We’ve now entered the Alice in Wonderland phase of America — specifically its judiciary arm.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down its decision concerning the Trump “Travel Ban.” Surprise! It affirmed the remarkably daft and erroneous lower court decision concluding that Pres. Trump did not have the authority to restrict immigration — especially immigration from places that produce dangerous people.
The statute in question is one of the more straightforward statutes out there. Not written in typical double-negative bureaucratese, it’s actually understandable to a human being (i.e. not a lawyer). Here’s the important bit.
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Pretty clearly the president can make most any decision he wants concerning immigration. If he does something squirrely, he can answer to Congress or the people.
However, the Ninth, according to this summary from Law Newz, decided that the president did not have exclusive domain over immigration. In fact, the court seems to have decided to insert itself immigration policy by dismissing the president’s reasons because, well, the court doesn’t approve of restricting immigration.
Well, glad that’s settled.
Actually, you would be hard-pressed to find a decision that was more perfectly wrong than this one. Almost every reason the court uses is spectacularly wrong and misunderstands the law and the Constitution.
For instance, the court decided that the president doesn’t have the power to proclaim the details of policy because he was discriminating against select people.
Wow, imagine that, a law that discriminates.
Oh, wait, that’s what laws do. They discriminate. Murder laws discriminate against murderers — crimping their style, so to say. Theft laws discriminate against thieves. Speed limits discriminate against speeders, etc. And immigration laws in the past discriminated against specific countries such as Eastern Bloc countries or limited the amount of immigrants from countries.
Funny how those laws work…
The court complained that the “travel ban” was breaking up families — declaring a new right that anyone related to an American may enter the country at will.
Now, a federal court ruled that the president doesn’t have the power that a statute clearly delegates to him. Well, then what’s the point of a president if courts can simply insert themselves into policy whenever they wish?
Maybe they think they should be in charge — unelected courts assuming a power they do not have in the Constitution. Judges that cannot be easily removed. Sitting in judgment of Congressionally passed laws, presidential Constitutional duties. No longer satisfied to be blindfolded and follow the law unequivocally, they now offer their thumbs up or thumbs down, like the Roman emperors of old; or maybe the Red Queen.The law means what she says it means.
It is time that these arrogant robed tyrants have their wings clipped. As the Virginia flag says, “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”