump Fan Club (@NewtTrump) February 10, 2017
It was Judge Andrew Napolitano who initially thought the Ninth Circuit might overturn Judge Robart.
Now, Judge Napolitano suggests a different strategy.
That tactic is: “Rescind the executive order and issue a new one.” As of this writing there are 48 lawsuits against President Trump; Napolitano believes that, if the case does hit the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts will consolidate all of them.
Or: “if you don’t succeed, try, try again.” President Trump stated:
“We are going to keep our country safe. So we’ll be doing something very rapidly, having to do with additional security for our country. You’ll be seeing that sometime next week.”
What went wrong? I think we’re starting to see.
Leftists, Demorats and the courts insist that politics play no part in the decisions handed down. I humbly suggest that politics play most every part in the decisions handed down if one is, of course, cognizant of history and the past actions of, say, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.
The only difference? Truly, the only difference?
Trump has an (R) behind his name.