Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Supreme Court

Ninth Circuit Rejects Motion For Immediate Reinstatement Of Executive Order But Schedules Expedited Argument For Monday

200px-US-CourtOfAppeals-9thCircuit-Seal.svgdepartment-of-justice-logo1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has declined a demand for an immediate reinstatement of the Executive Order on immigration but has scheduled expedited arguments and filings in the case for Monday.  The decision is not surprising in such a case.  Courts need to hear from the other side in the dispute, particularly when the Washington Attorney General prevailed in the trial court.  Moreover, a temporary restraining order is very difficult to reverse on an interlocutory appeal.  Normally, appellate courts will wait for a final decision and opinion from the lower court before agreeing to review the controversy.  Of course, nothing is “normal” about this controversy in terms of procedure or policy.  With a major executive order stayed, the Ninth Circuit is clearly moving with dispatch but deliberation.  The Justice Department team was not helped by President Trump’s tweets casting aspersations on Judge James Robart of Federal District Court in Seattle as a “so called judge.”   Such comments undermine the credibility of the claims. It is less compelling to demand respect for the executive branch if you are viewed as denigrating the judicial branch.  While there is ample reason to question the ruling of Judge Robart, but he is a respected judge who made a good-faith decision on a tough legal question.   He is not a “so-called judge” but a real judge and has the Senate confirmation to prove it.  Having said that, media playing up the “rejection” by the Ninth Circuit are not being entirely accurate.  The Ninth Circuit wants more argument and has not reached the merits.  There is still question whether it will reach the merits on a TRO appeal.  I still believe that President Trump has the advantage legally and we could see this order stayed.  The question is when and how since this remains a temporary restraining order without a written opinion from Judge Robart.

The Trump Administration waited until Saturday to file its emergency motion.  The response from the Ninth Circuit was a two paragraph order from Judge William Canby, Jr. in Phoenix and Judge Michelle Friedland in San Francisco denying an immediate stay in favor of a short deadline for the states of Washington and Minnesota to file the basis for their opposition by midnight on Sunday.  The Administration then was given until 3 pm on Monday to respond.  Given the fact that this is a temporary restraining order that is not ordinarily reviewed on appeal, that was a responsible way for the appellate court to proceed.  It is the not burden of the court to correct for a truly dismal rollout of this order and the confusion that it has caused.  As I have said before, much of the confusion surrounding the order could have been avoided with better planning, drafting, and coordination by the Administration.

The result is that immigrants are being allowed into the country from the seven nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, though any order from the Ninth Circuit could cause a replay of the confusion seen in the aftermath of the original order.  People could be in the air or in customs when an order is reinstated.

Ironically, the Trump Administration is following the very same arguments made by the Obama Administration over the last eight years (without objection from Democratic attorneys general or members of Congress).  Obama insisted that he had sweeping authority over immigration and that states had little or no standing to object to his executive decisions.

Even without a written opinion, there is substantial grounds to challenge Robarts decision.  Robart held in his brief order that  “there’s no support” for the administration’s argument that “we have to protect the U.S. from individuals” from the affected countries.  That sounds like the district court is making its own judgment on the national security risk posed by these countries.  There has always been considerable controversy over the ability of a judge to “second guess” a president on such national security determinations. Indeed, the Obama Administration maintained that such decisions were effectively unreviewable.

Robarts also accepted sweeping claims of injury to state residents “in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel” as the basis for the state attorney general to be heard.  Standing remains a major vulnerability for the challengers in this and other cases.  Such standing is essential, particularly since the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that foreign nationals outside the country do not have standing to rise constitutional protections afforded to citizens or those inside our borders.

Robarts did question in the hearing how the challengers could view this as a “Muslim ban” when all Muslims are not banned.  However, he pressed the Justice Department to show a rational basis for the order given the few terrorists linked to these countries.  If that is the basis for the ruling, he will be highly vulnerable on appeal.  Courts are leery of a judge substituting his judgment on such questions.  Yet, the question remains when a full review will be granted or whether the appellate court will defer to the trial court pending a final decision and full opinion.  It could also order the trial court to issue such an opinion by a certain date given the national interests implicated by his order.

