'Muslim ban' injunction is a judicial coup against President Trump (unconstitutional)

American Thinker ^ | February 4, 2017 | Ed Straker

[NYer]

Federal district Judge James Robart of Seattle ordered a complete, nationwide temporary restraining order against President Trump's temporary ban on visitors from seven Middle Eastern countries.  If you read the ruling as I have, you can see this is clearly unconstitutional on its face, and constitutes a judicial coup against President Trump and the executive branch.

1) The standards for granting a temporary restraining order are quite high. The plaintiff must show that he is likely to succeed on the merits, and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.  Here the people from the excluded countries cannot show irreparable harm, only that their entry to the United States would be delayed. And they are unlikely to succeed on the merits, because the President has no obligation to let foreigners into the country.  On the contrary, there may be irreparable harm if the temporary travel ban is lifted, as terrorists may enter the country and kill people.

2) By the way, the plaintiffs here aren't even the people from the excluded countries.  They are the states of Washington and Minnesota who claim their citizens would be harmed if the temporary ban were not lifted; perhaps Microsoft is being deprived of some cheap labor.  It's a flimsy argument at best.  This ruling has no substantial effect on states' residents, contrary to what Judge Robart has said.

3) President Trump clearly has discretion to decide who to admit to the United States and who not to, when it comes to admitting people who are not citizens.  Foreigners do not enjoy the protection of our Constitution.  The fact that a citizen may incidentally benefit from a foreigner coming to America doesn't mean that that citizen has standing.

[jiggyboy]

This federal judge would qualify as one of the “civil Officers of the United States” subject to impeachment and removal by Congress “for other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” of this deliberate attack on Trump’s clear, legal order which is based on the plain language of the Constitution.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Re term limits: I almost added that in my initial post.

I was thinking particularly about the Supremes. The original idea behind lifetime appointments was that they could focus on the law and be apolitical. It clearly hasn’t worked out that way.

I think that after 20 years on the bench they get stale, and the average Justice, serving often until death or complete disability, is on longer than that. Senility is also a problem.

So, the idea I was rolling around was this: When a Supreme Court Justice needs to be appointed, his term is either 13 or 17 years (drawn from a hat). Those numbers push his replacement out 3 or 4 terms, will never line up with elections in a predictable way, and are long enough. I’d combine it with an age limit as well—maybe 75 or 77. That way, you’d get experienced judges, mostly in their mid to late 50’s, at the height of their experience and reasoning capacity.

[headstamp 2]

[Anyone notice how liberals, though, are well-trained in using lawyers and courts to side with them?]

Its basically how they have gotten their agenda passed in the last 50 years.

[fr_freak]

It’s been remarked that judges often drift progressive, but rarely drift conservative.

That's probably because an American conservative would be someone who believes in the limited power of government, which essentially means he would have to be willing to limit his own power once he has achieved office. This would require a man of substantial character and values, and such men are rare in this world.

[JPX2011]

I think it’s something about the power of the office, and the egotistic seductiveness of being the interpreter of the law. I don’t know how that tendency can be changed.

Can't change human nature, unfortunately. But what we can do is force Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and just strip them of their authority in certain matters.

As an ancillary benefit, if the scope of the federal judiciary becomes limited, if it becomes the equivalent of shipping a federal employee off to Adak, Alaska, then perhaps will get a better class of judges who really care about law and the Constitution and not the power and the perks.

[lakecumberlandvet]

This judge is on the extreme left geographically and philosophically. Radical, unconstitutional rulings by judges should, after appropriate consideration, be ignored.

[elpadre]

How quickly can the DOJ get this before an appellant court?? or - can they take straight to the Supremes?

[fr_freak]

The original idea behind lifetime appointments was that they could focus on the law and be apolitical. It clearly hasn’t worked out that way.

Unfortunately, the brilliant system of checks and balances that was built into the Constitution was rendered null and void as soon as the current two-party system became the norm. I consider that oversight to be the greatest failure of the Founders, since the concept of political parties was known to them at the time. Whereas the three branches are supposed to keep watch over each other, they now aid and abet each other as long as the branches are controlled by members of the same party. Given that the Democrats are now run completely by supporters of global Marxism and Republicans are generally spineless dupes, we have virtually no protection from abuses of power in our government.

[Carry me back]

The administration isn’t going to stop over this. This unelected Judge doesn’t have the power. Trump is commander in chief, that’s what he acting under to keep America safe from our enemies.

[lakecumberlandvet]

Since the electorate will not term limit politicians, term limits need to be imposed by constitutional amendment. In a more perfect world judges could function well with lifetime appointments. But what we’ve got is far from perfect and so judges should be appointed for a set amount of time, say six years like senators. In addition, repeal of the 17th Amendment would be a major improvement. The 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

[Wuli]

Trump should say: we will take the case directly to the Supreme Court and meanwhile let the judge try to enforce it, with no federal district attorneys, secret service, federal marshals, FBI or any other force doing his bidding.

[WildHighlander57]

Synopsis of the remaining 4 reasons

President can exclude a group from entering & is within his constitutional rights to do so. Foreigners don’t have any rights under the Constitution.

The bsn doesn’t encompass all Muslim countries, just the most dangerous ones.

The president has wide latitude in courts in matters of national security.

A district court’s authority only extends to its district; if it didn’t, then there’d be no need for the next higher level, the circuit court, and one district could dictate to the whole nation;
—It doesn’t work that way.—

Author’s background

An attorney who went to the same law school as Neil Gorsuch

[WildHighlander57]

NYer

Thanks for posting!

Excellent points made by a lawyer that went to same school as nominee Gorsuch

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3521256/posts?page=1#1

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3521256/posts?page=32#32

[xzins]

It is a travesty that a couple hundred lower level judges around the country can function as a power above the congress and the president over the entire nation. At most, such a judge should have authority only in their own district. Personally I wouldn’t allow even that. I’d instead allow them + appeals, if their issue survives appeals, expedited access to the scotus.

The idea of little dictators around the country is obscene.

[scope721]

If this is a “muslim ban” then, under that logic, stopping illegals from mexico is really a catholic ban.

[Rome2000]

Nothing in the Constitution about Federal courts or Federal Judges other than SCOTUS

Time to do away with lifetime appointments for Federal Judges and force out anyone who has been there longer than 15 years.

Just as important as building the Wall, has to be done.

[Rusty0604]

He came out and said that black lives matter on another case.

[ilovesarah2012]

The judge was appointed by GWB.

[baltimorepoet]

It figures that a whining mangina simp libtart from the Left Coast would do such an act, as a judge.

[ilovesarah2012]

Not even close to an impeachable offense. Let them try. Just because we don’t riot doesn’t mean we can’t.