A Clinton recess appointee that for some reason Dubya reappointed.
Posted on 05/25/2017 2:40:30 PM PDT by Cheerio
The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday largely upheld a nationwide block on President Donald Trump's travel ban, arguing that it "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination."
The Trump administration will most likely appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
A Clinton recess appointee that for some reason Dubya reappointed.
The Fourth Circuit is authorized to have 15 active circuit judges. All of the court’s judgeships are currently filled. The court is also served by two senior judges who participate in the work of the court. A listing of all Article III vacancies in the federal courts is available from www.uscourts.gov.
Court splits 60=40 pro Democrat.
Just another Insolent Clown living off the Taxpayers.
It is time we crush them where they stand
Short rope - tall tree = no more leftist “Judges.”
In my view, the government has demonstrated over and over again that it is not morally justified, and is in that sense, illegitimate,. Sure, it has the brute force to knock down dissent, but as far as I am concerned, the government is out of control and out of constitutional boundaries. It will never use its own law to rein itself in. Congress does have the power, in principle, to correct this - with more than one means., It can impeach, it can disband the courts, or it can legislate the immigration order that Trump attempted to impose. But Congress is not interested in controlling the borders, it is all in for globalism.
I do appreciate the realpolitik of this. Congeress and the courts will tag tem to impeach Trump. Courts will continue to make asinie rulings against executive power, and Congress will furrow its brow. If Trump tells the Courts to stuff it, Congress will impeach the president.
Totally out of control system. Oh, the government of Venezuela is legitimate too - see its court decisions.
The court reasoning drips with liberal infantilism, senility, and a lack of logic so obvious that even a lib arts “professor” should shudder when reading it.
You won’t see it in the media stories but there is a well written dissent that actually talks about the law instead of Trump’s statements on the campaign trail.
The logic is not only ludicrous, the opinion is dripping with condescension and animus on the part of the court, against Trump, personally.
The courts cannot Force Trump to allow these people in. The new policy should be to take ten times as long to process them as before or a hundred times.
How quaint a view. Won’t happen.
The Courts were established to make sure the Constitution was followed in making law. According to some the “Exceptions” clause gives Congress the power to rein them in and refuse them jurisdiction. Never been tried as far as I am aware.
What’s to be fine then when the court rules that the law Congress passed to provide “relief” is itself unconstitutional?
We seem to be less safe when Democrats, Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, et al. are out of power.
They remain determined to flood this country with security risks, AKA “refugees”.
They lost both houses of Congress, the WH (to 30 red states) and a lot of the state houses. Due to what appears to be malice the Democrats seem determined to claim the lower federal court judiciary.
The majority’s Order drips of intolerance, animus, and discrimination.
Carter banned Iranians. FDR banned Germans and Japanese. Obama banned groups as well, but no problems for the courts there—no hostile orders dripping with virtue-signalling invective.
These past presidents, even putative president Obama, took these actions to protect Americans, as demanded by the Congress. President Trump is trying to protect us from vile enemies who killed 3,000 of us on our own soil and a steady death count since.
So. We Americans remain at risk to the existential dangers posed to us by unvetted Islamic “refugees” and our electoral mandate remains frustrated.
The same idiots who call common sense racism—we have them, the Democrats, to thank for this judicial usurpation, overreaching and tyranny.
When the next calls are made for moments of silence, candle lightings. and all the other mawkish BS called for by the fatuous left after the enemy strikes—the Democrats will be the first in line, shedding their crocodile tears, making the same tired speeches ... and blaming President Trump, guns and conservatives.
Some gems from this so-called opinion:
“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation.”
Huh? Taxes cause me irreparable harm. This statement contradicts itself.
“The First and Second Executive Orders were issued against a backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisors and representatives at different points in time, both before and after the election and President Trump’s assumption of office. We now recount certain of those statements. “
Why? The statements of a candidate ELECT is authority for a federal appeals court? Wow, I must have missed that in Law School Civil Procedure. These statements are IRRELEVANT to the law.
“Doe #1 explains how the Second Executive Order has caused him to fear for his personal safety in this country and wonder whether he should give up his career in the United States and return to Iran to be with his wife. J.A. 306. This harm is consistent with the “[f]eelings of marginalization and exclusion” injury we recognized in Moss. 683 F.3d at 607. “
So alleging that makes little sense and is based on no evidence is good enough for the COA.
Now, from the dissent:
“While the court acknowledged the President’s authority under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) to enter the Order and also acknowledged that the national security reasons given on the face of the Order were legitimate, the court refused to apply Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), which held that courts are precluded from “look[ing] behind” “facially legitimate and bona fide” exercises of executive discretion in the immigration context to discern other possible purposes, id. at 770. Relying on statements made by candidate Trump during the presidential campaign, the district court construed the Executive Order to be directed against Muslims because of their religion and held therefore that it likely violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. “
And finally,
“In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith, rather than looking for bad faith on the face of the executive action itself, the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited. Mandel, Fiallo, and Din have for decades been entirely clear that courts are not free to look behind these sorts of exercises of executive discretion in search of circumstantial evidence of alleged bad faith. The majority, now for the first time, rejects these holdings in favor of its politically desired outcome. “
I don’t think the USSC is going to embarrass itself by agreeing with this tripe. Its actually weaker than I thought it would be.
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.