If the Ninth Circuit declines to review or stay the lower court order, the Administration could appeal to the Supreme Court. This is the worst procedural foundation for an appeal but, given the national security claims, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for the Administration to secure review.

[I will be flying later this morning to Guam, Saipan, and Palau for a series of speeches this week but will try to update the blog during transit depending on access to the Internet.]

168 thoughts on “Ninth Circuit Rejects Motion For Immediate Reinstatement Of Executive Order But Schedules Expedited Argument For Monday”

  1. Congress already found corruption in the federal courts in 1959 and congress ignored it. Here is the final report written in 1959. I had a case in the Ninth circuit. I’m glad Trump is getting to see the corruption for himself. This judge is a member of the ultra left Sedona Conference that collaborates with the EU under some nefarious alibi that they are working out electronic discovery. Nothing but another Bilderberg conference usurping political power.
    https://archive.org/details/communistlegalsu1959unit

    1. you are quickly becoming one of the more interesting posters ive seen on here all these years

      1. The stale curmudgeons get old fast. And that’s essentially who composes this blog.

        It’s like an alt right blog.

        I bet bannon is an avid reader.

          1. Haha because debates happen here. Lol

            Do you ever win debates? I hardly think folk would want to converse with you let alone seriously debate.

  2. The Commander in Chief will win this lawsuit. And should. I think the 9th Circuit will uphold the Executive Order, that it will deny some plaintiff claims on “standing to sue” and “standing to raise constitutional issues”. But it will deny all claims because the statutory law gives the Executive the power to control the borders. And to fight wars not declared as wars. No. There is no war against Muslims. There is no war declared against any of the named territories. I dare not name Yemen as a nation state. But there is war powers conferred to fight terrorists. ISIS is a terrorist entity and so is al Qaeda. Al Frankin and the others in the Legislative Branch need to quit being so critical. Pelosi is the worst. She has some sanctuary cities in her state. The media needs to be shunned by the public. The public needs to rise up to make America safe and vote for some Chief Executive who will do so. Oh, we already did. He is doing it.

      1. al Franken? Is that a new branch of Al Qaeda? I kinda think he is

        Btw I cant help but notice you say have respect for those holding office. Do you afford Trump the same respect?

        1. Yes. Cite one comment I’ve made in this blog post about trump.

          Much more respect than jt had for Obama when he was in office (Obama is black though so I understand jts disrespect).

          1. “(Obama is black though so I understand jts disrespect).”

            If there is one thing that can never stand as an excuse why Obama was opposed and that is his race. He’s as much Black as he is White. He’s living proof that being a racist is not dependent on ones DNA.

            1. Then why isn’t jt working to oppose trump?

              Obama was not a unique threat to our system of government anymore than trump (trump cites Obama admin for precedent constantly) yet jts actions are different.

              Jts exposed himself as an enemy of African Americans long ago. I don’t think he even cares if he’s known as a racist… which his posts and coded language certainly evidence.

            2. You’re right that racism is not dependent on DNA. I don’t know why jt is a racist though. I can’t explain that one.

              1. ” I don’t know why jt is a racist though. I can’t explain that one.”

                That’s curious, you’ve managed to crack his “coded” racist language but you’ve fallen short in determining why he is a racist? Maybe, just maybe the secret is in the code. Why don’t you share with the blog JT’s coded language and we’ll help you answer the “why”?

                1. Read but one post about jts coverage of the Ferguson uprising (one example of thousands) and his racism is quite apparent. You’ve never heard of dog whistle politics? It’s not a secret, this topic is sturdier by academics like jt. It employs this coded language usually when talking about people with African origin as.

