It appears likely that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will maintain a block on President Trump’s temporary immigration ban, but the decision will have less to do with the law than it does with politics. Because frankly, there’s no reason on earth that the judiciary should strike down this executive order.
First of all, there’s a major question as to whether Washington and Minnesota, the states that filed suit against the order, even have the proper standing to sue. This isn’t like Obama’s DAPA order, which was challenged successfully by the state of Texas and others. There, the states proved that Obama’s order would have an enormous financial impact on their states. They had every reason to oppose the administration.
Here, the question is much more murky. Judge James Robart determined that the states would face “irreparable injury” due to the 90-day pause, but that’s laughable.
But even if we look past that, this decision is not based on sound legal precedent. The courts have made it clear that the president of the United States has broad authority when it comes to deciding who gets into the country and who doesn’t. In many ways, the security of the nation is the ultimate responsibility of the chief executive, and it’s where he enjoys his greatest power. It’s not up to the courts to challenge this authority whenever they disagree with the steps the president has taken – especially when those steps are as mild as the ones Trump as taken so far.
For all the talk about the Constitution, there’s one thing the liberal media – and Judge Robart – fail to mention. And that’s the fact that people outside the United States do not have constitutional rights. PERIOD, as Mr. Spicer might say. The U.S. has always had the right to say who comes and who does not.
For eight years, Barack Obama steadily tried to steal power away from the other branches of government. Now, within the first weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency, the courts are trying to steal rightful power away from the White House.
If Trump had never mentioned a “Muslim ban” on the campaign trail, would Judge Robart have blocked this order? If not, then there’s everything you need to know about the grounding of this ruling. We need judges who will decide cases based on the text in evidence, and not on a candidate’s campaign-trail bluster.
Comments are closed.