Category Archives: Judicial Arrogance

Why the 9th Circuit Panel of Political Judges Is Wrong

Standard

Yesterday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s suspension of President Donald Trump’s travel ban on people from seven Middle Eastern and African countries. I have been contending, as have others, that under the Constitution the appeal court had no business interfering with the executive functions of the presidency. The appeal court’s motivations were political. Is that true or just partisan bluster?

Here are some resources for readers to use to confirm my position, which I believe reflects our Constitution.

1. The Constitution invests the president with the power to execute the laws and the acts of the Congress (Article II, Sec. 1; Article II, Sec. 3).

2. The Constitution names the president Commander in Chief and invests him with the power over our armed forces (Article II, Sec. 2), i.e., our common defence (our Founding Fathers used the British spelling). The president’s role as Commander in Chief bears the burden of the work of those armed services and the diplomatic efforts (Article II, Sec. 2) to “execute” (i.e., to pursue or perform to completion) the overarching purposes of the Constitution: a. “form a more perfect union”, b. “establish Justice”, c. “insure domestic Tranquility”, d. “provide for the common defence”, e. “promote the general Welfare”, f. “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity… (Preamble).”

To whom do those overarching purposes apply? The Preamble answers that those purposes apply to “We the People of the United States”, who gave their consent to be governed thusly. Does the Constitution mandate that people who are not citizens of the United States be covered by those purposes? No, it does not. If the federal branches of government were to operate in such a manner as to treat foreigners as if those overarching purposes applied to them, such operation would contravene the specific definition made by the Constitution.

Constitutional rights can be implied by virtue of the language, tenor, and pattern of thought transmitted by the Constitution. We know the Founding Fathers did not want to enumerate every right of a citizen for fear that the absence of mention would be taken to mean a right did not exist. However, the possessors of those rights cannot be implied. The possessors are “we the people of the United States”, i.e., citizens. Slaves cannot. Foreigners cannot. When slaves were liberated and confirmed liberated by amendments XIII, XIV, and XV, the Constitution was changed and blacks became citizens, as they should have been from the start. The Constitution only makes citizens of those born and naturalized into the United States, ergo, Constitutional rights only pertain to them. Analysis by a writer on redstate.com not only misses this key point, but is faulty. The writer desired to justify the reasoning of the 9th Circuit so he could lay the blame on Trump’s administration.

Not all criticism of Trump is anti-Trumping, but the redstate.com writer needed to blur who enjoys the rights of citizenship and misplace the weight and application of due process so he could blast the administration. He completely ignored the statutory powers duly legislated by Congress that authorize both the power and purview of the president and others in respect to inadmissible aliens, the exceptions, and the methods for dealing with those exceptions. He did not have a feel for the facts and the law, but he did have a feel for the way the 9th Circuit thinks, or misthinks, so he was correct on how they would come down.

Below I provide some resources, including my own analysis.

Did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal render a sound decision? According to Harvard Law Professor and Democrat Alan Dershowitz, no. Here is the video link to an interview he gave to MSNBC:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/dershowitz-9th-circuit-ruling-not-a-solid-decision-looks-like-its-based-more-on-policy-than-on-constitutionality/

Did the 9th Circuit basically overstep its bounds and make up new law? Here is a report on Fox News and commentary from that network’s Judicial Analyst, former federal judge Andrew Napolitano:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5317800691001/?#sp=show-clips

Finally, allow me to deal with the notion that the 9th Circuit stands on firm ground anyway because of its demand for due process for those whose visit or return trip to the United States was blocked by the president’s travel ban.

In addition to the Constitutional mandate and powers invested in the president, Mr. Trump owns authority conferred on the office by Congress and its statutory law, Title 8 U.S. Code Section 1182(f). Paragraph “(f)” comes after a ton of inadmissibility situations and rules, including exceptions, to state flatly that:

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.”

Congress, a bunch of lawyers, aided and abetted by tons of legal counsel, enacted into law this policy that grants the president authority to “suspend” or “impose restrictions” “he may deem to be appropriate” on entry to “any aliens”, “all aliens”, or “any class of aliens” when “the president finds” their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”.

Please note that Section 1182 deals with “Inadmissible Aliens”, and the other paragraphs in the section provide the exceptions to their provisions under the inadmissibility law. Paragraph (f) contains no exceptions. None. Zero. Zilch. It is intended to be that way and is written that way. The president finds what is detrimental to the interests of the United States (interestingly, take note, 9th Circuit, no mention is made of a requirement for a level of exigency, though the circumstances listed are exigent), and he suspends or restricts accordingly for a period of time.

In short, the federal statute gives the president broad power and discretion; the 9th Circuit doesn’t want the president to have it. The 9th Circuit thinks IT should have that power.

