Tag Archives: travel ban

Politics Undermine U.S. Courts, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its two-part look at how politics are undermining confidence in the impartiality of American courts.

 The Daily Signal characterizes the change in composition of the courts as a revolution that has been “comprehensive, dramatic, and under the radar…”

The Washington Times worries that our court system has become politicized. “The Obama administration flooded it with activist judges that ruled in favor of advancing liberalism, to the detriment of our national sovereignty. So it’s no surprise the courts would work to stop Mr. Trump’s agenda.” In 2003, that newspaper wrote: “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

In an excellent analysis in the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro  notes that the logic behind the various 9th Circuit decisions could invalidate “virtually all immigration law…The Court also seems to establish a brand new interest not found in the Constitution—protecting the due process rights of illegal aliens, a right that doesn’t exist.”

Joseph Klein, in describing an initial 9th circuit travel ban ruling, commented in Front Page that  “… therein lies the heart of the matter.  This is not a ruling of law, it’s a statement of political opposition to the winner of the 2016 election, a piecemeal attempt to impose the personal views of Ninth Circuit judges over the lawful results of an election.”

How serious a threat is this? A 2003 Washington Times editorial: “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

Last year, as reported in the Weekly Standard, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s engaged in an outburst against Donald Trump that was roundly criticized by people of all political stripes. “Insofar as her comments suggested a clear bias about cases that could come before the Supreme Court, they were clearly a mistake and a departure from the norms of Court behavior…Justice Ginsburg later apologized…For a long time it has been clear that the four Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices generally vote in lockstep on political issues of importance to the president. When there are public calls for bipartisanship on the Court, this is invariably code that one or more Republican-appointed judges should vote with their Democratic-appointed colleagues. And they often do, as in the case of Obamacare and college affirmative action. It never means the opposite.”

The Obama Administration’s diminishment of the objectivity of American Courts was blatant. A Stanford Law Review article describes it:

“Congress and the President [Obama] have belittled the Court. President Obama told the public at the 2010 State of the Union address that ‘the Supreme Court reversed a century of law’ with its Citizens United decision and suggested that the Court opposed honest elections. The ensuing image was even more damaging. With 48 million Americans watching, the camera panned to a cadre of expressionless Supreme Court Justices sitting in the front row…Politicization of the Court is dangerous because it primes the public for a power grab by the political branches. If the Court loses authority to check political power and make unpopular decisions, it cannot enforce the Constitution with the same effectiveness. Without enforcement of the Constitution, Congress is free to invade constitutional rights and exceed its lawful powers.”

Politics Undermine U.S. Courts

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government takes a two-part look at how politics are undermining confidence in the impartiality of American courts.

The recent action by 9th Circuit U.S. Judge Derrick Watson limiting President Trump’s travel ban has implications far more broad than that affecting a single executive order.

Tolerating a judge (from the Circuit which has more of its decisions overturned than any other area) who issued a ruling that conforms to his political preferences rather than legal precedent or statutory and constitutional law undermines the entire concept of an impartial legal system.

The lack of legal merit in Judge Watson’s decision is clear.

As noted in the Daily Caller regarding a prior 9th Circuit ruling on the travel ban “The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which says that when the President (any 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 is authorized to ‘suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’ Having granted this authority to the President, only Congress can revoke it and no federal court, not even the Supreme Court has the power to interfere in that presidential authority short of challenging the constitutional power of Congress to delegate certain of its plenary powers over immigration to the President. It is simply not within the power of any state to interfere with such a presidential decision, as immigration-control advocates found during Obama’s tenure in office. Obama did exactly the opposite, he ordered our Border Patrol officers NOT to deny entry to any aliens who illegally entered the United States, and when Arizona and other states challenged this policy in court on exactly the same sort of grounds of detrimental impacts to the people of Arizona caused by rampant and uncontrolled illegal immigration, Obama simply invoked the plenary federal power over immigration policy and did nothing to secure our borders.”

