Posted on 03/30/2017 12:38:47 PM PDT by PROCON
The fact that a bottom-rung judge can wrest constitutional power away from the president of the United States is beyond disturbing.
A third-tier judge, without any constitutional or legal warrant, has taken total control of America’s immigration policy from President Trump. And the president is letting him do it.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii yesterday extended the ban he imposed on President Trump’s travel ban indefinitely. And he imposed it universally, even outside his own jurisdiction, which I doubt he has any authority whatsoever to do. Vowing that the ban would remain in place even if the president appeals to a higher court, Watson said flatly, "Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this court.”
In other words, I’m in charge here, Mr. President, and you’re not.
This is an appalling, alarming, and Constitution-destroying act of judicial hubris and overreach. Simply begin with the fact that neither the Constitution nor the law gives any authority to the judiciary to set immigration policy in any manner at all. The Constitution vests it all in Congress, and Congress under that authority can pass laws which the president as the head of the executive branch then implements.
The law gives the president unquestioned, unilateral, and unreserved authority to block entry into the United States to any persons or group of persons he “deems detrimental to the interests” of the country. And he can simply do it “by proclamation” and entirely on his own authority.
The mere fact that a bottom-rung judge would have the presumption to wrest that power from the president and arrogate it to himself is beyond disturbing. The only thing more disturbing is that we are letting him get away with it. It’s absurd that the only figure who is allowed to dictate immigration policy “by proclamation” is the one figure who has no authority whatsoever to do it.
It must not be forgotten that this toxic activism will not be confined to this renegade judge. Other minor-league judges will take note that one of their colleagues has taken control, all by himself, of a major area of American policy, is dictating policy to the president, and everybody is letting him get away with it. Some judges will certainly tell themselves that if Judge Watson can do it, what’s stopping me from doing the same thing in another area of public policy? The result will be total chaos, with an entire nation in the grip of ego-driven junior league judges routinely exceeding their authority and wresting complete control of American policy from our elected officials.
I, for one, do not welcome our new judicial overlords. And neither should President Trump. If the president were to ignore Judge Watson’s tyrannical edict, on the grounds that the judge has no more legal authority than a traffic court judge to issue it, what could Judge Watson do about it? If the president were simply to go straight on ahead and begin implementing his perfectly constitutional policy, what could Judge Watson do to stop him? Precisely nothing.
Upon taking office, President Trump quite pointedly hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the White House. Jackson is perhaps most noted for telling the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to take a hike when he issued an unconstitutional order. Jackson is reported to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
This is the only way judicial tyranny is going to be broken in America. It will be broken by elected officials who fulfill their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution by flatly refusing to knuckle under to black-robed oligarchs who tread where the Constitution forbids them to go. For elected officials to do this is not civil disobedience; it is constitutional obedience of the highest order.
Meanwhile, Judge Watson is making America less safe by the day as thousands of unvetted refugees, who would otherwise have been blocked, have been flooding into the United States. Who knows how many acts of terror will be committed by these Muslim migrants this judge has foolishly, recklessly, and wrongly allowed into our country?
President Trump’s highest calling is to protect the safety and security of the United States. He shouldn’t let a low-level judge stop him.
Because it is called the rule of law, and Trump will play by the rules and follow the process, even if the judges do not.
If a President can just ignore court rulings we find unfavorable, what's to stop the next Hillary or Obama from ignoring rulings we find favorable?
Because Rule of Law. Idiot writer.
Oh but there is: lots and lots like double-ought
They ignored all kinds of court orders, subpoenas, etc.
Why aren’t we hearing about any appeals on this? Are they not happening, or just not being reported? Or are they waiting for Gorsuch? In theory, I’m okay with the President ignoring judicial decrees that usurp his constitutional authority but, in practice, it would create chaos. In this instance it remains best to work it out through the judicial system.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In theory and in practice, yada yada yada. Someone, Ryan perhaps, has castrated our new President. Otherwise he would man up and, citing the relevant provisions of the Constitution defining his authority and powers, announce in no uncertain terms that he will move forward with all EOs.
