Lion of the Blogosphere

Liberal judiciary strikes Trump

Liberal Judge in Washington State says that the entire travel ban is unconstitutional.

I told you that the liberal game plan was that the courts would require open borders.

I urge Republicans in the Senate to use the so-called “nuclear option” today, dispense with any further nomination hearings, and get Neil Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court ASAP. The Ninth Circuit is the most liberal circuit and a 4-4 tie on the Supreme Court can’t overturn an open-borders decision.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 4, 2017 at 8:10 am

Posted in Immigration, Law

80 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. There is a tradition of the congress and the president deferring to the courts. Maybe it is time for Trump to break this tradition..

    Clay

    February 4, 2017 at 8:21 am

  2. Let them have the vote first, and have Democrats vote against him, then go with the nuclear option. It might be instructive to actually allow the Democrats to demonstrate why the senate needs to use the nuclear option.

    Mike Street Station

    February 4, 2017 at 8:31 am

    • Why is Trump doing all of this with EO’s? Wouldn’t it be better for him to establish relationships (i.e., dominance) with Congress first and work that way? Can’t he do both? Is he?

      This is a very good article:

      http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/donald-trump-white-house-charm-offensive

      I was frankly shocked when I read that article – the honesty, and the facts.

      Well, let’s look on the good side. It’s February 4, 2017, and Trump is still in office. Wasn’t he supposed to have been impeached already?

      gothamette

      February 4, 2017 at 11:48 am

      • It’s already law that the president can deny entry to any aliens or class of aliens. 8 USC §1182:

        “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.”

        What would he ask congress for? A law that says “and we really mean it”?

        Steve Johnson

        February 4, 2017 at 2:31 pm

      • What does he need an Executive Order for? Why not just invoke the law?

        gothamette

        February 4, 2017 at 4:56 pm

      • PS Stop blaming this on the liberal judiciary. He’s the President, not the Fuhrer. The travel ban included Iran. Why? What have Iranians done to us? The people are extremely sympathetic to the US.

        And what about the drone strike in Yemen? Yes, I know that Obama was killing people and liberals said nothing, but does that justify Trump doing the same stupid shit? This is Saudi Arabia’s war, not ours. I voted for change. Is this change?

        gothamette

        February 5, 2017 at 12:43 pm

      • “What have Iranians done to us?”

        Hostage crisis. Funding of Shite terrorist militias throughout the Middle East.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 5, 2017 at 12:57 pm

      • The hostage crisis was over in 1980.

        The Shiite terrorist militias are threats to the US – how?

        gothamette

        February 5, 2017 at 2:06 pm

      • How do Shiite terrorist militias BENEFIT the United States?

        And remember when the Ayatollah issued a Fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie?

        Anyway, it’s not Trump who started the anti-Iran policies. We’ve been anti-Iran since Carter was President. But Trump did campaign on a platform that Obama made a bad deal with Iran on nuclear weapons, so when we voted for Trump we knew weren’t voting for détente with Iran.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 5, 2017 at 2:22 pm

      • We’re not supposed to go abroad searching for monsters to slay.

        I don’t care about Rushdie. He was a prick anyway.

        The Iran deal wasn’t the centerpiece of his candidacy.

        The focus on refugees was ill conceived. People have a sympathy for refugees.

        He’s also tweeting about trivia.

        Trump is getting off track, quickly.

        gothamette

        February 5, 2017 at 4:57 pm

  3. Lion,
    This is one of the BIGGEST problems with modern American society….our exponentially litigious environment. It is impossible to get anything done without lawyers. It is so easy to sue for anything, especially as something as important as enforcing immigration laws.

    Here is just one small case: The Penn East Pipeline

    http://www.lvb.com/article/20170124/LVB01/170129944/potential-final-approval-of-penneast-pipeline-project-delayed

    It’s a pretty routine natural gas pipeline that will lead to lower gas prices and create alot of American jobs, mostly blue collar. However, environmentalists consistently delay the project. And liberals complain that we can’t build stuff like we used to?

    I fear that this will get worse. The ACLU received millions of dollars in donations recently. They will just sue and sue for the entirety of Trump’s administration.

    JerseyGuy

    February 4, 2017 at 8:51 am

    • There are more lawyers than ever in America, and enrollment in prestigious law schools are up.

      Enjoy your country!

      JS

      February 4, 2017 at 9:42 am

    • There’s a fine line between a draconian-authoritarian state and a 3rd world nation, the former is high trust in nature.

      America’s police state is “I’ll grab someone by the throat knowing that person is a law biding anyway”.

      JS

      February 4, 2017 at 9:47 am

    • And that is why Andrew Jackson is hanging on the wall of the oval office.