In response to the 9th Circuit Court judge’s decision, Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated on media outlets that “I got to tell you it is a point worth making that single sitting district judge out of 600, 700 district judges can issue an order stopping a presidential executive order that … is fully constitutional designed to protect the United States of America from terrorist attack….I really am amazed that a judge … can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”

Lawnewz described the appropriate criticism, by five respected jurists, of a prior 9th Circuit Court decision. They pointed out the deep legal problems with travel-ban related actions of the 9th Circuit, including “its a-historicity, it’s abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights…claiming a consular officer must be deferred to more than the President of the United States; claiming first amendment rights exist for foreigners when the Supreme Court twice ruled otherwise; the claim that people here could claim a constitutional right for someone else to travel here, a decision specifically rejected by the Supreme Court just a year ago…They go on to identify other ‘obvious’ errors. [the decision]…’never once mentioned’ the most important statutory authority: section 1182(f) of title 8…[as well as failing to refer to] the important Presidential power over immigration that all courts, Congress, and the Constitution expressly and explicitly gave him in all of its prior precedents.”

Stream.org  points out that  “…the politicization of the courts was one of the most profound actions of the Obama Administration.” The publication emphasized that “Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) gloated in 2014, ‘one of the most profound changes this Congress made was filling the bench’ with Obama’s appointments of federal judges. He went on: ‘This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten…Obama got 329 federal judges appointed to the circuit and district courts, all lifetime appointments.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Justice Purchased, Justice Attacked, Part 2

The New York Analysis concludes its two-part examination of the “lawfare” attack on the American electorate. 

Illegal Immigration has been a substantive issue in numerous elections across the nation, and candidates endorsing tougher border controls have fared well. To reverse that result, Soros, according to True Pundit, “Soros is helping foot the bill for illegal immigrants’ legal services…Soros has previously blasted strong, national borders as an “obstacle” for illegal immigrants and foreign refugees trying to enter the Western world, Breitbart London reported.”

There is no single, vast, organized conspiracy, although some of the action has been financed by key wealthy sources. The lion’s share of the blame must be placed on a reduction of the legal standards that have guided American jurisprudence throughout the life of the U.S., an abandonment by some in the judiciary and in the practice of law to make decisions or file actions based on law and precedent, rather than personal political beliefs.

A salient example concerns the President’s travel ban. Whatever one’s opinion is of Mr. Trump’s  executive order, the ability of a judge to overturn it is not legally in question.  The decision of the judges who have ruled against or stayed the matter are not based on or permitted in either the Constitution or the Unites States Code. (It is somewhat ironic that key elements of that order were based on former President Obama’s actions, which the same legal circles never challenged or questioned.)

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, “There is a reality surrounding the Ninth Circuit Court’s upholding of a stay on President Trump’s temporary travel ban: It is based on that Court’s political preferences, and not on the law. It is a reflection of an ongoing and desperate attempt by the left to nullify by disruption and force the election of 2016.

“There is no Constitutional provision, no statutory law, and no legal precedent that could reasonably be cited as the justification for the opinion.  There is not even political precedent to back it up.  Former Presidents Carter and Obama, during their tenures in office, engaged in similar acts, without facing the obstacles now levied at the current Administration. President Bill Clinton deported 12 million illegal aliens, without the opposition of the same forces that seek to discredit Trump.

“The Constitution has no provision allowing the courts to set this type of policy.  Further, Statutory law Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code explicitly, clearly, and undeniably provides the president with this authority.  The Court ignored both facts in its decision. A first-year law student would be given a failing grade if he or she wrote a moot court opinion without noting those key facts.”

Allowing judges or prosecutors to rule or act on personal, partisan beliefs rather than law and precedent is a dangerous threat to the entire foundation of American jurisprudence. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment of significant Clinton donors to his investigatory team is an affront to the entire concept of justice. According to Brendan Kirby writing in Lifezette Meuller’s staff includes former a “Clinton Foundation lawyer, contributors to Obama, Hillary, [and] more….Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.”

A more direct lawfare assault on the U.S. electoral process was noted by Joe Schoffstall Democrats have scrambled to build up a massive network to counter voter integrity efforts after Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. Marc Elias, the former top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton, led challenges against voter identification laws in numerous states leading up to the 2016 elections. The effort was bankrolled by millions of dollars from Soros. Elias recently joined the board of Priorities USA Action, the largest liberal super PAC that backed Clinton, to spearhead their nonprofit arm’s efforts against voter laws.”

Justice Purchased, Justice Attacked

The New York Analysis presents a two-part examination of the “lawfare” attack on the American electorate. 

The American electorate is in the midst of a lawfare attack.

