After a Seattle federal judge and a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals turned back president Trump’s executive order on immigration, it is time for us freedom lovers to launch a crusade for honesty and Constitutional integrity in our courts. It is long, long overdue.
et us begin a war on “fake judges”, those charlatans from the socialist/communist left who go to law school, get appointed as judges and then, when they have reached a position of maximum power, totally ignore American law and substitute their political opinions when it suits their cause and has maximum impact on our nation’s jurisprudence.
Nikitas3.com believes that this immigration case is going to blow up in the face of the Democrat left, like all of their so-called ‘victories’ over Trump. This case is going to expose the lawless left and light a fire under those of us who want to see our legal system reformed to serve the rule of law, not political whim.
The Seattle judge’s decision did not even address the fact that president Trump has every legal right to halt immigration under federal law as stated here in Section 1182(f) of the US Code:
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.
Obama used this exclusionary order 19 separate times with not a peep of protest. Democrat president Jimmy Carter restricted Iranians from coming into the US during the Iran hostage crisis, and he even expelled hundreds of Iranian students studying here who were in the US illegally.
Democrat president Franklin D. Roosevelt went much further. He put 120,000 legal Japanese-American citizens into internment camps during World War II after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
Not only did the Seattle judge ignore the published and accepted legal statute that allowed Trump to do what he did, but he went the other way and made his argument against the Trump order on political and emotional grounds, that somehow no president has a right to exclude downtrodden foreigners from immigration into the United States, which is downright false.
There are even reporters at major news outlets claiming that the Trump order is “unconstitutional”, which is farcical since the order covers people who are not US citizens. But this is how far the “fake news” media will go to cover for “fake judges”.
The Seattle judge went further into outright factual error in claiming that no immigrants from the seven nations covered under Trump’s order had been arrested for any terrorist acts within the US since 9/11. This is utterly false and on this alone, the ruling against the Trump order is bogus. If a judge does not know the basic facts and thus why the order was implemented, he should not be ruling.
Trump then called the judge a “so-called judge”, and Trump was absolutely correct on that count. There are thousands of “so-called” judges in our nation, carrying a political banner. Like the Seattle judge, they don’t even know the facts, or they brazenly ignore the facts.
Here is judge and political analyst Andrew Napolitano explaining the case further. Napolitano wrote this on Newsmax.com:
A 1952 federal statute (1182(f)) permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security. Trump exercised that authority in accordance with the 1952 law when he signed his Jan. 27 order banning all immigration from the seven named countries.
When the president exercises powers granted to him by the Constitution or federal statues or when Congress passes bills, one cannot simply sue the government in federal court because one does not like what has been done. That is so because the Constitution has preconditions for a lawsuit in federal court. One of those preconditions is what lawyers and judges call “standing.” Standing means that the plaintiff has alleged and can most likely show that the defendant has caused the plaintiff an injury in fact, distinct from all others not in the case.
Hence, it is curious that the plaintiffs in the Seattle case were not people whose entry had been barred by Trump’s order but rather the governments of two states (Washington and Oregon), each claiming to sue in behalf of people and entities resident or about to be resident in them. The court should have dismissed the case as soon as it was filed because of long-standing Supreme Court policy that bars federal litigation alleging harm to another and permits it only for the actual injury or immediate likelihood of injury to the litigant.
Nevertheless, the Seattle federal judge heard oral argument on the two states’ emergency application for a temporary restraining order against the president. During that oral argument, the judge asked a lawyer for the Department of Justice how many arrests of foreign nationals from the seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya) and singled out by the president for immigration suspension there have been in the United States since 9/11. When the DOJ lawyer said she did not know, the judge answered his own question by saying, “None.”
He was wrong.
There have been dozens of people arrested and convicted in the United States for terrorism-related crimes since 9/11 who were born in the seven countries. (Editorial note: The actual number is 72). Yet even if the judge had been correct, his question was irrelevant — and hence the answer meaningless — because it does not matter to a court what evidence the president relied on in this type of order. This is the kind of judicial second-guessing — substituting the judicial mind for the presidential mind — that is impermissible in our system. It is impermissible because the Constitution assigns to the president alone nearly all decision-making authority on foreign policy and because Congress has assigned to the president the power of immigration suspension as a tool with which to implement foreign policy.
These rules and policies — the requirement of standing before suing and the primacy of the president in making foreign policy — stem directly from the Constitution. Were they not in place, then anyone could sue the government for anything and induce a federal judge to second-guess the president. That would convert the courts into a super-legislature — albeit an unelected, unaccountable, opaque one.
… One of the arguments made by the state of Washington to explain why it had standing was laughable. Washington argued that corporations located in Washington would suffer the irreparable loss of available high-tech-qualified foreign employees if the ban were upheld. Even if this were likely and even if it were provable, it would not establish injury in fact to the government of Washington. When pressed to reveal what entity Washington was trying to protect, it enumerated a few familiar names, among which was Microsoft.
In other words, the “fake judge” in Seattle, a left-winger appointed by Republican George W. Bush (no surprise there for globalist Bush), used “fake law” to make his ruling against Trump.
Now Trump is going to re-write the executive order and re-impose it. But if he takes the existing order to the Supreme Court, it should be upheld, i.e., the 9th Circuit and Seattle judge rulings against it would be thrown out. The 9th Circuit is notoriously left-wing and has been overturned 80%, more than any other court.
But that probably would not stop the four liberal, Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justices from ruling against Trump because those four justices are “fake judges” too. These four judges never rule with the conservatives on major cases, even when the law is with the conservatives (for instance, that 1182(f) is a legal statute that has been applied many times before). These liberal justices always rule politically on the big cases, showing that they too are practicing “fake law”.
President Trump now has the State of the Union Address coming up. He should use this address to clearly state the facts in the case. If he does so he will end up being the winner, setting the stage for more judicial victories down the road.
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)