Constitutionally and statutorily, the 9th Circuit has abused and misplaced the question of due process, first, because the travel ban does not affect citizens of the United States, and second, because the nature of a suspension or restriction, including as described in paragraph (f), is its atypical, abnormal, nonstandard employment to meet an exigent situation, one that is determined by the president and for which there is no review by any court. In other words, any court would be out of bounds second-guessing the president on whether or not what he found was really detrimental to the interests of the country. That is not the purview of the judicial branch, Constitutionally or statutorily.

Third, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that noncitizens enjoyed the right of due process in respect to entry into these United States, that due process would be applied after the effect of the ban, not before it, otherwise what would be the point? If a person with a deadly, contagious disease challenges a ban on his entry into the country, we’re not going to suspend the ban so he can come into the country, contaminate us, then determine at a due process hearing that he didn’t have justification to enter! That’s neither Constitutional nor rational. It certainly isn’t safe.

The ban is temporary, not permanent. It’s not a penalty or punishment; it’s a security measure. It isn’t intended to last forever, only as long as the situation that generated it persists. We make our own citizens undergo searches and seizures at airport checkpoints without due process because they are a security measure. If we held due process for every citizen before they entered the walkways to airport gates, we would have to kiss security measures goodbye. We often do the same at stadiums and concerts and, get this 9th Circuit, courthouses!

That’s right. We don’t hold due process hearings before someone enters your 9th Circuit stenchhouse of extremism and judicial tyranny. You search ’em and seize ’em without any hint of wrongdoing or suspicion and ask questions later. Ain’t any due process about it. Hypocrites! You don’t even live up to your own standards. You protect yourselves but spit on the president’s efforts to protect common American citizens.

Not a surprise, really. The 9th Circuit’s extremism, politics, partiality, and plain old discombobulation have led them to ignore or even reject their own precedents, such as in the restaurant tipping cases (http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/U-S-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit-overtur). A man dressed up as a woman – painted face and lips, stockings and heels and all – is still a man. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf. And a politically, ideologically motivated ruling is just that no matter the “legal questions” and legalese with which a panel of “judges” dresses it up.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal is a bench of usurpers and tyrants burglarizing the executive branch because they want to obstruct the implementation of the president’s policies, policies that would increase American safety. They have violated the checks and balances of the Constitution so that they could impose their globalist will. The holy 9th Circuit’s will be done, and they say, “To hell with law and order, and checks and balances, and judicial restraint, and America first!”

Thank God Jeff Sessions was finally confirmed as attorney general in spite of delaying tactics by the obstructionist Democrats who want the country to fail and their defeated ideology to be made mandatory. He’ll help save the day. 

 

The 9th Circus Court of Appeal Decides

Standard

ugly-clown-face-01At least half the country is sick to its stomach about the decision by a three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circus Court of Appeal to uphold the suspension of President Trump’s travel ban.

In making their ruling, the tyrants from the 9th Circus imposed their freakish ideology and politics onto the law, warped the Constitution, burglarized the executive branch, and robbed its Constitutional and statutory mandates with malice aforethought.

A globalist, anti-American spirit drove this Constitutional breech by the fast and loose, liberal, west coast judiciary. While the the jackass judges propped up red herrings like religious discrimination and religious tests, and robbed American citizens of their Constitutional protections and government, they smugly handed those protections and government over to foreigners who smack their lips at the opportunity to take over a country they had no hand in building – indeed could not have built – a country that is not theirs with the goal of turning it into the same smoldering ruin from which they came.

Though I suspect this ruling will be overturned, it may well signal the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it.

Too many Democrats and liberals do not play by the rules. They tyrannize minds and hearts and seek nothing less than complete domination and transmogrification of the country through social engineering facilitated by mass media mindshaping. Those of us who respect the rule of law and the Constitution and our American heritage cannot go along with their destruction of America nor their intolerance of who we are as a people. We are past the point of healing. I want nothing to do with fake citizens who do not place America and Americans first.

The Unbalanced Ninth Circuit Court and the Road to Dystopia

Standard

Americans continue to wait for a decision from a three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on President Trump’s anti-terrorism travel ban. The panel heard arguments Monday after a federal district court judge stayed the ban.

The president’s ban is designed to provide more protection for Americans from terrorist attacks by preventing individuals or classes of individuals entry into the United States from seven countries that have served as notorious breeding grounds for terrorists and their murderous, destructive acts.

Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen.

While some in the media have tried to paint the president as violating the checks and balances of the Constitution for criticizing the district judge who stayed his executive order that contained the ban, other members of the media have begun to zero in on the 9th Circuit’s trespass onto the executive branch.

