This is an elaboration on the post by Chrissy the Swift.
MEET U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE DERRICK WATSON:
He is a democrat activist who was appointed by Barack Obama in 2012. He has taken it upon himself to usurp the exclusive authority to act on matters of national security. His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.
More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments Wednesday about whether it should be put into practice.
Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.
STANDARD DEMOCRAT PRACTICE IS TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA THROUGH THE JUDICIARY WHEN THEY CAN’T GET IT DONE LEGISLATIVELY.
Legal Insurrection explains it far better than I can.
Hawaii TRO and 9th Circuit En Banc Denial effectively strip Trump of Executive Powers
The federal district court in Hawaii issued a TRO and the 9th Circuit denied en banc hearing of the first appeal. Both Orders are embedded in full at the bottom of this post.
The net result is that Trump has been stripped of his constitutional and statutory powers to protect the nation through control of who is permitted to enter the country.
I warned about this, and the danger of Trump not seeking Supreme Court review in the first case, President Trump must not back down on immigration Executive Order:
The decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to leave in place a broad Temporary Restraining Order freezing President Trump’s Executive Order on visas and refugees presents a serious threat to the constitutional and statutory authority of the presidency.
The short version of the decision is that Trump said bad things on the campaign trail, so anything he does that disproportionately affects Muslims seeking to enter the country must be motivated by religious bias. The district court wrote:
The Court turns to whether Plaintiffs sufficiently establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their Count I claim that the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.
Judge’s ruling to block second travel ban is ‘unprecedented judicial overreach’
The president then said the first executive order, which was blocked by a federal judge’s order that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “should have never been blocked to start with.”
TRUMP WATERED DOWN THE ORIGINAL TRAVEL BAN IN AN EFFORT TO PLEASE THE BLOATED GASBAGS ON THE 9TH CIRCUS. NOTHING HE CAN DO WILL EVER SATISFY THEM EXCEPT RESIGN FROM OFFICE.
The new order, he said, “was tailored to the dictates of the Ninth Circuit in my opinion, flawed, ruling. This is the opinion of many, and “unprecedented judicial overreach.”
Trump: Ruling is an “unprecedented judicial overreach”
Robert Barnes: Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America
In a ruling issued on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge, and Obama appointee, prevented the President of the United States from enforcing his own executive order to protect the nation from migrants from terror-riddled countries.
The judge then prevented every other judge and every other state from following the President’s order, the judge making himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute President.
The judge then held that American universities and immigrants living here can prohibit America from ever limiting immigration from Muslim-heavy countries, claiming the First Amendment gives Muslim-dominant nations a right of immigration to America.
The judge’s ruling is completely lawless, mirroring Obama’s deep state allies in his shadow government’s attempt to sabotage the Trump presidency. There is no precedent for the court’s order. In fact, every precedent is against the court’s order; just read the detailed logic and scholastic citation of proper governing legal authorities from the decision of a moderately liberal Boston judge who upheld every part of Trump’s prior order.
Judges Inventing New Reasons to Obstruct Donald Trump’s Popular Immigration Reforms
Three California judges and a judge in Washington State say the President’s sole right and solemn duty to guard the borders ends when a state suffers financial harm because its universities can’t import more fee-paying customers from restricted countries.
These left-wing judges are competing with each other to throw invented legalistic roadblocks in front of Trump’s legal and proper defense of the nation’s borders, said Hans Von Spakovsky, a former lawyer at the Department of Justice who is now working for the Heritage Foundation.
The judge in Washington State, James Robart, declared Feb. 3 that “the [president’s] executive order adversely effects the State’s residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.”
ROBART WAS SUPPOSED TO ISSUE A RULING ON THE SAME ACTION TODAY. HE’LL PROBABLY PUT HIS DECISION ON HOLD UNTIL HE NEEDS TO JUMP IN AND SCREW THE PRESIDENT AGAIN.
HEY, RACHEL… WHAT’S FOR DINNER?