Posted on 02/12/2017 8:56:22 AM PST by markomalley
Stephen Miller argued that a judge cannot singlehandedly strike down the president’s executive order on immigration because we “have equal branches of government in this country.”
After a three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled to reject the Justice Department’s request to lift a Seattle judge’s restraining order on President Trump’s immigration order this week, his senior policy adviser said that the judicial branch is “not supreme.”
“The point I want to make to you, George, and the point I want to make to your listeners, is that we have equal branches of government in this country,” Miller told George Stephanopoulos during an interview on “This Week” Sunday. “The judiciary is not supreme. A district judge in Seattle cannot force the President of the United States to change their laws and our constitution because of their own personal views.”
“The president has the power under the INA, Section 212 F8 USC 82 F (ph) to suspend the entry of aliens when it’s in the national interest,” Miller continued. “He has that same power under an Article 2 power to conduct to the foreign affairs of our country. And we will do whatever we need to do, consistent with the law, to keep this country safe.”
WATCH:
(video at link)
“The reality is, is that this is not a disagreement about the law and the constitution. There is no constitutional right for a citizen in a foreign country who has no status in America to demand entry into our country. Such a right cannot exist; such a right will never exist. This is an ideological disagreement between those who believe we should have borders and should have controls, and those who believe there should be no borders and no controls. That’s the essence of this debate, and the bottom line is the president’s power in this area of represent the apex of executive authority. And we have multiple tools across multiple fronts to ensure that we are preventing terrorists’ infiltration of our country, and to ensure that those who enter our country share our values and support our people, something that is supported overwhelmingly by the vast majority of the American public.”
Stephanopoulos then asked Miller if he was calling into question the legitimacy of the judge.
“I’m calling into the question the accuracy of the ruling. For instance, the district judge in Seattle said there was no indication of terrorism from these seven countries in our country. That is a factually false statement,” Miller said.
“We know there’s at least several dozen, perhaps many more than that, cases of terrorism from these countries that have happened in the United States in terms of terroristic plots, terroristic activity, material support for terrorism, supporting terrorism overseas — all different kinds of terroristic activity that’s been interdicted in the United States tracing back to these seven countries.”
Interesting choice of words...
Co-Equal branches of government — supposedly.
The law allows the POTUS to be the fact finder capable of banning groups from our country. Not even sure why that was allowed as a legitimate inquiry - the thought making process of the president. Can the 9th Circuit run our military now?
Todd:and the president himself saying to reporters that a new order may be drafted. Is that what you and others are doing right now? Drafting a new order since essentially the 9th circuit seemed to give you a road map of how to draw up something slightly more narrow that would accomplish your goal?
MILLER: We are considering all of our options right now, Chuck. That includes you can continue the appeal on the 9th and seek an emergency stay in the Supreme Court, and you can have a trial hearing on the merits at the district level or a hearing also at the 9th circuit and pursue additional executive actions. The bottom line is we are pursuing every single possible action to keep our country safe from terrorism. I want to be clear. We heard talk about how all of the branches of government are equal. That’s the point. They are equal. There’s no such thing as judicial supremacy. What the judges did is take power away that belongs squarely in the hands of the president of the United States.
That's what he actually said.
Notice how the Fake Newsie rephrames the issue.
Miller did a good job, put that Clinton operative masquerading as a journalist Stephanopolous into a hissy fit.
I was in a bagel store this morning where a TV is on in the dining area. Miller was on talking to Stephanopoulos. I thought he was riveting and a lot of people around me did too.
Miller is a powerful and articulate advocate of the President’s position.
Good.
As Abraham Lincoln observed of Justice Taney - “he made his decision - now let him enforce it.”
His point was the President is not subordinate to the judicial department.
Under our Constitution, our three branches of government are equal and independent.
That’s the essence of checks and balances. Judges have no business dictating to the President whether he can execute the laws.
He took an oath to do just that and no judge on earth has the authority to tell the President not to execute the laws.
Such a judge should be impeached and removed from office.
The judges are guilty of judicial overreach, the fact that they would ignore the Constitution, is in itself a crisis.
Judicial partisanship won’t stop unless we make Congress stop them.
The Leftwing Bridges of Madison County.
Marbury v. Madison
The court ruled for Marbury and against Madison.
Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of ordering Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury’s commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.
This court has gone a bridge too far.
There seems to be no painful way to convince a judge to change his behavior. Bad performance will continue until the penalty exceeds the reward.
Judiciously applying tar and feathers to a jurist may help encourage change.
SCOTUS has, and had, Original Jurisdiction. Trump’s team obviously cannot be trusted to read USConstitution, since they appeared in front of a low level Federal court and allowed it to say anything about the subject matter.
Follow the law or loose.
Its not a check or balance to have one circuit court judge be more powerful than a law written by congress and wielded by a president. that’s judicial branch ruling over the other two branches combined. Not acceptable.
If any branch is superior, it is the Congress; and in the Congress, the House.
The Congress can impeach a member of the other two branches; but the other branches can’t remove a member of each other or of Congress.
The House gets to begin impeachments and tax laws; because it is closest to the people, who are considered to hold the supreme power.
Stephen Miller’s thoughts - his ideas are so strong - they must stand alone. Stridency doesn’t work for Stephen Miller... this is for you Stephen...:
http://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20935
“Take the word butterfly. To use this word it is not necessary to make the voice weigh less than an ounce or equip it with small dusty wings. It is not necessary to invent a sunny day or a field of daffodils. It is not necessary to be in love, or to be in love with butterflies. The word butterfly is not a real butterfly. There is the word and there is the butterfly. If you confuse these two items people have the right to laugh at you. Do not make so much of the word. Are you trying to suggest that you love butterflies more perfectly than anyone else, or really understand their nature? The word butterfly is merely data. It is not an opportunity for you to hover, soar, befriend flowers, symbolize beauty and frailty, or in any way impersonate a butterfly. Do not act out words. Never act out words. Never try to leave the floor when you talk about flying. Never cl
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
...This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power...
Arrest the judge that violated the constitution
According to these judges
Washington and Minnesota are likely to succeed, even though law and judicial precedent does not support them.
The United States are not likely to succeed, even though law and judicial precedent supports them.
These judges never even address the statute cited as authorizing the EO.
These so-called judges are political hacks.
Kind of weird to see him reading his responses like that—but glad to hear his firm answers.
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.