Posted on 03/16/2017 9:58:05 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Law is dead
The first Trump immigration EO was stopped by a Bush-appointed judge out of the Seattle area. His legal reasoning was awful, and he had a background advocating for refugees, but nonetheless he made the ruling and an appeals court let it stand. Rather than defy the courts as his predecessor did, Trump had his administration draw up a new order that addressed the issues the court raised in the first one.
So that would eliminate all possibility of the new order being halted by judges, right?
PRESIDENT Trump has the right to choose where to locate the refugees.
He should ship them to Hawaii (or ship them to Maryland or Washington State)
The Washington Post article, linked to below, “proves” that states cannot oppose a PRESIDENT’S decision to move refugees to their state.
Short quote from the WaPo article:
“Federal law emphatically does not provide authority for states to nullify the president’s decision”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/19/the-law-is-clear-states-cannot-reject-syrian-refugees/?utm_term=.1f5935437919
http://tinyurl.com/WAPOrefugees
The first Trump immigration EO was stopped by a Bush-appointed judge out of the Seattle area. His legal reasoning was awful, and he had a background advocating for refugees, but nonetheless he made the ruling and an appeals court let it stand. Rather than defy the courts as his predecessor did, Trump had his administration draw up a new order that addressed the issues the court raised in the first one.
So that would eliminate all possibility of the new order being halted by judges, right?
Ha ha ha ha ha. Of course not, sillies. All this would mean is that pro-terrorist activists would have to judge-shop so they could find judges who were willing to ignore the law and the president’s clear authority to issue such an order, and strike it down anyway sheerly for political purposes.
And they found them: Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii and Judge Theodore Chuang in Connecticut - both Obama-appointed, you will be unsurprised to know - issued orders in the past 24 hours halting the EO? Why? Because it’s racist, you see. No matter how carefully the order is worded to make it clear that it is not a Muslim ban, this matters not when the left has pegged it as such.
Don’t think for a second that control of the White House and both houses of Congress means you can do anything. As long as the left can find federal judges who are willing to ignore the limits on their authority, crap like this will continue to happen:
The decision from U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in federal court in Maryland marks another win for challengers of the president’s executive order, which had been slated to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. Earlier, a different federal judge in Hawaii stopped it.
Chuang’s order did not sweep as broadly as the one in Hawaii, but he similarly declared that even the revised travel ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims. He said those wanting evidence of anti-Muslim intent need look no further than what the president himself has said about it.
Chuang’s ruling won’t upend or call into question the decision in Hawaii, instead offering some measure of reinforcement.
“The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.
The Justice Department had said that it strongly disagreed with the ruling in the Hawaii case, and that the executive order Trump issued “falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our nation’s security.”
The government’s next legal step is unclear.
At a rally in Nashville on Wednesday, Trump said he was prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court. He also mused a return to his original executive order, which imposed a more sweeping ban than the second.
“Let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way,” Trump said. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.”
Trump might have a chance at success with either order, once he can get Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court. As it stands right now, there’s no reason to think any Obama- or Clinton-appointed Justice would overturn any of these rulings, and you’d need a 5-4 majority to do it.
In case any of you #NeverTrumpers still don’t understand why the Supreme Court alone was reason enough to support Trump over Hillary, let this situation be a humbling reminder to you. The left is prepared to weaponize the courts in order to make them, in effect, a kill switch on anything a Republican president or Congress tries to do. This is why left-wing judges are so dangerous. They absolutely do not care what the limits of their power are, nor do they care what the clearly enumerated powers of the other branches are. All they have to do is come up with a rationale for striking down a policy, however flimsy, and they’ll issue the ruling.
This case is actually a perfect example. The wording of the actual order can in no way justify the description of it as a Muslim ban, yet Judge Chuang claims that because Trump supposedly once said he wanted to ban Muslims, that must be his real goal, and therefore that must be what this is.
Think about the implications of that: A man runs for president, and says (or is portrayed as having said) he wants to do something that is controversial. He is elected, and once in office, he does something that falls far short of the controversial thing he supposedly wanted to do. Yet because it was thought he wanted to go much farther, a judge takes license to strike down the much tamer action that is not actually the controversial idea at all.
That is what these two Obama-appointed judges have done. They’ve completely ignored the letter of the order, as well as Trump’s clear authority to issue it, and have instead decided that because Trump once said something they don’t like, the order as it’s actually written cannot stand.
That is so far afield from the authority of an actual judge, I hardly know where to start in attacking it. But the left doesn’t care. They only care about getting their way. And if the only refuge they have left is federal judges who are willing to simply do whatever they feel like doing, that’s fine with them.
If you want to understand why it’s so difficult so solve problems in this country, this is the first place you should look.
Trump could easily win at this legal game.
