The Confederate Government lives on with Judge James Robart, the fake courts force President Trump - Open Borders - Terrorist Threats - You want your judicial branch of government courts to be good and
quick defending the U.S. Constitution, as written, and the laws of the land passed by the peoples
house of Congress to be followed, but
there's more to it now.
The equal branch of government, the judicial branch which
represents the official and sensible part of our government by courts and legal
proceedings offers up their Executive Order rebuke and scolding to President
Donald Trump.
The disease of our society is socialist liberalism courts and it has
infected the judicial branch of government all the way through the Supreme
Court.
Sponsored by liberal left socialists the court has offered up
another major legal conclusion, the powers of the President of the United
States found within the U.S. Constitution and the powers of Congress concerning
immigration and safe guarding the nation are now voided by a one man show.
The real and urgent danger to every American is that a single
Islamic Muslim Radical Jihadist warrior represents that clear and present
danger that Hollywood writes about.
All foremost legal experts agree that the 9th District Court is so
wrong that a stigma is now attached to the entire court system. Highly
qualified and professional legal minded scholars clearly understand that the
judicial branch of government, the 9th District Court needs to be retired and
in some cases members should be prosecuted under federal laws and forcefully jailed.
Incidentally, thousands of Islamic refugee's are pouring into
America right now as the courts performed a magic trick and opens up the
border, legal or not.
The old racket of crooked judges is now a national new racket of
making laws thus crushing the American peoples voice found within the U.S.
Constitution and Congress.
San Francisco’s federal appeals court asserted a novel theory on
Thursday to claim jurisdiction over the legal challenge to Executive Order
13769, affirming the lower court’s order halting President Trump’s temporary
travel-restriction policy.
Federal
appeals courts lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s temporary
restraining order (TRO), which is a stop-gap measure that lasts for 14 days or
less (unless extended) in extreme circumstances when a court does not even have
the time to hold expedited hearings on the legal merits of a lawsuit. Judge
James Robart from the Western District of Washington issued a TRO to block
President Trump’s executive order.
The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit claimed jurisdiction anyway,
reasoning that although the district court explicitly held that its TRO was not
a preliminary injunction (which, unlike a TRO, can be reviewed by an appeals
court):
In
light of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which the Government has
argued that emergency relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent
terrorism, we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO should be
considered to have the qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction.
The
Ninth Circuit went on to reject several of the tenuous theories the states of
Washington and Minnesota asserted to claim standing to bring this lawsuit.
Nonetheless, a three-judge panel of the court adopted one of the novel theories
asserted by the state, holding that, “as the operators of state universities,
the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the
Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty
members.” Some of those students are effected by the immigration order.
President
Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Congress has plenary authority
over all immigration decisions, and that Congress had delegated complete
discretion to the president in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to make such decisions,
especially when national security was at stake.
The
Ninth Circuit rejected that position, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas
v. Davis, and holding:
Although
our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on
matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our
court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action
in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.
Having
claimed jurisdiction to review EO 13769, the appellate court continued:
Our
decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made
a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of
the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
The
court held that the executive order likely violated the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment, holding that the “Government has not shown that the
Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a
hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.”
The
panel again quoted the Supreme Court, adding that, “The procedural protections
provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to
citizens. Rather, they apply to all persons within the United States, including
aliens, regardless of whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent.”
Although
DOJ asserted that a subsequent legal memorandum from White House Counsel Don
McGahn obviated some of these concerns for individuals such as lawful permanent
residents, the court pushed back, saying, “The Government has offered no
authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an
amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now
challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.”
The
court also gave at least some credence to what many considered one of the most
tenuous claims in the lawsuit, the one asserting that appearing to prefer
Christianity over Islam for immigrants violates the Constitution’s
Establishment Clause.
The
court responded:
The
States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional
questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the
current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not
met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with
respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims
until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
DOJ
now has the option of seeking review at the U.S. Supreme Court, which may be a
long shot before Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed as the ninth justice.
The
other option is for DOJ to continue litigating the matter in district court in
Seattle until this TRO is replaced by a proper preliminary injunction. At that
point the Ninth Circuit would issue an opinion exploring all of the legal
issues in this case, and DOJ could offer that full-fledged decision to a fully
staffed Supreme Court, either late this spring or (more likely) in the fall.
.