Lawfare is defined as the “use of law as a weapon of war,”  according to the Lawfare Project. “It denotes the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends. Lawfare is inherently negative…It is the opposite of pursuing justice.  It is filing frivolous lawsuits and misusing legal processes to intimidate and frustrate opponents…”

The election results of 2010–2016 were devastating to the Progressive Left.  Eventually, The White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, most Governorships, and most state legislatures were won by Republicans, many of whom ran on platforms denouncing failed left-wing policies which led to a devastated middle class, a ruined health care system, a weakened economy, diminished race relations, and unprecedented dangers to U.S. national security.

This occurred despite vigorous attempts by a biased media to assist progressive candidates, a move which didn’t sway the voting public. The oppressive environment against centrists and conservatives within the nation’s universities, both by intimidating professors and radical students, did not produce campaign gains. A vehement effort by Hollywood to portray Republicans as villains was equally ineffective.

Lacking success with other approaches, it appears that a lawfare attack was launched. Unlike a simple move to outspend an opponent (which would be rather difficult to do in this case) in a single suit by simply filing a costly legal action, the approach now underway is multi-faceted and designed more to discredit those who have won office by establishing doubt in the electorate’s mind. Uniquely, it also involves attempts to influence the outcome of aggressive actions by insuring that decision-making personnel favorable to the Left are in positions of responsibility.

In the wake of repetitive failures at the ballot box, leftist attorneys general have sought to gain voter support by filing groundless legal actions aimed more at disparaging Republican elected officials than at actually enforcing the law.

Hans Bader, writing for The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), outlines the various ways that some state attorneys general have abused their office for partisan political purposes, aimed primarily at implementing leftist agendas rejected by the voters or prohibited by the Constitution. The CEI report outlines the various means leftist state attorneys generals have abused their authority:

  1. The Ethical Breaches and Selective Applications of the Law. Using campaign contributors to bring lawsuits. Using the attorney general’s offi ce to promote personal gain or enrich cronies or relatives. Favoritism towards campaign donors and other uneven or unpredictable application of the law (including refusal to defend state laws or state agencies being sued when plausible defenses exist).
  2. Fabricating Law. Advocating that courts, in effect, rewrite statutes or stretch constitutional norms in order to make new law—for example, seeking judicial imposition of new taxes or regulations, or restrictions on private citizens’ freedom to contract.
  3. Usurping Legislative Powers. Bringing lawsuits that usurp regulatory powers granted to the federal government or other state entities, or that are untethered to any specifi c statutory or constitutional grant of authority.
  4. Predatory Practices. Seeking to regulate conduct occurring wholly in other states—for example, preying on out-of-state businesses that have not violated state law and have no remedy at the polls.

Mindful of the ability of district attorneys or state attorneys general to defeat the will of the electorate by lawfare, Progressive financiers have invested heavily in what used to be comparatively low-key races.

Fox News reports that “Big bucks from George Soros helped turn a Pennsylvania district attorney election on its head, in the latest example of the liberal billionaire’s influence in local U.S. politics. On April 28, Soros poured nearly $1.5 million into the Philadelphia Justice and Public Safety PAC, which supported candidate Larry Krasner in the Democratic primary. Krasner won on Tuesday, and by a wide margin…The race marked the first time a super PAC has supported a D.A. candidate in Philadelphia. Krasner, as the Daily Caller puts it, benefited from ‘the kind of capital typically reserved for important national political campaigns.’ Last August, Politico reported that Soros had channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year.

A Daily Caller review noted how this has became a fairly standard lawfare practice

“The outcome of the Philadelphia district attorney’s race followed a now-familiar playbook. A candidate aligned with Soros’ left-wing politics emerged victorious thanks to the billionaire’s willingness to flood local races with the kind of capital typically reserved for important national political campaigns…In one such instance, Soros poured $600,000 into the Houston district attorney’s race last fall…Soros spent more than $7 million influencing local prosecutorial races in 2015 and 2016, The Washington Times reported.”

The Report continues tomorrow.

Judicial Overreach Concerns Grow, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of the Ninth Circuits’ overreach. 

Critics of the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit decisions on President Trumps’s travel ban executive orders have been blunt, and rightly so.

