Travel “ban,” actually a temporary pause from 7 jihadist hotbeds should be upheld based on the law, which I believe even the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit will understand.
All weekend, liberal idiots were crowing over their supposed “victory” over President Trump and his 90-day travel pause from 7 countries, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, identified as dangerous by the Obama Regime. Just ask Atlanta Falcons fans: premature celebration is usually very ill-advised, and it will be in this case as well. I say that because both legal and statutory precedent are on the president’s side. That fact would be crystal clear to most people, and certainly anyone with the slightest legal training and/or understanding, after comparing the two decisions by courts, the one Friday in Boston and the one by the Seattle judge.
Here’s a newsflash, for not only the know it all know nothing “experts” on television, but also the enraged. clueless “Trump did not win the election” butt hurt cry baby losers: Both courts appeared to REJECT the idiotic argument that the executive order violated the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment as a denial of equal protection. Also they rejected the idea that the order discriminated against anyone in a way that violates existing immigration law. When I say that they “appeared” to reject, with respect to the Seattle judge, Judge Robart, a liberal activist who praised Black Lives Matter from the bench while citing fake statistics on police shootings, and who did pro bono work for refugees, we have to almost guess. Where the Boston judge, Judge Gorton issued a 20-page, well-reasoned order citing many legal precedents (read it here), Judge Robart just issued a 7 page order with practically ZERO legal precedent. He concluded with it lip service to not second judging the executive branch and legislatures. but that is exactly what he did. Read both orders and you’ll understand perfectly. There is no there there in Judge Robart’s order. In addition, as Slate reports “At the preliminary hearing Judge Robart pointed out that no terror attack has been carried out on U.S. soil by people from any of the countries in question,” which clearly makes perfect sense to them, but is actually ridiculous. The legal standard by which this executive order will be judged is called the “rational basis” standard, which is the lowest Constitutional hurdle courts use to evaluate whether a law or regulation is constitutional. It means that there must be some reasonable connection between the law and some legitimate public purpose. That’s it. The Constitution does not require that the government enact policies only after the harm that they are intended to prevent has actually occurred, even under the highest level of scrutiny required. It seems like a good time to mention again the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
There is is also 8 U.S.C. 1182, which codifies the fact that the president has extremely wide discretion in matters involving national security, and “inadmissible aliens.”
Of course, there is the issue of standing, a favorite of courts who want to avoid deciding controversial issues on the merits. In this case, that would be justified and appropriate. The plaintiffs in the case that resulted in thetemporary restraining order granted by Judge Robart are the poster children for the doctrine of standing, which prevents people from bringing lawsuits based on government policy that they don’t like. The party bringing litigation have to actually have skin in the game, and be a party to an actual dispute. The states of Washington and Minnesota argue that they have standing because their universities are harmed by the executive order, as are their “tax bases.” That seems to be quite a stretch.
Yes, I know that this case is going to the 9th Circuit (Circus) is a “reliably” (read notoriously) liberal activist court, but there are 35 judges on it, and I can’t believe that they are all radical leftists with zero regard for the law. If the Trump Administration loses in the 3-judge panel, they can ask for a hearing before the whole court.
The 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit will hear oral arguments, 30 minutes for each side, tomorrow at 6 p.m. Eastern, so we’ll know soon.
Do you agree, or do you think the wacky 9th Circuit will prove to be the political hacks that many people believe that they are? Please let me know in the comments below.