“John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” - Andrew Jackson
As for Andrew Jackson, he didn't have to content with 24/7/365 broadcast Media opposing him.
First of all, he had sympathetic mainstream media as well, and second, at least the media which opposed him could only do so once per week, or at most once per day.
If Andrew Jackson had to content with what President Trump is dealing with, he might have adjusted his tactics somewhat...
*contend, not content...
“For some odd reason, I feel as if President Trump may be baiting a trap, which is soon going to spring.”
I don’t know. My faith in Trump is faltering. But you may be right.
The law is SO CLEARLY on President Trumps side. Once Gorsuch is on the SC, and it overrules this P.O.S. judge, the majority ruling could include the phrase “judicial incompetence.” I believe that Federal Judges can be impeached by the U.S. house for “judicial incompetence,” and then removed from office by a simple majority vote in the Senate. To see this liberal piece of human filth removed from office legally and replaced with an upright conservative judge would shove a whole lot of STFU down the throats of the liberal judiciary.
This is the kind of stuff I hoped Trump would initiate. So far he has let me down. But a “trap” of this nature would fit your hopeful theory.
It’s been that way since Marbury v. Madison.
Setting a precedent for ignoring court orders is probably not a good idea.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That precedent has already been set. Moreover, courts should never be acknowledged as having the final say about how the Chief Executive conducts the business of running the country. Unelected judges, including the Chief Justice, DO NOT have veto power over the decisions of the President, and Trump needs to move forward with his policy decisions and ignore these judges and their court orders.
This may be the key right here.
Waiting for Gorsuch.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wishful thinking but, if it eases your anxiety, go for it!
No, but he can send federal marshals to arrest the local ICE supervisor, and hold him in contempt of court.
I actually listened to the 1st arguments made by Trump lawyer on the issue...
And have concluded that Trump WANTED to lose for some reason. I have heard better first year law students than the moron Trump put up to defend the travel ban.
I hope he has a trump card, so to speak, up his sleeve.
“Which means that the Judicial branch has more power than the other two branches, combined.”
Congress has the power to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Perhaps the GOP House and Senate should vote for a bill eliminating immigration and naturalization from the jurisdiction of the courts.
It really is catastrophic what is happening here. Is Trump a paper tiger?
It’s not only about the rule of law. That argument cancels itself by the fact the the two judges took upon themselves powers that are not theirs to begin with. Should American federal courts rule on matters of the European Union? Of course not, because it is not something under their jurisdiction, just as immigration policy is not under their jurisdiction.
When the first judge in Washington State ordered the injunction, Trump should have immediately issued a statement explaining that it wasn’t valid because of any American court’s lack of jurisdiction in matters regarding immigration. By appearing to cave into the judicial tyranny, he appears weak and unable to fulfill his boasting of how he would turn the country around and not be bullied by judges, bureaucrats or the media. Where is that bold persona that promised all of this would be done immediately?
It appears that like every other “reformer” that goes to Washington, D.C., Trump appears to have been humbled on promises he swore no power would keep him from fulfilling “my first day in office!” For those who believe that he is setting some sort of trap and is about to spring it on his political enemies, I refer you to all the promised stories of “bombshell” exposes that would land Hillary and her cursed-crew in jail forever, resignations and trials for the worst offenders of the Obama administration, etc. But now - nothing.
I for one am bitterly disappointed by the lack of backbone and audaciousness that we were certain would be produced by voting for Donald Trump.
It's already happening. Seattle Files Lawsuit Over ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Funding Threat
Here's my concern:
The article says these monies are "grants," not allocated funds from a Congressional budget.
As grants, aren't they totally discretionary from the Justice Department? DoJ can choose which agencies to award grants and which one to not, correct?
I don't see how a judge can compel the Department of Justice to "grant" money to a specific agency, otherwise it is no longer a grant. If a judge converts a grant into a budgetary funding, then it is encroaching on both Executive and Congressional powers.
-PJ
Trump is building his case with the excesses of the Deep State. This will take some time but in time he will be able to move against all of these unconstitutional activists. Trump’s appearance of weakness provides false confidence among the bad actors who need to be overthrown.
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.