Posted on 02/09/2017 12:32:51 PM PST by Yo-Yo
I see that the President has referred to the judge in the Immigration Executive Order (EO) as a “so-called” judge. I thought this was unfortunate, not to mention bad tactics … but after listening to the oral arguments about the EO, I understood more about where he was coming from.
The astounding part to me was that both the Judges and the lawyer for Washington State were discussing statements made by then-candidate Trump and by Rudy Giuliani, in order to determine whether this was really a “Muslim ban” in disguise.
The argument the lawyer made and the three-judge panel is actually considering is that if the Judges determine that the President acted with bad intent, if he crafted the law in response to some ignoble impulse to ban Muslims, that is a reason in the scales of justice to find in favor of the plaintiffs.
Now, hold it right there. Just stop. Think for a moment about what they are saying. Here’s their claim:
If they find the President acted from bad motives, that is a reason to find his actions illegal.
And of course, this has the opposite and in some sense more interesting corollary:
If they find the President acted from noble motives, that is a reason to find his actions legal.
Say what? These three good folk have set themselves up to judge legality, not based on the ACTUAL LAW, but based on their own assessment of the Presidents motives?
The idea of considering the statements of candidate Trump and some random interview of Rudy Giuliani in this context is the most moronic thing I’ve ever heard come out of a judge’s mouth. I can see why Trump calls folks like this “so-called Judges”. A judge is supposed to look at what the law actually says. Not what Rudy Giuliani said about the law. What the law says. Not what Elizabeth Warren said about the law. What the law says. Not what Candidate Trump said about the law.
The only valid point at issue is WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS! Appeals court judges are not the morality police, they weren’t appointed to decide which lawmaker is a good person and whether their motives are pure.
The question they should be discussing is whether the Immigration Executive Order is legal according to what the various laws ACTUALLY SAY about Presidents and EOs. In other words, does the Executive Order ACTUALLY BAN MUSLIMS OR NOT? Does the Executive Order ACTUALLY INSTITUTE A RELIGIOUS TEST OR NOT?
Hey, protip to the Judges! Sometimes good men write bad laws … however, the fact they are good men is NOT a reason to find their bad laws legal. Even granting that the authors of a given law were busy paving their particular road to hell with only the finest of truly pure and good intentions … so freakin’ what? It’s still the road to hell …
I dunno … maybe living seventeen years in the South Pacific Islands has something to do with it, but I swear I just turned around, and suddenly we have judges who seem to think that their political moralizing, and what Rudy said, is more important than the law itself.
Huh? I’d heard that the Ninth Circuit Court was both the most liberal and the most-reversed Circuit Court in the land, but I had no idea it had gotten to the level of Judge Judy … actually, I take that back, it’s an insult to Judge Judy …
I can see why this would set the President’s hair on fire … that kind of judicial malfeasance angrifies my own blood mightily. It’s still bad tactics to call them out, but certainly understandable.
Rainy day, I can only see about a hundred feet (30m) into the mist … reminds me of the song:
When you’re in the Little Land, they fill your hands with gold,
You think you’ll stay for just a day, you come out bent and old.
Dead leaves in your pockets, snowflakes in your hands, Run, run from the little folk,
Or you’ll have dead leaves in your pockets, and snowflakes in your hands …
For all of you, sunlight far-reaching on the boundless sea …
w.
PS: As always I ask that if you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO. I’m happy to discuss and defend my own words. I cannot comment on your personal interpretation of unknown words of mine.
PPS: Don’t get me started on the question of Judge James Robart, the man who stayed the Immigration Order, the man President Trump described as a “so-called Judge”. From Reason (emphasis mine):
Remember Amherst College student “John Doe,” who was expelled for sexual misconduct, even though he had good reason to believe that his accuser had actually assaulted him? A judge recently blocked Doe’s attempt to subpoena his female accuser’s text messages on grounds that re-litigating the matter “would impose emotional and psychological trauma” on her.