Robert Charles writing for Fox News notes that “The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, has issued one of the most ill-conceived, poorly reasoned opinions in memory, even for that notoriously activist Circuit…Whether motivated by antipathy for the president, love of limelight, or just fundamentally misconceiving their role, the Court stumbles into embarrassing contradictions, makes baseless assumptions, shows indifference to law and history… The job was simple:  Decide whether, given the President’s Article II prerogatives and authority as “Commander in Chief,” a single federal judge – one of 3,294 – can issue a sweeping, conclusory, nationwide “temporary restraining order” (TRO) halting implementation of a national security Executive Order (EO). If the TRO was unjustified, the Ninth Circuit was duty-bound to issue a “stay,” effectively ending the TRO and permitting implementation by the Department of Homeland Security of the EO.  Instead, they ducked, and insensibly upheld the TRO. They played to the street, and tried a legalistic putsch.  Fortunately, the opinion is likely to be reversed by the Supreme Court – but that will be a while…”

Matt O’Brien, writing in Lifezette  called the decision “ a deliberate attempt to shift control over immigration from the executive and legislative branches to the judicial branch in order to grant foreigners a constitutionally protected ‘right’ to enter the U.S. The 9th Circuit’s decision is way off-base.”  He notes that “The Supreme Court has previously held that federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases asking them to declare illegal the exercise of a power that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the other branches of government. This rule is referred to as the ‘Political Question Doctrine.’ It preserves the separation of powers by keeping the courts from assuming functions that should be performed by the legislature or the executive. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to set the national security agenda, conduct foreign affairs, or craft our immigration policies.”

Daniel Horowitz, author of the study Stolen Sovereignty, wrote a Conservative Review  article in which he expressed his deep concern over the actions of the Ninth Circuit relating to the Travel Ban, noting that its actions:

  • Allows ANY and ALL refugees to enter the U.S.
  • Stops President Trump from executing the law, which Congress passed
  • Circumvents Congress’ authority. Invents new constitutional right for non-citizens
  • Encourages ‘judge shopping’ to assert tyrannical authority over congressional and executive branches
  • Ignores American history, law, and tradition
  • Furthers what modern courts have done at chipping away American sovereignty

Horowitz proposes several means to address the Ninth Circuits abuse: “Congress must use its [Constitutional] power and immediately move to strip lower courts of jurisdiction to grant rights to any foreign national to enter or remain in the country against the law unless statute explicitly preempts the president’s action. This way, plaintiffs would have to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which only has the bandwidth to deal with a limited number of cases. Nobody can dispute Congress’ supremacy over the lower courts because Congress created them. Alternatively, Congress, which has complete control over the administrative procedures of the courts, could prevent lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions against immigration enforcement acts outside of their respective districts and circuits.”

Horowitz believes the House of Representatives should bring articles of impeachment against rogue judges.

Professor Robert Gagnon  quotes Thomas Jefferson’s concern with excess power given to federal judges: “Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide … not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

A more recent but similar thought could be found in a 2003 Washington Times editorial:  “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

The Courts are not the appropriate forum for the debate over President Trump’s travel and immigration policies.

Judicial Overreach Concerns Grow

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two part examination of judicial overreach in relation to the President’s travel ban executive orders. 

Progressives cheered when Ninth Circuit judges blocked President Trump’s travel ban, even though the constitutionality of the move was clearly problematic.  The usurping of power by one branch of government over another, however, can lead to disastrous consequences.  One need only look at the recent news from Venezuela to understand where this can lead.

The high court of that South American nation, (which, despite its vast oil wealth has been impoverished by a dictatorial socialist government) has dissolved the National Assembly.  The Court and President Nicolás Maduro are in concert, and the legislative branch was the last vestige of dissent. Those opposed to Maduro’s strong-man rule captured a majority of the National Assembly in 2015 as Maduro’s crushing economic mistakes and political oppression worsened.

The extraordinary move is not one sanctioned by Venezuela’s constitution. Similarly, the recent rulings of the U.S. Ninth Circuit restricting President Trump’s executive orders regarding travel from nations presenting a threat of terror fail to recognize the American Constitution’s Separation of Powers. Indeed, they rest on premises that even a first year law student should recognize as being without merit.

Joseph Klein, writing for Front Page, outlines why the Ninth Circuit has acted above its authority:

“’The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,’ the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. “The right to do so …is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation…Congress reaffirmed the president’s power with respect to decisions excluding aliens in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which was originally enacted in 1952, and has been amended several times, including in 1996. The following language has remained intact: “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 restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).