Have a friendly group - legal conservative group - file suit in a friendly jurisdiction. Forum shop to the right Court of Appeals - away from the 9th Circuit.
Challenge the EO for not going far enough. As part of the ruling the Republican judge could find the EO allowable under the law and accept or reject whatever the basis of the lawsuit is — there could be dozens of reasons to challenge the law from the right.
Then the case moves up to a Republican Court of Appeals.
Trump wins.
The only logical explanation at this point is Trump WANTS the 9th Circuit and activists judges to strike down this law.
Why?
I believe he’s laying the ground work for replacing a total of FOUR picks for the SCOTUS in his first term.
Scalia pick already there. Both Kennedy and Thomas want to retire. That’s three. Ruth B.G. is dying. Her cancer is back and she’s got less than a year to live.
The Democrats are going to SCREAM that the “RBG seat” should go to at least a ‘moderate’ and not from Trump’s list of SCOTUS picks he shared with us during the campaign.
This judicial activism is setting Trump up to pick FOUR CONSERVATIVES for the SCOTUS over the next two years.
Otherwise, he’d do what I suggest - cherry pick the right jurisdiction and have his EO upheld.
More Trump 3D chess folks.
Shouldn’t leftist obama appointees recuse themselves?
Frankly, this is why the Republicans must keep control of the Senate, even if it means a few RINOs. With Trump as POTUS, and a Rep majority, the dems are powerless to stop Trump appointees. Apparently, he has 15% of the Fed bench to appoint now, including a SCOTUS position. Over time, O’s judges will not be able to do this, or at least have it stick.
It want respond and never does. All it does is post a couple articles from
the blog site each day.
In the United States, the word “impeachment” is merely the term for the proceeding that begins the process of removing an official from the government. Thus, while this particular section of the Constitution sets the broad outline for what is expected of a federal judge (that he or she sit in “good Behavior”), other officials can be impeached as well, including the President of the United States himself (see Article II, Section 4).
The process of what is colloquially known as impeachment contains two steps. The first step, the one that is technically the impeachment, is taken by the House of Representatives. By a simple majority, the House can vote to impeach a federal official. This process is akin to an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding. Then, once the official is impeached, the Senate holds a trial to determine if the official should be convicted, in which case the official is removed from office. The Senate, however, needs a two-thirds majority to convict.
Very few federal officials have ever been impeached, and even fewer have been convicted and removed from office. By way of example, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but he was not convicted by the Senate.
The impeachment of federal judges, in fact, is often an even more murky process than the impeachment of other officials. While Article II, Section 4 contains some vague guidelines for what warrants impeachment proceedings – and this section relates to federal officials in general – Article Three only explains that judges are supposed to remain in office only while in “good Behavior.” This is an incredibly open-ended standard.
Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached and only eight have ever been convicted and removed (most recently, Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana in 2010). But even then, the “articles of impeachment,” the list of misconduct the accused is on trial for, have described quite a wide range of inappropriate behavior.
I know. A dump and run blogbot.
Trump needs to relocate a LOT of the incoming to Maryland, Washington State and Hawaii...
The #FakeStreamMedia is keeping this well-hidden, since I can't find any mention of it.
No, he needs to do whatever it takes to remove these activist anti-American judges from the bench. Fire them if possible, break up the district if needed. Whatever it takes to send the message that judges do NOT have the constitutional authority to unilaterally overrule presidential orders.
The Prez needs to do what his hero Andy Jackson did about judges
the hawaiian one went to the same private school as the criminal nobama. What a LIB tool.
Why bother going to the effort of electing legislators, when we’ve got appointed judges who can make laws that they see fit...
Judges know all, most think they’re Solomon, meeting out “Justice.”
That’s the opposite of “the rule of law.” It’s the rule of “you’ll do as I say.” Mao, Stalin, and even Putin would be proud!
Mark
Only if he puts a stop to this illegal judicial overreach by publicly slamming the courts, and ruthlessly asserting his legal, constitutional authority, to execute the laws of the land and his duties as president.
The courts are operating beyond the bounds of their constitutional jurisdiction, in regards to these executive orders, and should be slapped down, and their orders ignored.
Putting this matter in the court's hands, is granting them power they do not possess.
Check Sean_Anthony's posting history sometime. He's made a total of five comments in the last two years, and two of those were to correct a bad link.
The courts are operating beyond the bounds of their constitutional jurisdiction, in regards to these executive orders, and should be slapped down, and their orders ignored.
Putting this matter in the court’s hands, is granting them power they do not possess.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have described what I consider Trump’s biggest failing thus far. He simply MUST immediately cease kowtowing to these filthy swine in the judiciary who were planted there by the Kenyan Fraud. By the way, his second biggest failing has been allowing his enemies in Congress, especially that scumbag Ryan, to bullsh*t him and undermine his entire agenda.
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.