Consider the implications of this decision. According to Seattle District Judge James Robart, a student who believes Amherst violated his due process rights, wrongfully expelled him, and ignored subsequent evidence that his accuser, “Sandra Jones,” was the actual violator of the college’s sexual misconduct policies, does not deserve the opportunity to make his case because someone else’s feelings are more important.
Come for the tragedy … stay for the miscarriage of justice … my further thoughts on the subject of kangaroo courts on campus are here.
With DJT you always have to look a little deeper. He seems to be on point 99% of the time.
A judge who does not serve the law, is a so-called judge.
I have not noticed President Trump being off point even once. He is accused of stupidity every day. He has yet to be found guilty of even one tiny infraction of reason and justice.
Stupendous article. Have not read Willis heretofore. I will surely do so.
A judge who does not serve the law, is a so-called judge.”
Exactly. I supported Trump’s so-called judge remark immediately having personal knowledge of what a tard Robart is.
Completely unlawful considerations. USGov does not have authority to create thought judgements and shouldn’t. These three and much of USA has gone insane.
“The argument the lawyer made and the three-judge panel is actually considering is that if the Judges determine that the President acted with bad intent...”
Does not apply — The EO was put in place to protect ALL American’s and the language is very specific and very clear — If anything happens to any American during this time, the crime is on the Washington Judge and 9th Circuit Judges for not allowing the President to protect American’s and they should be held liable and prosecuted for impeding the President’s Constitutional duty for protect American’s FIRST.
Any blood shed by someone that should not have been in this country will be squarely on their hands...I would make sure that every RED State County that voted for Trump was carpet bombed with TV advertising to that effect that one liberal judge in Washington State and 3 liberal judges in SAN FRANCISCO could have prevented the death of....I almost hope they decide against President Trump.
Excuse me if I don't by default believe the breed is automatically and universally deserving of respect.
Bad tactics, though, I agree that it usually would be. In this case, however, I can think of several reasons why that is the preferred tactic for the Trump camp long game.
Of course, this is all a complete lie. The Constitution only prohibits the application of a religious test to public officials. It has nothing to do with immigration, and if Trump decided tomorrow that he WAS going to ban all Muslims, he would be within his authority to do so. This goes hand in hand with the parallel lie that prospective immigrants somehow have constitutional rights. If they haven't yet arrived here and haven't been granted any sort of legal status under our law, they have zero legal rights under U.S. law, period.
Whenever the left keeps hammering a particular term or phrase over and over again you can be pretty confident they are attempting to deceive.
This can only end with the judge’s impeachment for violating his oath to protect the Constitution.
I would like to see Trump and congress establish a new special court comprised of 9 justices, load it up with strict constitutionalist, and call it the Court of Judicial Oversight. Its function would be to immedialy review all questionable decisions by all other courts, including SCOTUS, and rule whether or not they are guilty of judicial activism. They would reverse the ruling and any Judge found doing so twice would be removed from the bench.
Has the 9th Circus announced their decision yet?
A religious test is considered by both left and right to be the establishment of religion in violation of the 1st Amendment.
The simple fact is that non-Citizens do have God given rights found in the Bill of Rights.
Non-Citizens do not have Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment, no Equal Protection of Privileges, which are not God given Rights.
It is a Privilege to live in the USA. Natural Born Citizens are Privileged to live here. Non-Citizens do not enjoy that Equal Protection of the Privilege to live here. Unless there is a contract covered by contract law that gives a non-citizen universal immunity, the US Government, the President, the ICE can refuse any and all non-citzens entry anytime they want for any reason they want.
The President/ICE might be restrained by Congress; But not by the Constitution when it comes to privileges of non-Citizens.
Good post.
Rumor has it that they will announce their ruling at 6:30 PM EST.
“Now, hold it right there. Just stop. Think for a moment about what they are saying. Here’s their claim:
“If they find the President acted from bad motives, that is a reason to find his actions illegal.
“And of course, this has the opposite and in some sense more interesting corollary:
“If they find the President acted from noble motives, that is a reason to find his actions legal.”
That is how communism has destroyed our society: There are no absolutes - except the absolute of power over all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.