In an excellent analysis in the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro  notes that the logic behind the Ninth Circuit decisions could invalidate “virtually all immigration law.” Allowing a state to sue in federal court on the grounds that there could be potential harm to some of its citizens would open the door to the disuniting of the nation.  What could Washington do that doesn’t have some potential impact on the states? The Court complained that the federal government did “little more than” state the fact that it has an interest in preventing terrorism. Have the judges not been aware of instances such as 9/11, and the numerous other assaults? The Court also seems to establish a brand new interest not found in the Constitution—protecting the due process rights of illegal aliens, a right that doesn’t exist.

Finally, in a repudiation of common sense as well as common law, the Court pinned its decision not on the actual executive order in question, but on the campaign and other comments of President Trump.

And therein lies the heart of the matter.  This is not a ruling of law, it’s a statement of political opposition to the winner of the 2016 election, a piecemeal attempt to impose the personal views of Ninth Circuit judges over the lawful results of an election.  It is, in essence, quite similar to what was done in Venezuela.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Christian Persecution on a Global Scale

Strangely missing in the debate about President Trump’s temporary travel restrictions, which is significantly less dramatic that President Carter’s actions in response to the Iranian embassy takeover, and roughly similar to President Obama’s actions in 2011, is the near total exclusion of Christians from U.S. Middle Eastern refugee programs over the past eight years.

In a recent CBN interview, President Trump announced a sharp change in policy, noting that Christians in the Middle East have “been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair.”

The move is overdue. Christians have been subjected to extraordinary maltreatment across the globe.

The Ethics and Liberty Review Commission has reviewed the latest data from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and outlined the five key facts concerning Christian persecution.

“1. In China, Christian communities have ‘borne a significant brunt of the oppression,’ with numerous churches bulldozed and crosses torn down.

  1. In Sudan, the government  stiffened penalties for both apostasy and blasphemy.The regime prosecutes Christian pastors on trumped-up charges and marginalizes the country’s minority Christian community.
  2. Boko Haram continues to attack with impunity both Christians and many Muslims.From bombings at churches and mosques to mass kidnappings of children from schools, Boko Haram has cut a wide path of terror across vast swaths of Nigeria and in neighboring countries, leaving thousands killed and millions displaced
  3. The situation is “particularly grave” for Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians in Eritrea.The government requires all physically- and mentally-capable people between the ages of 18 and 70 to perform a full-time, indefinite, and poorly-paid national service obligation, which includes military, development, or civil service components.  There are no exemptions for conscientious objections and individuals completing their national service obligation in the military are prohibited from practicing their religion. Failure to participate in the national service results in being detained, sentenced to hard labor, abused, and having one’s legal documents confiscated.
  4. The report notes numerous incidents over the past year of Iranian authorities raiding church services, threatening church members, and arresting and imprisoning worshipers and church leaders, particularly converts to Evangelical forms of Christianity.Since 2010, authorities ‘arbitrarily arrested and detained more than 550 Christians throughout the country.’ As of February 2016, approximately 90 Christians were either in prison, detained, or awaiting trial because of their religious beliefs and activities.”

According to a Vatican Radio report translated by The Blaze  in “2016, nearly 90,000 Christians were martyred around the world, according to a new study by an Italian research group. According to the Center for Studies on New Religions…a Christian was martyred about once every six minutes in 2016, making them the most persecuted religious group in the world. Massimo Introvigne, director of CENSUR, told Vatican Radio last week that approximately 70 percent of the martyred Christians were from ‘tribal villages’in Africa because Christians often refuse to take up arms during conflicts. The other 30 percent, according to the study, were Christians who fell victim to terrorism or governmental persecution. Still, the number of Christians who were martyred in 2016 is likely more than 90,000 because the study was unable to include data from China or India, two east Asian countries that have large Christian populations, because of the ‘underground’ nature of churches in those countries.”

Open Doors  notes that persecution took place in over 65 nations. North Korea is ranked as the worst offender. “It is illegal to be a Christian in North Korea and Christians are often sent to labor camps or are killed if they are discovered.”

Ninth Circuit Puts Politics Over Law

There is a reality surrounding the Ninth Circuit Court’s upholding of a stay on President Trump’s temporary travel ban: It is based on that Court’s political preferences, and not on the law. It is a reflection of an ongoing and desperate attempt by the left to nullify by disruption and force the election of 2016.

