Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Religion

Lessons from State of Washington v. Trump

By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor

“A scheme of government like ours no doubt at times feels the lack of power to act with complete, all-embracing, swiftly moving authority. No doubt a government with distributed authority, subject to be challenged in the courts of law, at least long enough to consider and adjudicate the challenge, labors under restrictions from which other governments are free. It has not been our tradition to envy such governments. In any event, our government was designed to have such restrictions.”

-Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 613 (1952)

The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this week upholding the temporary restraining order against enforcement of Executive Order 13769 produced immediate outrage in the Trump Administration. The President himself characterized the ruling as “disgraceful” and claimed that any subsequent act of terror on our shores would be laid squarely at the feet of the judiciary. Mr. Trump has been variously advised to take the matter to the Supreme Court or ignore the lower court orders entirely. In my view, the wisest option is to return to the drawing board, an idea that is apparently also under consideration.

The anger over the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is misplaced. It is neither warranted by the decision itself nor by the perceived threat to presidential power. The court did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and its continuation of the TRO until completion of an evidentiary hearing in the trial court is not fairly predictive of the final outcome. Moreover, the Administration has not advanced any substantive argument, either in court filings or in public statements, to support the notion that temporarily maintaining current immigration policy creates serious security risks. Indeed, we are still waiting for an explanation of what the phrase “extreme vetting” even means.

Instead of railing against the decision and engaging in personal attacks against judges, the President would be well-advised to read the opinion carefully. It contains several useful lessons for the future of his presidency.

The first, and most important lesson, relates to the limits of presidential power. The government argued that the President’s authority in immigration policy is not subject to judicial review, that the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” In response the court noted, “There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.” State of Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105 (February 9, 2017), at 14.

Variations on this argument have been made by other presidents. Richard Nixon claimed that absolute executive privilege precluded the subpoena of documents and recordings of conversations with White House staff members in connection with criminal investigations. In rejecting that argument, the Supreme Court observed that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974).

Harry Truman was thwarted in his efforts to nationalize the steel industry, despite his assertions that his actions were lawful exercises of his powers as commander in chief in the interests of national security. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). As we were reminded by the Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), “Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Id. at 211.

The second lesson from the Ninth Circuit opinion is that policy positions, regardless of the stated reasons for their adoption, may run afoul of constitutional prohibitions if the evidence indicates that those stated reasons are merely pretextual. The President’s oft-repeated campaign promises to banish Muslims from entry into the United States, the court stated, are proper areas of inquiry when assessing the constitutionality of the Executive Order because “evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” State of Washington v. Trump,  supra, at 25. The Executive Order’s prioritizing of refugee claims by persecuted individuals who are members of minority religions in their country of origin certainly raises serious constitutional questions.

The third lesson to be drawn is suggested by the opinion as a whole. It is carefully drafted and moderate in tone, its language clear and concise. In the tradition of good judicial craftsmanship, the court deals only with those issues it deems necessary for the narrow purposes it intends to serve, concluding only that the government “has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury.” Id., at 3.

The challenged order is a classic example of overreach: ill-conceived, sloppily drafted and poorly implemented. A wise counselor would advise the President to regard the Ninth Circuit opinion as instructive rather than reproachful or censorious. He is not the CEO of the United States, a closely-held corporation. An Executive Order is something more than an occasion for another photo opportunity. Immigration policy should not be seen as a sword to wield in short-sighted wars against multi-cultural understanding and religious pluralism. Presidential power should not be regarded as primarily an instrument of retribution or ever exercised,  whatever the cause, for its own sake. In sum, the presidency is not a benevolent dictatorship. If Mr. Trump fails to grasp that idea, we are in for a bitterly litigious four years.

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently, without pre-approval or review. Content and displays of art are solely their decision and responsibility.
 

 

126 thoughts on “Lessons from State of Washington v. Trump”

  2. It’s sad that this blog has devolved into ad hominem attacks and extremist viewpoints that are not instructive, helpful, or fun to read. Most comments seem to be written so the writer can get his/her jollies and slam someone else.

  3. We need a “Trail of Tears” in our nation now. By that I mean we should round up all those illegal immigrants who are a danger. That includes those who came in illegally, stayed over their allotted time, lied about their ties to terrorists, and committed crimes. If they came in by boat then send them out by boat.
    There will many Americans who will shed tears. These people shed tears over other things too. They may not have shed tears when the Twin Towers came down.
    The terror thing is coming to a theatre near you. Get a weapon. Don’t leave home without it.

  4. We have another historical era which shows some relevance. The issue here today is whether the federal government has the Power (I did not say the word “Right”) to govern the control of migrants both before they come across our border, when they do, and after they do come across and indeed live here. A state can offer up the notion of “residency” but a mailbox is not he same thing as a visa, a green card, or citizenship.
    The existence of sovereign nations within our nations gives us some historical reference. From Bristish colonial times, to after our Revolution, we have recognized American Indian tribes as “nations” and dealth with them by “treaty”. The Sioux Nation living on a Reservation in the midst of one of our states is a soverign. Yet we do allow them all amenities.

    The Andrew Jackson era, before he was President, while he was, and afterward is interesting. Here is a snippet from Constitutional Daily, as of today:

    President Andrew Jackson and Native Americans

    President Jackson, a Washington outsider, is the supposed author of one of the most famous quotes in constitutional history.

    In the 1832 case Worchester v. Georgia, a ruling penned by Chief Justice John Marshall held that, because Native American tribes—in this case, the Cherokee—are considered sovereign nations, only the federal government has the right to establish laws related to them. In response to the decision, Jackson is said to have uttered, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!” In reality, he wrote privately to a friend, John Coffee: “The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born … and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”

    Still, a lack of enforcement by the federal government in the face of resistance from Georgia and other states showed a lack of respect for Native American rights and paved the way for the forced migration of Cherokee Indians known as the “Trail of Tears.”

    (National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen explores the nuances of Jackson’s relationship with the Court in an essay for The Atlantic.)

  5. One glaring omissions in the opinion from the 9th circuit court was NOT citing the actual statute that defines the president’s authority in his executive order and how the president violated it. The question before the court is what authority was he acting under and did he stay within the law.

    There are many things we as citizens should expect from our elected leaders and a few we should demand. We should expect they will never please everyone. We should expect them to want to do things that run afoul of the opinions and ideologies of those that oppose his every breath. But the one thing we must demand is the president governs within the law. If you want a president to respect the separation of powers then the judiciary needs to respect the LAW first.

    It would appear Mike Appleton has no respect for this president FIRST, which is reflected in his inability to be objective in his opinion. His concern for empowering a benevolent dictator is as laughable as his legal analysis in this case. He’s one president late in that regard.

      1. Exactly. An eloquent legal opinion that ignores the law is expected from an ideologue, like many on this blog. When it’s crafted by someone IN the legal profession, well that’s the sort of legal malpractice that has the “little” people yearning for action. Keep it up and you’ll have Trump for 8 years.

      1. Trump is so inept he is a danger to the entire world. Unfortunately the only people who have figured that out yet are the morons who voted for him.

  7. While doing all it could to provoke a constitutional crisis, this 9th circuit ruling is a gift to Trump. It fully exposes the political agenda of activist judges in the judiciary, protects the administration from accountability for the next domestic attack, and sets Trump up for a future win once Gorsuch is confirmed in late March.

    If the 9th had simply and correctly reversed, Washington State could have immediately appealed to a more favorable 8 member SCOTUS. No chance of that now.

    More analysis:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/a_legal_analysis_of_the_ninth_circuits_dangerous_usurpation_of_presidential_power.html

  8. Excellent post but I don’t think the president reads. He relies too much on Steve Bannon for information. Better to take direction from the cooler wiser heads in his administration. That is if there are any.

    2. Trump can read better than the 18 other contenders he dusted in the primary field — and Clinton.

          1. I came home from elementary school one day crying about being bullied. Dad said that calling someone a “Bully” just means that you aren’t courageous enough to stand up for yourself. I stood up the next day and didn’t have to ever again. Victims are so passe’.

              1. He did and it was unmanly despite it being obvious. I would have simply closed down the press room and let them get news the old fashioned way — working for it.

                1. …bullies…and then there are the know-it-alls… — sometimes, in the same package.

  9. I am not surprised about Trumps reaction. He vowed to appeal to the US Supreme Court, 1) since it is a Kennedy case from the 9th, it may not be taken up; 2) any decisions reached in the higher court will most likely be a 4/4 spilt, or Roberts may make it 5/3; and 3) the decision of the Court of Appeals is not ripe for the court to decide, this is only an upholding of the Stay.

    The only issue before The USSCT is did the District Court or Appeals court abuse its discretion.

    What people do not understand is the merits of the case have not been decided. It’s very possible for the court to decide with the POTUS with some guidance to draft a proper Executive Order.

    Now, Mr Trump could recall the EO and draft another one within the guidelines of neither being overbroand or vague.

    Lastly, I read that some in the advising of Mr Trump to ignore the Stay. This has two points, it sets up a great conflict between the US Marshals and the various Government Agencies involved at the Airport such as TSA, DHS, CBP and many others. The Irony is the US Marshals are paid for out of the DOJ.

    What I also read is that the Federal Judges are being granted extra security, based upon Trumps rants and people sending messages to the Court “You Are a Walking Deadman.” The Judicial College in Nevada is advising the Judges how to respond accordingly as was indicated that some folks are imbalanced and capable of doing great harm.

    Now, if Mr Trump would somehow act with diplomacy some of the fears would abate.

    1. Webster – show us where the EO is vague -a Judge in Boston thought it was quite clear.

      1. Judge Gorton had no problem with clarity. He even points out that any confusion was corrected. Isn’t it about time you seriously consider the political aspects of the 9th? A ‘moderate’ tone can be just as dangerous to our Constitution if the ‘tone’ happens to hide a political bias that cares not about upending Powers. From Boston Judge:

        “On February 1, 2017, White House counsel issued a
        clarification to the Acting Secretary of State, the Attorney
        General and the Secretary of Homeland Security that Sections
        3(c) and 3(e) do not apply to lawful permanent residents. ”

        Count1: “Because the EO involves federal government categorizations with respect to non-resident aliens, rational basis review applies. According to the EO, its purpose is to ensure the proper review and maximumutilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists . . . . Exec. Order 13,769 § 3(c). The EO specifically asserts that permitting aliens fromthe countries identified in section 217(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12), to enter “would be detrimental to the United States.” The order provides a reasonably conceivable state of facts [which concerns national security and] that could provide a rational basis for the classification. Heller, 509 U.S. at 319–20. Accordingly, this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 225.

        Count2:Moreover, the language in Section 5 of the EO is neutral with respect to religion. Plaintiffs submit in their amended complaint that Section 5 favors Muslims over Christians, in violation of the Establishment Clause. The provisions of Section 5, however, could be invoked to give preferred refugee status to a Muslimindividual in a country that is predominately Christian. Nothing in Section 5 compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.

        Count3:Although the F-1 plaintiffs certainly would be protected by the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment if deportation proceedings were initiated against them, Demore, 538 U.S. at 523, there is no indication that such proceedings are forthcoming. Furthermore, while this Court is sympathetic to the difficult personal circumstances in which these plaintiffs find themselves, if they choose to leave the country, as non-resident aliens, they have no right to re-enter. Landon, 459 U.S. at 32. In sum, because due process protections do not apply to visas and the F-1 plaintiffs are not currently subject to deportation proceedings, they have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of a due process claimat this time.

        Count4:Because the likelihood of success element is “essential” to the issuance of an injunction, New CommWireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 13-14 (1st Cir. 2002), the Court will not continue to impose injunctive relief pursuant to Count IV

        Count5:Consequently, Oxfamhas not shown a likelihood of success with respect to its claim in Count V. See Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 770; Adams, 909 F.2d at 650

        When the four factors that the Court must consider before imposing injunctive relief are considered collectively, likelihood of success on the merits weighs most heavily in the decision. Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2009). Therefore, because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims, an extension of the restraining order at the present time is not warranted.

        ORDER
        For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6).
        So ordered.
        /s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton_____ Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Judge”

          1. Nice – Gorton didn’t play into the media’s political agenda. However, the 9th is agenda friendly.

      2. 1 out of How many judges. I guess the Judge was not certain enough that or they would have made a nation wide affirming. Too little too late.

  10. Grow up America.
    Kick those Liberal Judges where it hurts.
    President Trump is simply doing what he was elected to do.
    America on the road to be great again.
    Liberalism will not stop this train.

  11. “…the President would be well-advised to read the opinion carefully.”

    Unless it’s a contract for Pizza Hut or Sharper Image, he doesn’t read.

                1. If you’ve never borrowed money to acquire something then you can judge others that have, but only from the perspective that you’ve achieved that level of distinction. It’s not a moral distinction however, it’s one of priorities. If you have borrowed any amount of money and make that claim, then you have achieved a different level of distinction; one of a blatant hypocrite.

      3. No proof of that but there is proof of many bankruptcies. He owes the German bank DB 300 million. Conflict of interest?

    1. In days of old, when knights were bold, and condoms weren’t invented. They tied a sock, around the cock, and babies were prevented.

      In days of old we had the “StatesRights!” argument. That was when President Kennedy issued an order and sent federales into Selma to help out the black and white people who were protesting the segregation and terrorism going on down there.
      Now we have terrorism from those who hate all Americans, not just minorities or their supporters. The terrorists can be citizens, emigrants and bombers whose entry in our country is by airplane alone but never landed. Of course the 911 hijackers were on the ground here before they hijacked.
      The StatesRights! advocates from the State of Washington include their state Attorney General. He wants to protect anyone who sets foot on state soil from federal intervention, such as migrant scrutiny. He wants Yemen pirates to be able to come ashore and reside in his state. Yes. He went in dumb and came out dumb too. But those migrants are hustlin round Seattle in their alligator shoes. And some will be blowing America down.
      There is an analogy here with Selma. Ask Congressman John Lewis.

  13. Appleton criticized the Night Circuit a few years ago in a Cinco de Mayo case, the court ruling in favor of the Mexican flag, subordinating the American flag to prevent unrest. He believed the court got it wrong because it subordinated freedom of speech to cultural sensitivity. Now today, Appleton believes the court got it right by subordinating public safety to hijacking separation of powers. Another “wants it both ways” liberal. So dishonest.

    1. vinegart and others,

      Although Trump, like Obama and Bush and so on before him, have told you that the president’s highest duty is to keep the American people “safe”, their actual oath is to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. You are all falling for or repeating propaganda. No one’s safety is guaranteed in life but there are some things which will help make us safer, none of which any of the afore mentioned father figures are willing to do.

      1. most importantly, upholding the rule of law protects everyone. We by law should not have a daddy or mommy (for Clinton’s people) dictator, we have a president. By enforcing the rule of law, securing the rights of the people, we are much safer than with the desired savior that people on the left and right seem to want from a president.

      2. stop making war across the globe. End blowback

      3. get the IC and MIC under control, including the civilian contractors

      Mike is not being inconsistent in what he’s saying in either case about the 9th circuit. He is saying that the Constitution takes precedence–period. I am disheartened by the so called “liberty” voters who are completely willing to abandon the Constitution in favor of your version of a dictatorship. Of course, Obama and Clinton voters did the same. That tells me we have a society wide lack of belief in liberty and our own rule of law. You won’t have liberty unless you start supporting the Constitution.

      1. I totally agree with your item number two.

        But also remember, before the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal where Suni prisoners were inhumanely humiliated, beheadings were nonexistent. The explosion in ghastly terrorism today can be traced right back to the handful of lawless allied military personnel who instigated the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, none of which Geneva Convention violators have ever been brought to justice, as far as I know.

        In the same way that military personnel had violated the Geneva Convention at the Abu Ghraib prison, which violations incited ghastly retribution, the Ninth Circuit’s violation of the separation of powers will finally incite retribution upon the courts, long overdue now for more than a generation, during which time and awful lot of injustice has been forced down the throats of Americans by a reckless judiciary that has absolutely zero respect for separation of powers, much less the Constitution.

        SCOTUS, itself, is the worst perp of all, made up of judges who routinely interpret the Constitution to favor corporations, rewarding stockholders by rule, the hell with civil rights for all.

        The day is soon approaching when these constitutional violators will not just be disrobed but stripped naked and forced to march in the streets so that we can see them for what they really are — decrepit renditions of human article responsible for dividing our nation.

        While Judge Gorsuch himself, the Supreme Court nominee, is saddened and disheartened by any criticism of a federal judge, he ostensibly has no such sentiments for criticism of the president. This is extremely disturbing in my view because it shows that judge Gorsuch’s allegiance is not to the Constitution but rather to his own tribe — just more business as usual for the judiciary, proof that its wings need clipping, and soon because it has already tipped the scale of critical mass that WILL lead to civil war.

      2. “You won’t have liberty unless you start supporting the Constitution.”

        If Appleton made the “constitutional” argument, then where does his “opinion” offset the statute? His argument is based in ideology and no where does he or the 9th circuit cite the actual law that this administration has based its executive order on.

        What is most interesting is how there are those that argue a president that actually follows the law, with a perceived ideological bent, is considered a dictator; all the while, the previous president circumvented the law, also with a perceived ideological bent, but is lionized. Go figure.

        1. Olly,

          The court is telling Trump his EO’s are not exempt from the Constitution. They must pass the test of Constitutionality.

          I share your frustration with the extraordinary hypocrisy of Obama supporters. They didn’t care if Obama’s EO’s passed the test of Constitutionality. It’s only when Trump tries to do the same thing that they are concerned enough to speak up. That said, as citizens, including people in the liberty movement, we are failing in our task of holding EVERY president to account with regards to the rule of law.

          Liberty movement people are lionizing Trump the way Dems lionized Obama. This is dangerous. We need the rule of law. This ruling is telling Trump that he must follow the Constitution, something his administration said they did no have to do. They are wrong about that and no citizen should support a president saying he is above the rule of law. We have all been there and done that!

          1. “The court is telling Trump his EO’s are not exempt from the Constitution. They must pass the test of Constitutionality.”

            The court made no attempt to address the constitutionality of the EO as it never measured it against the statute that defines the president’s authority. The 9th has proven time and again the rule of law is subordinate to THEIR opinion.

            “This ruling is telling Trump that he must follow the Constitution, something his administration said they did no have to do.”

            Do you have a citation for this?

    2. As I said earlier, Appleton is a free speech guy. But, he has been silent of late on that most important issue.

      1. I learned as a PI, you often learn more from what a person DOESN’T talk about or say, than from what they do say.

  14. Let’s hope that no harm comes to any American until this is resolved. This should be the main concern to all.

  15. Appleton takes a 3 year hiatus and comes back w/ a thinly veiled, ham n’ egger, political hatchet job.

    For those new folks, Appleton is a holdover from when liberals ran this place, and this horse manure was what we had to read every weekend. Mike Aarethun nailed it w/ a leadoff homer. The absence of Obama in this polemic says it all. Appleton probably had an erection as he waxed poetic about the 9th Circuit.

    Appleton is a nice guy. The other liberals who ran this place on weekends were elitist, dull/normal, pompous jerks. Appleton is just a biased, myopic, liberal who loves all things Dem and despises all things Rep. He claims to be a “free speech absolutist” but is MIA on the thousands of examples of liberal attacks on free speech, but finds time to write this pablum. Damn shame. As the United Negro College Fund motto goes, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” Hopefully we won’t have to read his work again for another few years. Or, he can man up and write a free speech post. He can do it under an alias so as to not alienate his liberal friends. I doubt he has any conservative ones.

    2. Let’s hope that no more harm comes to any American at all , period. Aside from that, I am more than just a bit surprised that the Criminally Corrupt State of Washington(SWAMP) has the nerve to even make a faint peep, let alone this attention getter.

      Think I’m making unbridled Scattershot Unfounded Accusations with no merit? Not a chance. On the contrary, I have a bevy of Documented Verifiable on Official Record proof that the WSBA Disciplinary Board & their Lawyers Fund for Client Protection Defrauds Their Customers For Hundreds of thousands of dollars by altering Facts of Record, making up non existent “Rules”.

      The same for the Pierce County Washington State Superior Court Clerks Office, Judiciary and Sheriff’s Dept. the U.S. District Court, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the U.S. Attorney Office, The Regional Director of the U.S. Trustee, the FBI, the Governor’s Office, The Supreme Court Clerk and Chief Justice all Involved with Misprision of Felony Public Corruption/Organized Crime, Criminal RICO Public Corruption, Criminal Conversion of Real Property/Home & Property Theft, Criminal Fraud, Mail Fraud. Aid & Abet the Unlicensed Practice of Law, Embezzlement, harboring justice. Criminal Enforcement with Gangland Style, Malicious Squads of Heavily Armed Sheriffs Enforcing Known to be Void Court Orders to commit further Felony Crime. Which is Officially listed as Treason.

      Having their Flagrant Over Confidence Fueled by the Advance guarantee of no interference from any Senator, Congressman, State Governor, FBI, U.S. Marshal, State or County Law Enforcement, U.S. Attorney or any body else.
      Whereas they have taken Cronyism, Legal Abuse, Abuse of Authority and Criminal RICO Public Corruption to never seen before heights. To where it has exceeded the provisions within the Official Definitions for each by such vast measures, the end results now reside with Domestic Terrorism, Tyranny & Kleptocracy.

      All of which made possible by the employment of the 360 Degree Full Coverage Criminal RICO Insurance Plan. Whereas the Provider is the same as the Client, being one in the same.

      We have a Governor that is Officially Listed as the Chief Executive Official of the Executive Branch and at the same time Officially listed as a Current and Active member of the WSBA which is Officially published as being affiliated with the Judicial Branch. What Separation of Powers??

      With Washington State being one of the only States currently missing from the D.O.J. list of Public Officials prosecuted and or Convicted of Public Corruption. So we are to believe it is due to a lack of Corruption to Prosecute? That Corruption exists within every other State and Internationally, but just not here upon the Saintly Soil of Washington State.

      This whole thing regarding authority, Jurisdiction, the Far Reaching Powers of the Judiciary is so detached from Original Design and intent. Putting things in a much more realistic perspective, Judges have a great deal in common with 914 Porsche’s/Glorified Volkswagons . Starting with all Volkswagon motors, transaxles, wheels, etc. Then adorned with new skin/Cloth , re-badge and now suddenly a “PORSCHE!”

      Whereas the Judges born to a mother and a father, putting their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us, going to Law School becoming a Sworn in Licensed Attorney. Then all of sudden by popular vote or just a shoe in situation, over night its suddenly now “Your Honor”. What happened? True honor cannot be won by popular vote or appointed. It must be earned as well as ethically & legally maintained.

      All of these constant theatrics involving Trump, his wife and children, along with who ever he might appoint to some position, being constantly assaulted by the Dem’s makes me very nervous. What’s really going on that the major media and the people who own them don’t want us to know about or focus on right now?? I cannot help but be inclined to think that whatever it is, must be a lot more important than just this.

    3. The alt right appears to be highly displeased with Mike Appleton’s post. Steve Bannon would be proud.

    4. Speaking as an “elitist, dull/normal, pompous jerk,” I agree Mike A is a nice guy and a damn fine lawyer. While I disagree with most everything he says here especially the notion that the judiciary should be schooling the Executive in matters of immigration and national defense which for eons have been the exclusive baileywick of the President, I believe his arguments are made in good faith. I do question the notion that any administration has to “prove” that stopping immigration from failed nation states with populations hostile to our own is Constitutionally required esoecially given that our prime antagonist, ISIS, says it intends to imbed terrorists with these “refugees.” It seems axiomatic to most rational minds to shut the barn door before the wolves get in. That is doesn’t to the Ninth Circuit is the crux of the criticism and why most lawyers like me find it ideology driven judicial overreach.

  16. The Ninth Circuit opinion is wrong. What I would do those is revoke the existing Executive Order and issue a few others. First, require extensive vetting overseas of any person who requests a visa. Second, bar entry to any person who hails from the gang of 7 territories already listed in this order. Unless that person already has a visa which is valid. But vet each one of those visas immediately and revoke visa for anyone who is suspect. Third, expand the list of territories to bar entry to include Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Some others. Fourth, vet all persons who apply from France. That territory is full of terrorists. Some with Frog names. Fifth, with regard to sanctuary cities and sanctuary states like Washington State: unleash a series of Executive Orders so as to seize control of all notions of immigration control and begin vetting every single migrant in those cities or states.
    We will have another Twin Tower type attack and we will have some mass murder on the ground by gun and bomb wielding migrants. When we do then blame the friggin media. They have been terrible since Trump won the election.

    2. 1. Twin Towers was an insaaaight job. You can expand the list of territories to include… the USA.
      A country that would attack it’s own people to promote the war-machine. Kudos.
      2. Every non-native American is a migrant! Go get yourself vetted.
      3. One guy’s stupidity is another’s suspiciousness.

      1. Belgian et al ascribing to “Native Americans”
        There are no original or “native” peoples on the North American continent. In fact it’s very difficult to determine which of those with whom the (1492 and later) Europeans interacted are the actual first occupiers of a land. The pre-historic Western Hemisphere became another grounds where humanity either overruns or collides with itself. There were no originals living in this hemisphere. And, those with whom historic Europeans engaged were not much inclined to live in peace and harmony with each other. Check the blood stains on the Mayan temples for example.

        If the pre-Colombian Chinese had not destroyed their own Navy, the whole of our west coast may well have seen an overrun of Asians by Asians. And, there would not have been a European seaborn incursian into Asia.

        (The least of their warships make even the 1700 era European ships look like row boats.)

        “Native American” is a convenient term which obfuscates the reality of humanity’s biological and historic propensity to move and dominate. It also ascribes an erroneous concept of a peoples who were at one with the environment and lived in tranquility. Check out the different buffalo jumps where massive herds were annihilated.

        As an aside, the primary reason that the 1492 and later Europeans did not meet a similarly developed peoples is that the continent did not previously have beasts of burden.

        1. Human beings tend to react in predictable ways when faced with limited resources in the fight for survival.

          When herds move on, the strongest hunter gatherer tribe wars with and conquers or wipes out the weaker hunter gatherer tribe to get access. They don’t just sit there and starve to death if their source of sustenance moves on. So many tribes got wiped out by other tribes.

          The only original people in North America would have been the Clovis Indians. Before that, our ancestors warred with Neanderthals, as our genome shows we interacted, i.e. likely assaulted, them far more recently in our history than supposed.

    3. I’d issue one every day with a slight tweak and withdraw the previous one if challenged in the judge-shopped Ninth Circuit. Paper and ink are cheap.

  18. Entire case was not argued properly by competent lawyers–They were holdovers of Obama DOJ and did not have their hearts in it—things will now be different under the new Trump/Sessions DOJ !! DMD

  19. Whether it be in Latin or English, the facts speak. DDT did not have to do what he did the way he did it to get the results he desired. The way he did what he did served one and only one purpose, to exclaim his power. This is the fact of the matter. This is the problem. This is why the structure has within it the means to arrest megalomaniac, liars like DDT from running amok. The issue at hand is not security; everyone agrees that everything that is possible must be done to secure the land and people against the mentally disturbed so called religious freaks. However, we must differentiate between their madness and our controlled resolve. Thus far DDT is responding with madness.

    1. Thank you, I respect your sanity and applaud your wisdom. I also agree with what you’ve said and very much admire the way you’ve said it. Much like the article Mr.Appleton has written it helps to restore to me a measure of faith in what has been, for me personally, a failed system. I hope to see the sanity restored to our system as well and the cruel, exploitatious and miserly players given a taste of what trueness looks like….but the cruelties of pearls before swine are not pretty and the currently at play over-reaches have overly strained. As for the madness of DDT, his clothes were made by expert magical tailors so he is merely using what has been placed at hand, in his well and magical tailored pockets… 😉

  20. Why did you not go back and read the definition which was in use under the Obama Regime. Why Not?

    Because it was an inconvenient truth.

    As for the rest it sure as hell lit a firestorm under your behind the eight ball butts now explain why this mess existed in the first place and why your expertise failed FAILED to get it corrected during the past eight years?

    Because it served your purpose?

    Three strikes your out. What is the third strike? Asking.

Comments are closed.