Posted on 03/16/2017 3:39:21 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
(CNN)A federal judge in Maryland Thursday morning temporarily blocked the 90-day ban on immigration for citizens of six countries in President Donald Trump's...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Btt
This shadow government has GOT to be dismantled!
Great comment. I agree 100%.
What if a US marshal or two showed up on the next working day for the judge and removed them from their bench, transported them to DC and charged them with... i don’t know.
They’re not avoiding national security. They’re saying it is secondary to family visits, college hiring, foreign religious demographics, and campaign rhetoric.
I can’t imagine Anthony Kennedy buying this since he oversees the 9th circuit.
But TDS is strong in Washington DC.
However, if he does buy 2nd class status of national security, and if he’s the 5-4 swing vote, anyway, then they might as well give it to him now rather than later.
All that said, we really need to realize that the lower courts are not constitional mandates but are congressional creations. Congress needs to rein in the power of a district judge to set national policy. It should require a scotus approval for a lower court ruling to go national.
Somehow, the Federal Judiciary needs to be reigned in. Congress could restrict jurisdiction, but that is unlikely in the extreme. Much of the Judiciary is in alliance with the Uniparty that is obstructing and slow walking Trump’s nominees. This is all designed to bog down and stop Trump and the uppity citizenry that put him into office. Torches and pitchforks come to mind.
both Obammy appointees,, Obviously , the Senate has been cut out of the loop, willingly or otherwise.. both never had a vote in the Senate to confirm them.. they were rubber stamped thru.. some opposition party ol’ Mitch runs , huh??
So the judges are saying because these countries are majority muslim, the US cannot discriminate. So basically the United States cannot, ever, ban travel from any Muslim nation, no matter how dangerous? And not India - majority Hindu. I mean this is nuts. I’m sorry but didn’t Obama put a temporary ban on same said countries?
I guess. What was the religion of Germany. Would Japan have been Shintoism?
This is all really bad. Nothing will get done if it continues.
Trump needis to nip this in the bud and fast!
You mean just shut down all entry into the US? That will send the world economy into a tailspin, but so be it.
I agree. What does this mean for future presidents? Will they be micromanaged by district courts?
Essentially, yes - shut down entry for non-citizens and non-residents completely. The left has decided that judicious use of the power to prevent entry is unconstitutional, so let them deal with the consequences of having to apply injudicious use of that power.
The key, though, is to continually educate the public (without going through MSM) about the cause of the need for injudicious application of that power - the fact that feral federal judges believe they have the authority to rule over the president in this arena, where clearly they do not.
“We wanted President Obama and his party to have a nice, quiet dinner at Noi Thai, and did our best to keep it under wraps the whole day — even diners on the other side of the restaurant had no idea the president was eating here,” said Ying Rosawan, the restaurant’s general manager. “Only a handful of people knew he was coming. We only told our staff just before he came. In the end, it was so worth it and we really hope to see him on his next visit back home to Hawaii.”
Attempts to again restrain Trump’s new EO/invasion-protection order should be rebuffed because there is no genuine dispute of a material fact to restrain (no evidence the EO creates irreparable harm). If the EO is challenged in court on the merits, the judge would have a problem reconciling years of unconstitutional federal anti-discrimination law with the actual Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.
Of course, the Constitution validly trumps unconstitutional federal law. If Trump could get the case into a federal court with a just judge, he could win. If not, then the case could go up to the Supreme Court. If Trump’s nominee, Gorsuch, isn’t yet nominated, then four out of eight Justices could rule against the clear constitutional mandate at issue here. That would mean no decision in an evenly-divided court and, thus, the lower court ruling would stand. At that point we would have a clear constitutional crisis.
Constitutional Crisis and Gambit: Sooner or later, we must confront the massive, ongoing constitutional crisis in the federal courts which long ago went way off the constitutional rails and are basically in free-form with no apparent limitations. IMO, this is where Trump should throw down the gauntlet: call the Leftist judiciary bluff by notifying them of the reasons Trump is constitutionally mandated to take this action pursuant to Art VI, Sec 4 and why the courts have not shown a valid constitutionally-based reason for preventing his immigration EO. Then continue implementing the EO declaring the court’s ruling null and void.
This would be one branch, the executive, notifying the other, the judicial, with a constitutionally-based explanation why the action of the judicial branch is unconstitutional and, thus, null and void. Maybe include in the notice a time period for the judicial branch to correct their error but IMO the executive branch should continue with this constitutional EO/protection order for the safety of the nation at least until receiving a legitimate response from the judicial branch that would contain sound constitutionally-based reasoning. Trump should also notify Congress to correct THEIR error as well with appropriate legislation pursuant to Art VI, Sec 4. Maybe NOW is the time for this.
Trump’s rejecting the unconstitutional decision by the federal judiciary would almost certainly trigger a Congressional move to impeach Trump. Such a move would be without constitutional merit as Trump is the only party in this case trying to uphold the Constitution. What is the constitutional standard for impeachment? “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Art II, Sec 4). What is the constitutional standard for treason? “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (Art III, Sec 3, Cl 1). By constitutional standards, if anyone should be impeached, it should be these judges blocking Trump’s protection order.
The answer is Trump should take his case to the American People citing Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution MANDATING the feds PROTECT the U.S. from invasion. Trump should urge his fellow Americans to call their congressmen to support his efforts to protect the American People and ask Congress to fix the existing law or pass a new one pursuant to Article IV Section 4. It’s a gamble but sooner or later, this showdown needs to happen. Who knows if or when our politically-vacillating Congress will nominate Gorsuch and there’s also the possibility Gorsuch could turn Left at the Supreme Court stop light as so many others have before him. Maybe now is the time. Now or never. If Trump took his case to the American People like he did during his campaign, I think he would win.
It’s time We the American People stand up for OUR freedoms and protection, OUR Constitution, OUR country, and OUR President. Trump wants to constitutionally protect America from invasion which is the first duty of the Federal Government and invasion is exactly what illegal and dangerous immigration is. Let’s pray that God will again help America here. Let’s do what we can to help Trump win and continue to make America great again.
Instead of POTUS do we now have JOTUS.
Their black robes will be stained with the blood of innocents due to their jaded political rulings.
I have heard that reasoning before. Not sure I agree.
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.