There is no Constitutional provision, no statutory law, and no legal precedent that could reasonably be cited as the justification for the opinion.  There is not even political precedent to back it up.  Former President’s Carter and Obama, during their tenures in office, engaged in similar acts, without facing the obstacles now levied at the current Administration. President Bill Clinton deported 12 million illegal aliens, without the opposition of the same forces that seek to discredit Trump.

The Constitution has no provision allowing the courts to set this type of policy.  Further, Statutory law Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code explicitly, clearly, and undeniably provides the president with this authority.  The Court ignored both facts in its decision. A first-year law student would be given a failing grade if he or she wrote a moot court opinion without noting those key facts.

This blatant judicial abuse is a clear challenge to the entire concept of a nation governed by law, not mob rule. It is, in essence, an attempt to repeal de facto the Constitution’s separation of powers and the entire framework devised by the founders of the nation.

Supporters of this inappropriate move have frequently cited the “rights” of nonresident aliens in the matter.  That argument is also, quite bluntly, ridiculous as well. A nonresident alien has no standing to challenge a U.S. law.  If that were the case, American government would be held eternally hostage to the rest of the world; U.S. sovereignty would effectively cease to exist.

Since the left unexpectedly lost the election of 2016, it has engaged in repeated attempts to nullify the lawful result through means of mob rule. Those disappointed by the outcome have taken to the streets and campuses of the nation, engaging in violence and mass disruption in what has amounted to a collective temper tantrum aimed at overturning the ballot. The College Fix  reports that conservative-leaning students face intimidation on campus. Numerous reports of pressure on students to conform with the leftist views of university leaders have been noted, as well.

It’s all part of a growing trend—the left has not hesitated to threaten the personal safety and constitutional rights of those that dare to lawfully oppose their actions and goals.

Rather than rely on peaceful discussions, facts, or the political process to advance their agenda, leftists have, since election day, engaged in intimidation in their attempt to gain by mob rule what they didn’t achieve at the polls. It should not be overlooked that there have been 12,000 tweets calling for the assassination of President Trump. Even before he took the oath of office, there were calls for his impeachment.

In an effort to raise emotional hysteria instead of factual arguments, leftists have attempted to impose a false narrative of a president who is anti-female, and anti-gay. The charges are so startlingly false that they serve as clear examples of the desperation of a movement that, despite having substantial control of the national agenda for the prior eight years, has failed to achieve any gains for the American people, and has left much of the nation in a far worse state than when they won the White House.

One of the most publicized and well-organized but utterly false attempts to rouse mass protests over the new Administration has been the “women’s march,” symbolized by knitted pink hats. It is ironic that over the past eight years, the actions of President Obama in breaking prior precedent by negotiating with at least one terrorist group, the Taliban, utterly escaped the ire of those who have ordained themselves spokespersons for women’s rights. The Taliban, as have other Islamic extremist groups whom the former President has been reluctant to confront honestly, has engaged in acts amounting to the mass intimidation, murder and mutilation of girls and women who merely seek to go to school, get medical care from male physicians, or simply live with some measure of equality.  This somehow escaped the notice or concern of organized women’s groups.  It should not escape notice that Linda Sarsour, as noted by Breitbart, was a principal organizer for the women’s march.  She is well known, Breitbart notes, for her “anti-feminist views and outrageous attacks on anti-Sharia women leaders.”

However, those same groups eagerly organized mass demonstrations, starting just one day after the inauguration, against a new president who has vehemently opposed those heinous acts.  Obviously, the motives have less to do with women’s rights than with the standard goals of left-wing politics.

A similar approach can be seen in attempts to portray the new administration as being biased in matters affecting the LGBT community. As noted in The Hill, “There are no signs that the LGBT community will be in the crosshairs of a Trump administration. In fact, that evidence is just the opposite.”

The tactic the left is engaging in is clear. Rouse popular hysteria by false claims of attacks on various groups. File bogus claims in courts willing to defy Constitutional and statutory law to achieve political goals (the highly politicized Ninth Circuit, notes the Gateway Pundit  has been overturned more than any other similar jurisdiction “a startling 19 times (79 percent), in 2010, three times as many reversals as most circuits had cases before the Supreme Court. The same pattern continued in the 2011 (71 percent) and 2012 terms (86 percent), when the Ninth Circuit was reversed more than twice as many times as most circuits had cases before the Court.”

The left’s  willingness to abandon law, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and even common civility in its attempt to discredit the legal result of the 2016 election, and the collusion of the Ninth Circuit in that pursuit, deserves universal condemnation.