Category Archives: Justice

UPDATED: Coequal in Tyranny: The Ninth Circuit’s Rules for Radicals

Constitution, Critique, Donald Trump, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Iran, Justice, Law, Neoconservatism

“Coequal in Tyranny: The Ninth Circuit’s Rules for Radicals” is the current column, now on Townhall.com. An excerpt:

Read the judicial rules for radicals issued by the United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in affirmation of the ban on The Ban. It follows the Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, with the imprimatur of 62 million voters, to protect the nation from foreign terrorists entering into the United States. Two states objected to the president’s undeniably badly written Order, which, while upholding negative rights—and neither denying natural rights nor minting positive ones—was nevertheless replete with administrative errors.

Acting as coequal partners in the administrative tyranny the president is trying to break, the two states issued a temporary restraining order against “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” (I can already hear the election midterm ads.)

In the corner for the Deplorables was a government lawyer. August Flentje Esq. had “argued” (if you can call it that) for an emergency stay of the Washington State district court’s temporary restraining order against the president. The three Ninth Circuit jurists who heard the case said no.

CAREER GOVERNMENT LAWYERS. If you’re good at what you do, you look to make it in the private sector (as our president did, before he did us a favor). If not, you seek sheltered employment (as President Trump’s predecessor did). Clearly, clerking for the Supreme Court, as August Flentje had done, doesn’t mean a whole lot.

In presenting the oral arguments for the president and the people, Flentje evinced a level of incompetence that spurred the Bench to the heights of usurpation. For example, when The Court caviled about an alleged lack of evidence for the necessity of the “travel ban,” not only did Flentje fail to provide it, but he failed to question the need for this evidence based on the scope of the president’s constitutional, executive power in matters of nation security.

Mr. President: You promised to hire the best. Alan Dershowitz is champing at the bit. Kris Kobach would kill it in any court. (Jonathan Turley is soft. Don’t touch Fox News’ tele-judges.)

Helped by the poor job stumblebum Flentje did in arguing the president’s prerogative and position, the Ninth Circuit judges usurped President Trump’s constitutional authority, substituting their own judgment for his. The three refused to lift the ban on the ban and reinstate an Executive Order that was never meant to be subjected to judicial review, in the first place.

GEORGE W. BUSH’S LAWYER. Those on the Right who opposed George Bush during his presidency (check) were vindicated yet again. In the nooks-and-crannies of our command-and-control judiciary, Bush had squirreled away a jurist as bad as John G. Roberts Jr.

Recall, Roberts, chief of the country’s legal politburo of proctologists, rewrote Obama’s Affordable Care Act. He then proceeded to provide the fifth vote to uphold the individual mandate undergirding the law, thereby undeniably and obscenely extending Congress’s taxing power. (Lazy government worker Paul Ryan still hasn’t come up with an alternative to ObamaCare, one that’ll prevent the Left from torching the country. Patience. It’s only been eight years.)

The unelected Bush appointee under discussion is from my State of Washington. District Judge James L. Robart, like Bush, would wrestle a crocodile for an illegal immigrant. Or, for potential immigrants, preferably from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan.

Having been granted standing by the Ninth Circuit to appeal President Trump’s Executive Order, Robart, as explained by a Daily Caller contributor, “hinged his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, …

… READ THE REST.  “Coequal in Tyranny: The Ninth Circuit’s Rules for Radicals” is the current column, now on Townhall.com.

Best tweet:

Best retort to #9thCircuit nutters: US can bomb the 7 Muslim countries. That's constitutional. It can't peacefully disassociate from them. https://t.co/c1JG0qdhgl

Posted by Ilana Mercer, Author on Thursday, February 9, 2017

FACEBOOK:

Noah Purcell, you don’t represent Washington State. You, the tech execs and social justice clientele are having a ‘moment.’ Enjoy! It won’t last! You didn’t even have standing to bring the case. You’re asserting the rights of people who are not even Americans. You’re a joke. The 9th circuit is a joke.

Don’t Forget, Judicial Activist James Robart Is A Bush-Appointed Judge

Bush, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Justice, Law

Via The Daily Caller:

President Trump was correct in excoriating liberal activist federal judge James Robart for his grossly legally defective temporary restraining order against President Trump’s temporary travel ban. Beyond excoriation Robart needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial incompetence.