                  1. I mean pence is great at using dog whistle politics and who did he cite for legal authority for the Muslim ban? Jonathan turley. Jt has been perfecting his use of coded language likely since his law school days. If he’s this effective…

                  2. Just because you “hear” things other people don’t is not proof of a rational mind, actually quite the opposite. I asked you to share this “coded” language and your response is “you don’t hear that?” Um, no, I don’t.

                    1. Like I said before this idea of dog whistle politics is studied in academia… it’s not me coming up with it, jt happens to fulfill an application of this idea in virtually every sense.

                    2. “You’ve never heard of dog whistle politics? It’s not a secret, this topic is sturdier by academics like jt.”
                      **************************
                      Academia also studies such monumental topics as how “masculinities function in the media through exploration of a variety of texts and personas,” in a truly worthy paper called “Let’s Hug It Out, Bitch.’

        2. You clearly don’t have respect for office holders. You just compared al Franken to a terrorist group that we are at war with currently. That’s McCarthyism right there. I’ll take Murrows honesty to mccarthys fear any day.

    2. If the clerk will actually give the pleadings to the judicial panel.

  3. Jt was invoked along with Alan dershowitz…. we should find a torture warrant Dershowitz suggested and put two names in particular on them.

    It’s not surprising pence would cite jt. That’s jts company. And Dershowitz?! Eww, I thought jt was a family man??

    1. Celebrity attorneys ensconced in the life of a 1 percenter don’t necessarily care about wounded poverty stricken Syrian and Iraqi children.

      1. lol jt doesn’t even care about poor kids in his backyard of D.C. Let alone war torn nations like Syria and Iraq.

        But your point is well taken. I shouldn’t expect anything of value of from jt in the public interest law arena, he’s indebted to the 1 percent and has no original thoughts for public interest law.

        Jts more concerned about what group will put him up in a 5 star hotel so he can be showered with status by 20-30 rich folk at a palatial ballroom about “public interest law” hahaha he would make a better comic than putting on this front

  4. Jonathan turley just invoked by vp mike pence, along with Alan dershowitz to defend the Muslim travel ban.

    Jts cowardice sees no limits.

    Props for getting a shout out from mike pence, jt probably has to clean himself up after this

    1. Have you not noticed he has a large Islamophobe following on his blog? Most of his posters are inclined that way.

      1. He is an islamaphobe….you think jt is catering to his base?

        No way!

        The dude (jt) is more dangerous than republicans because he conceals true opinions and cloaks them in patriotism or raw propaganda.

        1. I’m an islamaphobe. I met the Muslim brotherhood leaders in 1973 when the CIA was covering their student visas. I had a standing navigation to visit Cairo. No thanks. You know nothing about the Muslom Brotherhood. Hitlers troops regrouped in Cairo in 1946 and joined the Brotherhood. The plan was to restore Germany to a world power, wipe out the borders across Europe, and infiltrate the US. If you want to read about it, pull the Index for the 88th Congress 1963, under the heading Middle East.

          1. Well you found a good blog to express and interact about your islamaphobia.

            Jt leads the islamaphobic hysteria and many posters are as ardent.

            So enjoy as your thirst for Islamaphobia can be quenched at jonathanturley.org

        2. YES YES COMRADE !!! WE MUST REPORT JT TO THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH AND SEND HIM TO RE-EDUCATION CAMP !!!

          1. No, in the us he is popular in part to his islamaphobia. I don’t expect this to stop anytime. In fact, jts islamaphobia will surely outlive him with the numerous posts evidencing his hatred. That’s a central part of his legacy.

      2. Islamophobia means an unreasonable fear of Muslims. There are millions of us who know what Islam is, and fear of this violent, murderous, intolerant, misogynist, religion bent on world conquest by any means necessary is not unreasonable.

    2. Yeah God forbid Professor Turley has the integrity to stand by law and not personal bias. This is why he deserves respect. It also reveals how the Left feels about people who do not toe the line. Left turns on anyone who does not obey and march in line like lemmings.

      1. That’s true, jt did stand by while mass incarceration was implemented and said little to nothing. And did nothing.

        If we (the us) follow the law, why aren’t bush admin officials not in prison or why haven’t they been accused or charged with official war crimes?

        Jt does not have integrity to stand by the law. Jt stands by power and status.

        And are you asserting that jt is okay with chattel slavery??because that was the law of the land.

      2. lol jt acts a criminal defense attorney, the law is not black and white. People can disagree, that’s kind of why we have courts.

        I see jts propaganda has you locked in though. That’s sad and why jt is so dangerous.

      3. I’m not a leftist btw.

        But typical of the Turley blog… don’t engage in the substance of the debate but attack some less related collateral issue.

        And jt is no leftist. That dude is an oppressor

  5. I was watching NBC this a.m. That dork Chuck Todd (who called Ferguson a Ghetto a while back) was super critical of Trump and the Executive Order. The Toddster and others all omitted the fact that the case has an expedited hearing.

  6. Quite the slugfest! I particularly appreciate JT in situations like this. However, JT is establishment and I don’t think understands the establishment bureaucracy is rising up against Trump. Trump is the ultimate anti-establishment populist and he sees clearly that the precedent set by Obama won’t matter. I think you can throw precedent out the window. He will lose in the 9th and he has a 4-4 SCOTUS. A SJW Judge Robarts will prevail.

    1. He’s establishment, plus he openly advocates to be a puppet for the higher ranking establishment folk in the states.

      The dude is sad. It’s very american that he’s respected at all and called a “public interest law prof” when he’s not interested in the mass public unless it’s to profit those small groups in the establishment.

  7. I think the court is doing Mr Trump a favor. I do not think the USSCT will grant a immediate appeal. I think they are called interlocutory appeals at this stage.

      1. And shills like jt are ready to try and gain status or make a buck by arguing on trumps behalf for this Muslim ban.

  8. Like I said, the EO is over-broad and void for vagueness. The Judge who granted the stay is very conservative. The late appeal denied as the original Judge stated that the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits. The EO is too inclusive and really is based on Muslim which is the religion of Islams.

    2. 1. This is what the ban was based on: “In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.” from CNN report.

      and 2. Muslims from other countries (like the largest Muslim country, Indonesia, are not banned) so you are completely wrong.

      1. Trump has committed the unpardonable sin: He has dared to act, not talk. It is unfortunate that government does not reward such men. He is in their eyes a trouble maker, and decisive actions are not on the menu.

  9. Id call them animals but that is an insult to animals. I like the above mentioned “Orcs”

    Here are swarming Orcs

  10. The important stuff starts are the 2:10 mark

    This is what the Democrat party has become

    3. The Media has been pumping up protestors for over a year now. The Media has helped cause this. Obama helped fuel this. Hillary has helped fuel this and then we are supposed to just accept that?

      I can assure you of one thing. There is a very good chance that the next Democrat to win the White House will see what real riots are. What is going on right now is the stuff of Civil Wars. If the Left will not accept Trump as president than they cannot complain when the Right refuses to accept theirs.

  11. Well…. while were’ waiting on that why not fill the four empty seats on the 9th with good Constitutionalists and not to mention the otheer 11 empty seats around the country…and prepare the nuke? Sooner done the better and I see no point in playing games with these losers. With 52 votes and only 50 needed get the job done and move on …ha ha ha. in an org. fashion. This 9th will do what it wants and that’s fine the next one will do what it wants and thats fine.

  12. The 9th circuit is the most reversed court. No surprise that this “judge” from Seattle, and the other from 9th circuit ruled the way they did.

  13. Pingback: Congress needs to permanently improve immigration vetting

  14. The Pizza Hut spokesman is going to erode as many checks and as many balances as he can. Legal challenges are a part of governing.

    Instead of articulating why this or that policy should be permitted, the board-game maker simplistically attacks the judge involved. Again. As usual.

    2. Really Dave, what strategy implemented by any previous POTUS has garnered any real insight into just a sliver of who’s actually at the helm of this country?

      Why does the pentagon get 600 Billion of our national budget?

      Why has Goldman Sachs been the rudder of our collective ship of 350 million people while rewarding average contributors a minuscule disproportion of the profits?

      Maybe we might see the curtain lifted just a bit with this executive.

      Look at the questions he raises not the results of his actions.

      1. Trump has set a record for hiring of Goldman Sachs officials. You,Trump supporters, want extreme vetting for Syrian children and no vetting for the international bankers Trump has chosen to run the government.

        1. I think people are willing to accept different types of criminal behavior. Don’t you?
          Physical harm and overall personal safety for one and their family members probably comes first over financial coercion.
          I’m not sure a bank or any other type of financial institution has deliberately set out to kill people as their main objective.
          I hope your attention to the influence political leaders and their appointed assistants can have on the electorate helped you decide that Hillary was a criminal and not worthy to run the government as well.
          If not, then you may want to see a psychiatrist to help you with your delusions.

        2. Just for the record I was a “Chic” voter.
          I would have written in Santa but this election was too important to send the wrong message.
          St. Nick will have his turn soon enough.

          1. She gave speeches to them and Trump hired them to such an extent that many call it the by and for Goldman Government. Next you need to post something about Trump draining the swamp.:)

          2. Lol realize where you are posting.

            Jt travels around the country staying in five star hotels to talk about “public interest law” with very few people…. indeed most of the public can’t afford to stay in such hotels. Self awareness is a beautiful thing….

  15. I will refrain from calling the District Court Judge a dumb judge. Worse. But I will not employ the real words due to snowflakes who read the blog. The district judge was second guessing the Commander in Chief on the threat of terrorists to this country. They are coming to a theatre near you your honor and do not go to a theatre for awhile. If the Court of Appeals does not erase this district court order and be done with the litigation then we are in for more “chaos”. JT repeated the word “chaos”. The media is bandying that word about.
    I want to remind the readers that the Supreme Court case of Korematsu was never repudiated by the Supreme Court. That is the case brought by an American citizen of Japanese descent who was locked up in a concentration camp for the offense of simply being “of Japanese” origin. He was a citizen.
    This gets us to the issue of “standing to sue”. Does a non U.S. citizen who got a visa on-line or at some office in Iran have standing to sue in U.S. District Court, or any state court, when the Commander in Chief revokes his visa? No. That might be the simple solution for these cases. The Court of Appeals could narrow it down to allowing folks who had been here before and were home visiting Uncle Mohamed when the EO was issued. They might have standing to sue.

    America has a right to build a Wall, to bar new migrants, to bar visitors and to make America Safe!
    Jesus Christ Superstar. I may make a comment on the lyrics of that song.

      1. Dave:
        Hitler is the world’s most accomplished humanitarian.

        Now that we have the nonsensical statements out of the way, what do you want to say and support.

        1. Define “snowflake” in this context. You’re seriously saying the Steak-Salesman isn’t a perfect fit?

          He doesn’t melt when his sensitive feelings aren’t hurt by tweets and SNL and Meryl Streep? Or when he doesn’t get his way every single time because this country has laws?

          Giant orange snowflake.

          1. What he doesn’t do is run tell momma and demand protection as our snowflakes do. That’s the difference. He’s combative! So what, it’s a nice change from rollover Obama.

              1. Not sure if that’s a diagnosis based on nothing or you’re mentalist but if it’s the latter and With that ability to read minds, you must be in high demand. Do you do parties?

            2. Didn’t the Pizza Hut Spokesman say the “theater should be a safe space” for Pence when he attended Hamilton?

      2. Trump is so thin skinned that the slightest irritation sends him into a rage so maybe he is a “snowflake”. He certainly thinks he is very “special”.

        1. That’s true but unlike our dear snowflakes he doesn’t run back to momma asking for safe spaces and protection from mean people. He takes the Orcs on. Good on him.

          1. “That’s true?” Feel free to rescind your last comment then. Or did you just want to invoke Hitler.

            1. I wanted to explain the words “sarcasm” and “ridicule” for you “in this context” and provide you an example to match your silly statement.

      3. Wonder if Lady Gaga will send King Trumplethinskin of Orange into a rage attack today at halftime.

        1. “She’s a disgrace. Totally inappropriate. The NFL should be protested for its dumb leadership. Sad tremendous fantastic amazing, I never settle so here’s $25 million.”

        2. I don’t think he cares what “the girl who wears meat coats for attention” thinks. I sure I don’t. She’s a performer. Who cares what some college dropout thinks.

          1. She;s a New Yorker and those are the people he really cares about no matter what he tells the people in flyover land.

        3. If she does the NFL will pay dearly next season. if I am the NFL I am in there letting her know she will be sued by the league if she does even one single political gesture or utterance.

          The NFL will have a dark future if she does. Most of its fans are older and many already tuned out this year in response to the political stuff coming out of the league. Next year would be an even bigger ratings disaster.

            1. Are you saying that I am a liar or hyperbolic?

              Oh the Left media and fans will all go blah blah blah but why they are down because they dont have the political honesty to admit the real reason. The Right is turning off the NFL because of the Political bs.

              http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/04/nfl-tv-ratings-crashed-2016/

              Everything on TV airs in the NFL’s shadow.

              It did, that is, until this fall. For the first time since the 1990s the NFL’s supreme dominance of televised sports has faded. Ratings through the first nine weeks plunged by double digits. “Monday Night Football” ratings are down by more than 20 percent.

      4. No, Trump is the blowback from us sick of the ‘Snowflake Left’

        I will put it bluntly. The Right chose Trump as a way of punching the Democrats right in the effin mouth. I sincerely mean that. We ate 8 years of Obama and the media force-feed us political correctness, Unconstitutional law and this is our way of saying Eff You in reply.

        Trump is only saying what we are all thinking at this point. We do not care about the Lefts feelings anymore. That good will has been long burned. Nope, what happens now is we are going to take policy and cram it down the throats of the Left whether they like it or not. We dont give a damn anymore.

        When Obama won in 08 nobody rioted. Heck for most part the nation was like ok yeah 1st Black president so thats cool. By 2012 the Right hated the guy because he and the DNC completely blew off the Right for 2 years when the DNC never thought theyd lose the majority ever again. We saw the gleam of Dictatorship in their eyes. Totalitarian Control.

        Now? Now we are going to gut the Federal govt to the bone so it can never be wielded like that by the Democrats ever again.

        1. ” Now? Now we are going to gut the Federal govt to the bone so it can never be wielded like that by the Democrats ever again.”Anonemouse When you cut government to the bone and take away Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps, you will see more than riots.

          1. Oh yes the rallying cry of the Democrats. Use fear tactics to drive protest when the above is not actually even in danger. i am speaking of Bureaucracies.

            Bureaucrats are ultimately the ones who have been usurping the Constitution for far too long.

            FDR was an awful president.

            1. Okay, bye. Enough time in Trumpland for the day. Yes they are in danger. Read some form of news even if its the Washington Examiner.

          2. We see ’em now from the “you owe me” crowd. The self reliant people aren’t there , they’re too busy working. You wanna be a revolutionary? Fine, you might as well look around and see there is a reason most don’t last very long.

    2. Yes, you should be afraid, very afraid. We’ve been hearing that for 15 years. BS.
      You are more likely to be killed by a car than a terrorist. Ban all cars immediately.

      The comments on this post are getting way too wacko for me. It used to be a civil discussion. it has turned personal when people know nothing about the person they rip. I am quite confident I will be called lots of names for this post. But no one, no one knows one twit about me.
      Sad, so sad.

      1. Gee Paul we’re under constant attack by a barbaric enemy and you take comfort in the fact we’ve been successful in holding them at bay hence they are no threat. Read the national intelligence report on the mass murders we’ve prevented here. You talk about knowing nothing? You should.

        1. I agree Mespo. The Democrats are ignoring facts like these

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/22/reminder-the-alleged-boston-bombers-were-here-legally/

          Reminder: The alleged Boston bombers were here legally

          As Dave Weigel at Slate notes, both of the Tsarnaev brothers, who stand accused of perpetrating last Monday’s marathon bombing, were in the United States legally. Dzhokhar, who is currently in police custody after a lengthy manhunt, is a naturalized citizen, while Tamerlan, who died in a shootout with police, had a green card and was applying for citizenship. It was held up because of a domestic violence charge on his record.

        3. “Read the national intelligence report on the mass murders we’ve prevented here.”

          How about a link.

          2. And if you say anything that is contrary to their narrative, they will swarm you like killer bees.

        4. Democrats and Neo-Cons want to give drivers licenses to everyone US citizens or not. So incredibly stupid.

          According to the March 28, 2002 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Robert Thibadeau, director of Carnegie Mellon’s Internet Security laboratory, says that “the 19 terrorists on Sept. 11 were holding 63 state driver’s licenses for identification.”

      2. I have not seen anyone be uncivil. I am merely explaining to you why Trump was 1st nominated and then elected. Because the Rightwing is literally that sick and tired of the Left. I also explained why they are. Are we supposed to ignore facts now because they hurt your sensibilities?

        I find it ironic that the Left complains about the plain honesty of Trump when we had 8 years of snarky, condescending, arrogant, passive-aggressive sarcastic attacks and Dog Whistle Politics from Obama and the Democrats.

        The Democrats go to tactic is passive aggressive in which they insult the Right and then pretend they didnt and then when insulted back they declare themselves moral victor taking the high road when in reality is was them that started the fight to begin with.

        1. You are spot on about the backlash being a precipitating factor in the election against the smug liberal overlord. Very few folks here are as progressive as I am, but an attack of the First Amendment and our national culture by the Snowflake Orcs helped me get my George Wallace on against these unAmerican radicals.

          1. I have no issue with people who have Left political positions. I voted for Obama myself in 2008. I have issues with the hypocrisy that lurked under the surface of the party. I have issue with the party that went from Total Control Totalitarians when in power, to melting down zealots in the face of loss off power. They are revealing themselves to us in the process. They paint this portrait of peaceful passive people with love and flowers when inside lurks a tyrant seeking to ruthlessly control every course of life in their political ideology.

            It is rather interesting to see how they embrace the very things they claim to hate. When I think of Fascist thugs I pretty much think Hillary supporters rioting in the streets.

            I think the one thing we can take from this is the inherent danger of a powerful large Federal govt. I am hoping voters of all walks now realize the strictness of the Constitution is to guard against what our govt has become today. Without an overpowered Federal Govt I do not think we reach this level of toxic partisan politics.

            I think its time we revisit the Commerce Clause because its being misused. Also the power govt agencies has to completely circumvent the Bill of Rights is appalling.

            “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams

            “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” Patrick Henry

    1. Screw U2. Nothing more fun than a good Molly Hatchett concert. Add Charlie Daniels and the Allmans and you’ve got a Woodstock for clothed people.

  17. Looks like a little judge shopping by the Orcs. The Ninth Circuit is notoriously liberal and the litigants know it. We’ll see if the Court goes with keeping their country club buddies happy and places ideology over American lives like our enemies do.

      1. Thanks, they just remind me of them, hence the name. FFTC is the best along with “Flirting With Disaster.” Kinda poetic, I’d say.

  18. “As I have said before, much of the confusion surrounding the order could have been avoided with better planning, drafting, and coordination by the Administration.”

    But chaos get attention sir.

      1. It’s getting people to finally pay attention.

        I ranted and raved for years about Dick Cheney and people, especially my ex,thought that I was a political Chicken Little.

        I can’t help but sit back and laugh. You idiots should have paid more attention and not nominated a criminal.
        But noooo, we had to have a woman, it was her turn. Look what we are enduring now.

        I’m sorry people can’t think things thru to completion without their emotions taking over reason.

        1. I fully expect the Democrats to present in 2020….. a Hispanic but identifies as Black, Transsexual, but Gay, Female Muslim. They democrat party has completely lost its mind.

          When Trump won the nomination I was half hoping he would choose a female running mate just so we could somewhat reduce the future acidic angst of having a woman in the White House.

          The interesting thing is, Obama would have probably chosen Hillary in 2008 but the Clintons clearly angered him on a rather severe level. So much to the point Valerie Jarrett would later be the one to leak to the press Hillarys email scandal

            2. REVEALED: Top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett ‘was behind Hillary Clinton email scandal leak’

              A new report claims that Valerie Jarrett, one of President Barack Obama’s top advisers, leaked the Hillary Clinton email scandal to the press
              What’s more, the leak was reportedly planned to hit at the same time Clinton planned to announce her run for presidency
              The New York Post claims that Jarrett was angry that the Clintons had been working to ‘marginalize’ President Obama
              Jarrett reportedly blamed the Clintons for the fact that members of the party refused to campaign with Obama during the midterm elections
              There are reportedly six more probes going on investigating Clinton and more leaks are expected
              President Obama reportedly told Clinton in a meeting with Jarrett and the First Lady that he would not support her in the presidential primary

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995342/Top-Obama-adviser-Valerie-Jarrett-reported-leaked-Hillary-Clinton-email-scandal-press-just-announce-candidacy-president-leaks-planned.html

          2. Trump has committed the unpardonable sin: He has dared to act, not talk. It is unfortunate that government does not reward such men.

  19. If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

    “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. ….” Thomas Jefferson
    — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

    “This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. ” Thomas Jefferson — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

    The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …” Thomas Jefferson — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

    I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. ” — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

    “… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. ” — Thomas JeffersonLetter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823

    “… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. ” — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825

    “…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Abraham Lincoln- inaugural address

    1. Lincoln concluded with” If the citizenry wary not want a tyrant elevated by organized hooligans then the opposition should not proffer a criminal as a choice.”

      1. Trump is not a tyrant. He may not be the classic statesmen and he does have a temper but he is not a tyrant. A tyrant would be one who completely disregards the Constitution even when he admits in prior speeches that acts he later undertakes, is in fact Unconstitutional.

        If you wish to see a Tyrant I would argue that the closest we have seen in modern era is the one we just finished 8 years of having…..and I voted for him the first time.

    2. As a devoted Jeffersonophile my whole life and a lawyer for 32 years ( hard to believe it’s that long) I share the third President’s concern about judicial tyranny. They have no checks and they control the balance.

    1. Trump may be impolitic and brutally honest as a President but he is still correct.

        1. Speaking of that. Look at this quote from the Judge in the above article. We complain about Trumps language but he has acted within his powers. However can a Judge say this during a ruling be construed as anything other than one who is not following the letter of the law but rather legislating from the bench

          During Judge Robart’s self-righteous rant, he stated, “I’m sure the entire city of Seattle would march behind me.”

          He threatens the Police Union with no standing or cause and then essentially proclaims that the people will back him. Not the courts but the people as if he were a Civil Rights leader.
          He should have been removed from the bench. He clearly has complete bias against the police and is incapable of impartial decisions.

          Jefferson was right. We need to rein in judges of all levels.

          Also calling people in the year 2017 Civil Rights leaders makes a mockery of people like MLK. Civil Rights is a dead issue. That battle ended decades ago.

          1. Roberts is a gushing judicial hack complete with agenda and nonsensical flowery prose (he once said because AFrican Americans were overrepresented in police shootings it was ipso fact racism and ending his screed with [see] “black lives matter.” Guess he doesn’t get the newspaper or own a book on logic), his Congressional election notwithstanding. He’s a judge alright but so was Roy Bean. They’re not fungible. Some suck.

Comments are closed.