Here’s what even The New York Times wrote about Judge Michelle Friedland, who appears to think she should decide whether there is enough reason to institute a ban.

Judge Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, did not seem persuaded that immediate suspension of travel from the seven countries was necessary.

Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?’” she asked [Department of Justice attorney] Mr. Flentje.

Here is what Mr. Flentje should have said: “It’s none of your damn business. That’s the Constitutional mandate of the executive branch and the statutory authority bestowed on the president by Congressional legislation. You may agree or disagree with the bar we’ve set, or agree or disagree with the conditions and dangers from those countries as we see them, but you have no business directing, and no power to alter, policy because you don’t like it.”

Actually, Mr. Flentje did rebuff her, but not as forcefully.

Friedland’s questions demonstrate two things. First, she wants to unveil the administration’s policy reasoning so it can be attacked. To be sure, both the president and the Congress should explain their policies and their reasoning and the facts behind them. Friedland is not looking for understanding, however; she is looking for targets her thinkalikes can attack and obstruct. That motivation of hers is strictly political, not forensic.

Second, Friedland suggests that courts do, or should have, the authority to negate a policy of the executive branch, not as a matter of law or Constitution, but as a kind of second-guessing review board to contain or uproot policies they opine are not warranted or are not in conformance with their ideology.

The state of Washington’s case generates laughter among anyone who takes law seriously. The state said companies headquartered there, like Microsoft, are negatively affected in their employment practices. In other words, the ban could hinder Microsoft from hiring foreigners, because they don’t want to hire Americans. Not only is that stance anti-American, it defies logic. There are about 7.5 billion people on our planet, and because you cannot hire someone from those terrorist breeding grounds, 7.27 billion people isn’t a big enough employee pool from which to pick?

The attorney representing Washington state spluttered about religious discrimination. Unfortunately for Muslims, the violence woven intrinsically into their tenets and scriptures bloodies and defames their religion. If I were Muslim, I would not want to have to make the argument that I am being discriminated against because my faith tells me and other adherents that I have to kill all the people who don’t accept my faith.

It’s not discrimination against Islam; it’s discrimination against terrorism, unless Islam and terrorism are the same thing.

What’s happened is that a sick, self-hating ideology has overrun our schools and our society and our politics from one end of the spectrum, the end commonly called liberal, and produced intellectual usurpers like Friedland, Gates, and Google, etc., who reject all that made us what we were, our religious, cultural, and political heritage. It’s not true liberalism; it’s a deviant extremism that wants to empty our citizens of their self-respect and replace it with a docile acceptance of whatever the social engineers want to implant in our brains.

In their view, what’s right is wrong; what’s wrong is right. Protecting the lives of American citizens is wrong if it upsets foreigners who don’t belong here in the first place or some concept of “open borders”.

This new social engineering is creating two classes: the elite establishment and its privileged managers and media minions, and everyone else. The establishment is hellbent on acquiring and keeping a share of our minds, and exerting an ever stronger psychological and actual influence over us. There is a reason for the quiet raping of our privacy of which we have been much too docile in our acceptance.

Right now, private and state Internet companies, communication companies, electronic devices companies, media companies, and content-providing companies are listening in on you and watching you. Siri and Alexa may be listening even when you are not talking to them. Your computer camera, phone camera, television, microphone recorder on any of those, can – at least potentially, if not yet actually – pick up and transmit what you are saying and doing. It’s the same with the cloud and any Internet based security system with cameras that you use.

They are getting to know you, whether you want them to or not.

Beware the hook: “a more personalized experience.” It’s a gross lie. They are getting to know you, quietly and intimately, so that they can shape the way you think, guide your behavior.

Beware. It’s just a little now. It will be much, much more later.

Beware!

I know I have mixed in a lot here that is disparate, and that I began with a current event and moved swiftly, and perhaps for some, too far away into the realm of what it is a part of and where it is going. I believe it is something to consider. Things just aren’t right any more. An ugliness is slowly emerging.

Toxic Judge Makes Up Law

Standard

This post has been updated to correct an error about which court Judge Robart sits on.

History is being made in America. The citizens of this country have rarely seen anything like it. The establishment elites, and a portion of the millions of American minds they have embalmed with their toxic philosophy and worldview, are engineering a draconian backlash against the man Americans elected their president.

Don’t be misled by the rhetoric that Hillary Clinton won three million more votes than Donald Trump. That is only one fact of many electoral facts. Mr. Trump pummeled Mrs. Clinton across our land, winning the majority of votes in more than 4,000 counties while she won only 467 counties. Mr. Trump thumped Mrs. Clinton by states also, winning 31 to her 19. Finally, he whipped her electorally, 306 to 232.