Robart reached far beyond his judicial authority in even supposing that the State of Washington had standing to appeal President Trump’s order in the first place. Robart hinges his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, a term meaning “A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.” Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.

RELATED Centralized Judicial Tyranny: Bush-Era Judge (& Tech Execs) Moves Against Trump Immigration Order

But preparation was lacking:

UPDATED (2/4): Centralized Judicial Tyranny: Bush-Era Judge (& Tech Execs) Moves Against Trump Immigration Order

Bush, Business, Donald Trump, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism, Technology

A George-Bush era judge acts against the wishes of the president, as expressed in an Executive Order, no less, and the 61,900,651 who voted for Donald Trump and stand behind him. Why the surprise at The Hill?

Neoconservative Bush nominated Harriet Miers, whom even staunch Bush supporters said was deeply stupid. That nomination was aborted, but a lot of others weren’t (See “Bush-appointed judge who halted Trump travel ban nationwide.”)

The sickening “temporary nationwide restraining order, stopping President Trump’s executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the United States,” is courtesy of my sickening State of Washington.

Judge James Robart, who was appointed by former President George Bush in 2003, ruled the executive order would be stopped nationwide, effective immediately.
“The Constitution prevailed today,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement after the ruling. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”
“It’s our president’s duty to honor this ruling and I’ll make sure he does,” Ferguson added.
The ruling, made at the request of Washington and Minnesota, is the broadest to date against Trump’s executive order.

When these two lawyers claim economic harm has been inflicted on our state, you know they’re speaking for Microsoft and Amazon, ideologically motivated entities both. Yes, conservative prattle about cheap labor is simplistic. The tech execs are way worse than businessmen vested in the wealth of their shareholders. That would be a good thing and a belssing.

The truth is that the tech execs are true believers, true radical leftists. They believe all cultures are equal, they enjoy diminishing western culture, and they take sadistic pleasure in replacing local employees with imported ones, banishing Christian bibles and erecting Islamic pray-rooms. By so doing, tech exec keep the locals pliant.

UPDATE (2/4): A Centralized Judicial Tyranny.

Of Course The President’s Ban Is Constitutional

Constitution, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Justice

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. —The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Section, 212(f).

President Donald Trump’s moratorium on the entry of all refugees into the United States, and “an order for ‘extreme vetting’ as a condition for entry for some foreign citizens,” is constitutional. This is old hat; discussed, too, in my book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed.” (June, 2016).

No fan of the executive order, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says he disagrees with his “colleagues at George Washington University Law School and other law schools that the order is clearly unconstitutional”:

…Courts are not supposed to rule on the merits of such laws but their legality. I think that the existing precedent favors Trump.

First, this is not a religious ban. When it was first discussed on the campaign, it was described as a ban on Muslims. This is not a religious ban. It certainly can be opposed as having that effect but there are a wide array of Muslim countries not covered by the ban and would not be impacted by the restrictions. A court cannot in my view treat this order as carrying out a religious ban as it is currently written. (Trump’s comments that he wants to prioritize Christians could raise more compelling arguments of religious discrimination).

Second, the law largely suspends entry pending the creation of new vetting procedures. That is based on a national security determination made by the President. Courts have generally deferred to such judgments. A president’s authority is at its zenith on our borders. Hillary Clinton herself campaigned on carefully vetting refugees (though she favors increasing such entries). In a November 2015 national security speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said “So yes, we do need to be vigilant in screening and vetting any refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security professionals in close coordination with our allies and partners.”

Finally, there is precedent for limited entry from particular countries going back to some of the earliest periods in this country. The earlier immigration laws include the 1875 Page Act which focused on Asian immigrants and those believes to be engaged in prostitution or considered convicts in their native countries. Then there was the infamous 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Then there were other measures limiting immigration from particular areas like the 1906 “Gentleman’s Agreement” (Japanese aliens) and the or the 1917 Immigration Act (“Asiatic Barred Zone”). In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed the “Quota Acts” limiting entry from disfavored countries. of nations from whom no further immigrants would be accepted. In every case, immigration policy continued to develop as a series of widening, discriminatory exclusions. It was not until 1965 that we broke from our long and troubling history is such discrimination. However, The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act contains section, 212(f) that gives sweeping authority on the exclusion of certain aliens: …

… READ THE REST.


The Lobbyists: