Ninth Circuit, the largest and most frequently overturned federal Circuit Court.
1 . It improperly granted
the states of Washington and Minnesota standing to challenge the travel ban largely on behalf of scholars in their state universities. This dangerously stretches the concept of “standing” to bring suit to a preposterous level and is without any precedent that I am aware of.
2. It claimed to itself the right to determine the legality of the executive order. Based on the president’s understanding and in his sole discretion, the law provides he may admit or exclude from entry based on his view of the interests of the United States.” Under this provision, the Carter Administration barred all entry by Iranian citizens.
Obama barred entry from Iraq for six months; and the Clinton administration sent Elian Gonzales back to Cuba. As Ann Coulter reminds us, the federal court in the Gonzales case ruled, ”It is the duty of the Congress and of the executive branch to exercise political will,” and “in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs.”
She reminds us as well of the recent court ruling denying Arizona’s right to enforce federal immigration laws then being ignored by the Obama administration:
The court conceded that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens were arrested in Arizona each year, that they were responsible for "a disproportionate share of serious crime," and that illegals constituted nearly 6 percent of Arizona's population.
But Arizona was powerless to enforce laws on the books -- if those laws happened to be about immigration. The president's authority over immigration is absolute and exclusive, as part of his authority over foreign policy.
3. The court inexplicably and without precedent expanded due process rights to citizens abroad from even jihadist and failed states known to be havens for jihads. At National Review David French summarizes this idiocy:
The court is going to stop enforcement of a temporary pause in entry from jihadist and jihadist-torn countries (while in a state of war against jihadist terrorists) because there are “potential claims” regarding “possible due process rights” even of illegal aliens? That’s not deference. Moreover, if you actually follow the cited legal authorities, you’ll see that none of them are on-point with this case, and all of them deal with highly-specific, individual legal claims. Yet the court used this “authority” to grant sufficient due-process rights to potential immigrants to halt enforcement of a wartime executive order motivated by the desire to protect America from the rising threat of jihadist terror. Astonishing.
4. The Court indicated it might consider, in any final determination, Trump’s campaign statements. French remarks, sensibly:
While there is precedent for considering lawmaker motivations in the Establishment Clause context, the consideration of sweeping campaign statements (about a different kind of measure entirely) push that precedent to the breaking point. Finally, and crucially, the court made a statement near the end of its opinion that is deeply, deeply troubling. In discussing the evidence before the court, the panel says this: The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. [Snip] whether an attack has been completed in this country is not the standard for implementing heightened security measures. The president doesn’t have to wait for completed attacks to protect the U.S. from dangerous immigrants. He can see the deteriorating security situation on the ground, evaluate the intentions and capabilities of the enemy, and then act before the enemy can strike. Indeed, that’s the goal of national defense — to prevent attacks, not respond after the carnage.
1 . It improperly granted
the states of Washington and Minnesota standing to challenge the travel ban largely on behalf of scholars in their state universities. This dangerously stretches the concept of “standing” to bring suit to a preposterous level and is without any precedent that I am aware of.
2. It claimed to itself the right to determine the legality of the executive order. Based on the president’s understanding and in his sole discretion, the law provides he may admit or exclude from entry based on his view of the interests of the United States.” Under this provision, the Carter Administration barred all entry by Iranian citizens.
Obama barred entry from Iraq for six months; and the Clinton administration sent Elian Gonzales back to Cuba. As Ann Coulter reminds us, the federal court in the Gonzales case ruled, ”It is the duty of the Congress and of the executive branch to exercise political will,” and “in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs.”
She reminds us as well of the recent court ruling denying Arizona’s right to enforce federal immigration laws then being ignored by the Obama administration:
The court conceded that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens were arrested in Arizona each year, that they were responsible for "a disproportionate share of serious crime," and that illegals constituted nearly 6 percent of Arizona's population.
But Arizona was powerless to enforce laws on the books -- if those laws happened to be about immigration. The president's authority over immigration is absolute and exclusive, as part of his authority over foreign policy.
3. The court inexplicably and without precedent expanded due process rights to citizens abroad from even jihadist and failed states known to be havens for jihads. At National Review David French summarizes this idiocy:
The court is going to stop enforcement of a temporary pause in entry from jihadist and jihadist-torn countries (while in a state of war against jihadist terrorists) because there are “potential claims” regarding “possible due process rights” even of illegal aliens? That’s not deference. Moreover, if you actually follow the cited legal authorities, you’ll see that none of them are on-point with this case, and all of them deal with highly-specific, individual legal claims. Yet the court used this “authority” to grant sufficient due-process rights to potential immigrants to halt enforcement of a wartime executive order motivated by the desire to protect America from the rising threat of jihadist terror. Astonishing.
4. The Court indicated it might consider, in any final determination, Trump’s campaign statements. French remarks, sensibly:
While there is precedent for considering lawmaker motivations in the Establishment Clause context, the consideration of sweeping campaign statements (about a different kind of measure entirely) push that precedent to the breaking point. Finally, and crucially, the court made a statement near the end of its opinion that is deeply, deeply troubling. In discussing the evidence before the court, the panel says this: The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. [Snip] whether an attack has been completed in this country is not the standard for implementing heightened security measures. The president doesn’t have to wait for completed attacks to protect the U.S. from dangerous immigrants. He can see the deteriorating security situation on the ground, evaluate the intentions and capabilities of the enemy, and then act before the enemy can strike. Indeed, that’s the goal of national defense — to prevent attacks, not respond after the carnage.