The reason we have the electoral college is to prevent a candidate who has large but narrowly concentrated support from winning the presidency. The boast that she won a majority of the popular vote belies the fact that Mrs. Clinton could not find broad-based support, but instead relied on concentrated representation from only a few areas in her effort to win the presidency. Mr. Trump’s support derived from a much, much broader constituency.

Mr. Trump is not the first candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote or without winning a majority of the popular vote. He will likely not be the last.

Yet the unabashed effort to delegitimize his presidency, to destabilize it, to strip away the power of his victory, and to subvert the election results continues with malice aforethought and vehemence.

As is usual, the media creeps about complicitly with the establishment elites. Their world has been turned upside down, and Mr. Trump and his staff have exposed their dishonesty and dissembling. More vitally, their own power and role working with the elite in shaping American minds and lives to create the America they want – rather than simply reporting the facts – has been exposed and fractured. That means their power has diminished and could be so significantly reduced that they could slip into superannuation.

Be aware of what is going on and how the elites and the media are synthesizing their effort. They always use their frame of reference, often employing the establishment ethic or moral code to which they adhere to judge him, a code the American people voted to change. They contrive re-interpretations of what Mr. Trump says, explaining what he meant when he said this or that, rather than simply reporting what he said or offering a menu of explanations for what he meant. Additionally, you can bet the interpretation they provide will always be the worst one possible. They deny certain historical facts while affirming others to create a skewed, imbalanced, inaccurate – ergo, false – perspective for their audiences.

Here is an example of what I mean. The president issued an executive order banning visitors, migrants, and refugees from certain areas of the world known by our intelligence services, military men, and the media to be cauldrons of bloody terrorism, hatred, and gross intolerance. Mr. Trump issued a temporary ban of 120 days until such time as effective vetting procedures to weed out the bloody terrorists had been created, tested, and placed. The purpose of his order: protect Americans from mass shootings and explosions and knife attacks.

This past week Judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington State decided to insert himself into the political conversation. Robart issued a ban on Trump’s terrorism ban when the state of Washington complained Trump’s terrorism ban would interfere with its private companies seeking employees (i.e., not American workers but foreign workers!!!)!

Subsequently, Mr. Trump, in another one of those fits of honesty he expresses on Twitter, and which the media caustically detract because it bypasses them, criticized Robart for the bad decision.

So on Monday, what are establishment media outlets reporting? Take Morning Joe on MSNBC, for example. They are trying to pummel Mr. Trump, which is like me trying to pummel a polar bear. Trump’s criticism of Robart is “bone-chilling”, Joe Scarborough declared. The president was violating the sacred space between the executive and the judiciary, spoiling our system of checks and balances, and threatening, oh, hell, I don’t know, the Apocalypse? I kept waiting for the pale horse to appear and gallop over Joe’s thick head.

Joe desperately tried to draw a parallel with guilty Bill Clinton quietly accepting the Supreme Court’s disbarment of him (as if he could have done anything differently) and guilty Richard Nixon quietly accepting the Court’s order to hand over the missing audiotape.

Okay, those were criminal cases and matters of law. No, you can’t hide evidence. No, you can’t escape punishment for acting unlawyerly and unethically (but you still get to be president).

What’s the difference? Whoa! There are many. First of all, Washington – and any other state or commonwealth or county or municipality – has no standing, zero, absolutely none, to direct how immigration is enacted and enforced (i.e., executed by the chief executive, the president). If the terrorism ban inconveniences the employment practices of the selfish, greedy corporations that want to hire foreigners instead of fellow countrymen, TFB. The president acts on behalf of the entire country and all his fellow citizens, not a few warped special interests whose interests are secondary to the general welfare, common defense, and security of the people.

Second, the president has a Constitutional mandate to carry out the laws promulgated by Congress, including the immigration laws.

Third, the federal statutory law gives the president the authority and power to KEEP OUT of the country any individuals or class of individuals. Yes, the wording of the law says exactly that.

President Trump’s criticism of Robart at worst is a minor consideration. I like it because he is taking to task these activist judges who want the law to reflect their own political ideals rather than their jurisprudence reflecting the law. Mr. Trump is holding such jurists accountable.

What the media have been hiding or glossing over is that Robart overstepped his judicial boundaries to defy our checks and balances and to interfere with the president’s sphere of action just so the judge could force his extremist “progressive” philosophy on the American people. Now that’s chilling, maybe even to the bone.

It’s not going to stand. Sooner or later, President Trump’s ban will be upheld and resume. Rest assured that the establishment politicos and their media minions will not rest. Mr. Trump is too much of a threat to their power and dominion.

Drain the swamp!