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

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.

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.

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 national 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, 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.’” It’s “ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated.”

Was parens patriae invoked to stop the state-sanctioned starving of Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo? Terri was an American adult suspended in a vegetative state, whose husband wanted her dead. She was fatally denied due process by the appellate courts, state and federal.

Robart’s mission of mercy was to rescue “two visiting scholars who had planned to spend time at Washington State University” and “were not permitted to enter the United States. One was informed he would be unable to obtain a visa.” As “helpless” were “three prospective employees from countries covered by the Executive Order,” which “the University of Washington was in the process of sponsoring.” Protected, too, from “irreparable harm” were a couple of interns. Likewise, they were sponsored by WSU, a university which receives money from American taxpayers, but brags of serving “citizens … worldwide.”

This university’s mission of “global engagement” received Court sanctioned parent-like protections. In logic, this constitutes a mistake of category. I’ve never heard of a vulnerable “mission” that requires parental protection. People, not things, require protection against harm. Don’t judges—even if Sharia-compliant—follow logic?

Universities funded by American taxpayers might try doing some local engagement. You don’t need a visa to visit Washington State from West Virginia.

IRAQI, SYRIAN, YEMENI, LIBYAN, SOMALI AND SUDANESE TALENT

Despite the disconcerting push by neoconservatives in the Trump administration to conflate the Iranian people with their government, and to lump them with the rest in the Ban—you should know the following: Iranians are well-represented in our state’s high-tech industry as top talent (PhD's galore).

I’ve yet to hear of a single coveted Syrian, Yemeni, Somali or Sudanese whom we absolutely must have here, for his unique contributions. The same applies to the poor Iraqis. Perhaps Bush killed most of them.

And if Libya had top technical or scientific talent, Hillary Clinton killed their prospects. (And with a good deal of hilarity; that broad is a natural-born killer.)

Yes, Bill O’Reilly, President Trump was correct when he asserted that, “We have a lot of killers.” Our country’s politicians have left lands not their own slick with blood. But this doesn’t mean the American people deserve to be killed stateside, which is what President Trump’s Executive Order was meant to prevent.

Protected, too, from “irreparable harm” were a couple of interns. Likewise, they were sponsored by WSU, a university which receives money from American taxpayers, but brags of serving “citizens … worldwide.”

This university’s mission of “global engagement” received Court sanctioned parent-like protections. In logic, this constitutes a mistake of category.

I'd say the majority of US university and their mission statements say something like this these days. That they serve the world and are "global citizens" in a "diverse world". Statements that could have been written by Soros himself.

Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” cites 8 USC 1182(f) several times for its authority.

The Order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit does not address the Executive Order's authority and instead conjures reasons why this authority can not be exercised. These reasons include religious bias, particularized injury, and violations of foreigners' Fifth Amendment due process right to enter the United States.

The Court agrees with the States' claims of Trump's alleged religious bias as the basis for the seven countries subject to a temporary visa ban. The Executive Order cites 8 USC 1187(a)(12) which designates seven countries as sources of international terrorism and as failed states. The Executive Order imposes a temporary visa ban on these countries so that the United States may "conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat". This became law prior to Trump becoming president.

The Court agrees with the States' argument that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities. The universities of Washington and Minnesota do not suffer a particularized injury. The injury (actual or potential) suffered by universities of Washington and Minnesota are no different from the injuries (actual or potential) suffered by universities of each and all states. The universities of all states - indeed all universities whether state owned or not - suffer identical injuries (actual or potential).

According to the Court Washington and Minnesota are likely to succeed, even though law and judicial precedent does not support them. According to the Court the United States are not likely to succeed, even though law and judicial precedent supports them.

The Court never even address the statute cited as authorizing the Executive Order and is interfering with the Executive's exercise of Congress's very clearly stated grant of authority. The Court is repudiating the will of Congress, and on the absurd pretense of granting due process rights to foreigners in foreign countries, foreigners who apparently have a right to enter the United States, on the false claim of particularized injury, and on the baseless claim of religious bias.

The Court's Order has no basis in fact, but on fantasy. These judges are political hacks and unworthy of their position.

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.