Tag Archives: Judge Andrew Napolitano

Reacting to the Ninth Circuit opinion

Posted on by

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.

Dr John Eastman, a constitutional law scholar, law professor and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California weighed in on the Ninth’s opinion.

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.”

If you are a reader of this blog and a listener to my radio show, I suspect some of this information is beginning to sound repetitive. 8 USC 1182? President Carter?

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.

  1. “Your department of justice did not make any of the arguments you made.”
  2. “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.

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.

It is, considering history, acceptable for both of those persons to have stopped immigration for a period of time, referencing this post for Obama and this post for Jimmy Carter.

The only difference? Truly, the only difference?

Trump has an (R) behind his name.

BZ

 

 Share

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

Just as I said: it’s not the Russians

Posted on by

I speak to certain people now and then, and certain people have told me that the Russians — as Hillary Clinton accuses Donald Trump — are not behind the Wikileaks email releases from John Podesta.

As I wrote here and also here, about Hillary outing the NSA and threatening GAMMA national security classifications.

This past week another individual with whom I spoke and who has “contacts” as well, indicated he was told the NSA was responsible, due to HRC’s careless mishandling of the most sensitive intelligence possible — of that GAMMA nature — which, in turn, was responsible for the loss of life.

Steve Pieczenik (who has a doctorate from MIT in international relations, is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Dr Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker, and whom I featured in the previous post) likewise indicates the Russians were not responsible for the Wikileaks emails.

In addition, Paul Watson writes:

CONFIRMED: US INTEL OPERATIVES LEAKED CLINTON CAMPAIGN EMAILS, NOT RUSSIA

Insiders attempting to save America from Hillary presidency

It’s now clear from numerous sources that the Podesta hack, which led to Wikileaks releasing tens of thousands of Clinton campaign emails, as well as other hacks targeting the Democratic Party, were the work of U.S. intelligence operatives attempting to save America from a Clinton presidency.

The Clinton campaign has repeatedly insinuated that Russian agents were responsible for the release of the emails, but the reality is far different.

The hackers were concerned individuals who were alarmed at Hillary Clinton’s rampant corruption and mishandling of classified material as far back as 2009, when officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) became aware of violations of record keeping procedures at the Department of State under Secretary Clinton.

This is backed up by former British ambassador Craig Murray, who was told by security insiders that the email leak “comes from within official circles in Washington DC.”

This is most telling:

“Hillary has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material,” (NSA whistleblower William) Binney said. “That is the most sensitive material at NSA.”

A phrase comes to mind now; something about “reaping” and “sowing.”

BZ

 

 Share

Who hacked DNC/Podesta emails and why? Was it really the Russians?

Posted on by

Please listen to this video from Andrew Napolitano.

From ZeroHedge.com:

NSA Whistleblower: Not So Fast On Claims Russia Behind Hillary Clinton Email Hack

The mainstream media alleges that Russia was behind the hack of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The media is parading out the usual suspects alleged experts to back up this claim.

Washington’s Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – what he thinks of such claims:

Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails.

But mainstream media say it couldn’t:   http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hack-russian-government-2016-7

The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton’s character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin.

See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html

Who’s right?

The Demorat dog whistle about Russia hacking the DNC and John Podesta is just that.

Binney responded:

Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Here’s what I said to Ray McGovern and VIPS with a little humor at the end. [McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (“VIPS” for short).]

Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And, I’m sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked to see if others also hacked in?

Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets for the Russians (as well as many others) but without intent of course.

I would add that we proposed to do a program that would monitor all activity on the world-wide NSA network back in 1991/92. We called it “Wellgrounded.” NSA did not want anyone (especially congress) to know what was going on inside NSA and therefore rejected that proposal. I have not read what Ed has said, but, I do know that every line of code that goes across the network is logged in the network log. This is where a little software could scan, analyze and find the intruders initially and then compile all the code sent by them to determine the type of attack. This is what we wanted to do back in 1991/92.

The newest allegation tying the Clinton email hack to Russia seems to be all innuendo.

Please read the rest of the article.

You have to ask yourself: cui bono? Why would Russia not want Hillary Clinton in the White House? She would continue the overall leadership begun by Barack Hussein Obama — which is to say, little. Obama’s tactic is to “lead from behind” (a ludicrous oxymoron by itself) and, with that, Russia under the guidance of Putin realizes that Obama and, by extension, Clinton have been amenable to “working” with Russia and the so-called “reset.”

Let’s not forget it was Barack Hussein Obama who, sotto voce, told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2012 that “after my election I’ll have more flexibility.”

Ask yourself: would Putin truly want a loose cannon like Donald Trump in the White House? This is how Reagan was characterized in 1979 and 1980 by Carter and his campaign — a “loose cannon” with his crazy, palsied finger on the nuke pile.

When you have the government hacking itself in order to keep national security, you have in many ways lost that government. An internal hack because you don’t trust a presidential candidate not to keep your secrets or kill your people?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are losing America and watching it devolve before our very eyes. It is astounding and sad, simultaneously.

Who hacked the DNC and the emails?

Ask again: cui bono?

BZ

 

 Share