      The Federal judiciary is setting itself up against American citizens, telling Americans, literally, that American citizens don’t own their own country. Once the military and security services are consolidated, ant-American judge-made rulings can safely ignored.

      Besides, the Federal courts underneath the Supreme Court are a creature of Congress. They can be redistricted and their power can be limited.

      map

      February 4, 2017 at 3:19 pm

      • Right, Jackson is the model but look, I’m gonna chill about all this.

        There’s going to be constant fights and strife for the next four years. We are in a civil war. It’ll be fought in the courts, the streets, and the culture. On the beaches.. 🙂

        Doesn’t everyone remember during the campaign, there were constant questions about whether Trump meant it? He means it.

        We have a fighting chance of saving the country legally. If we don’t there’s always the Otis option.

        gothamette

        February 4, 2017 at 5:28 pm

  4. The left is going to beat the right because they are the smart party. The republicans are the stupid party. The republicans are going to work (as useful idiots) for the democrats to destroy Trump, and they will succeed.

    jjbees

    February 4, 2017 at 9:16 am

    • Sad, but true!

      Two in the Bush

      February 4, 2017 at 10:10 am

    • Wrong

      Andrew E.

      February 4, 2017 at 10:51 am

    • I hate these kinda bullshit posts. If you think we are going to lose, fine. But provide analysis to back up your position. Just saying “we are doomed!” is stupid and annoying.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm

      • With Otis on this one. I hate the “we are doomed.” What a bunch of doomsayers!!

        gothamette

        February 4, 2017 at 5:28 pm

      • I provided analysis! “The republicans are going to work as useful idiots for the democrats”

        Refute this! You can’t!

        jjbees

        February 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    • I disagree. The left is a paper tiger..a consortium of journalists, activists and bureacrats. They lack the spiritual strength to do real work or even have children, let alone the will for a protracted battle.

      The right has all of the military/police muscle, work ethic, families and patriotism. They control 95% of the land mass in this country and produce its food. They are also proficient in firearms and survival. Most importantly, God and history are in their side. If a shooting war broke out it would be no contest.

      B.T.D.T.

      February 5, 2017 at 8:39 am

      • I’ve thought about that quite a bit. The thing is, the right’s also geographically dispersed, making organization harder.

        SFG

        February 5, 2017 at 5:52 pm

  5. I have read more than once that the constitution gives the congress the power to, in effect, tell the judiciary to back off any issue that they want them to back off of. I’m not sure how this works though.

    CamelCaseRob

    February 4, 2017 at 9:17 am

    • Congress can remove jurisdiction from the court. Maybe.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 4, 2017 at 9:36 am

      • Why do you say maybe?

        Clay

        February 4, 2017 at 11:09 am

    • The only law court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. District or appellate courts could be eliminated tomorrow by Congress if they wanted to.

      Andrew E.

      February 4, 2017 at 10:53 am

  6. The ban is dead. No way in the world Kennedy will support it even if it gets to SCOTUS.

    Two in the Bush

    February 4, 2017 at 10:10 am

    • The solution to the travel ban is to end the visa and green card program completely.

      map

      February 4, 2017 at 3:21 pm

      • We have to have visas.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 4, 2017 at 4:14 pm

      • Trump’s ban on Iranians shows his lack of tact and prejudice that would sure backfire as his term progresses.

        Many Iranian immigrants aren’t too different from East Asians who come to the United States to study STEM (yet I’m sure some of your East Asian readership on your blog think all Middle Easterners have a propensity for terrorism).

        Now that the travel ban has been temporarily revoked, Iranian beta males can enter the country and pursue their engineering studies to further enrich our capitalists, where many of our White males do not want to take part, and our useless other non-whites who only act as welfare inducing primitives and leechers.

        JS

        February 4, 2017 at 10:19 pm

  7. If the Courts really start holding that there is a constitutional right to immigrate, Trump should consider instituting a court-packing plan similar to what was proposed in the 1930s. i.e. have Congress create a large number of new judge positions and then appoint conservatives to those positions.

    That’s what happened in the 1930s when FDR’s New Deal legislation kept getting struck down by judges who invented a Constitutional right to freedom of contract. The way FDR handled it was like I said above — he proposed creating new judge positions, ensuring himself a majority on the Supreme Court. After that proposal, the Courts backed down.

    I don’t know if the Left would back down like the Right did in the 1930s. Probably they wouldn’t, which means that a court-packing law really could create a constitutional crisis. But at the same time, right now is the best window of opportunity there has been in a long time to fight back against the Leftist slow-motion coup which has been taking place for 40 or 50 years now.

    sabril

    February 4, 2017 at 10:24 am

    • And FDR lost, bigtime. There is NO WAY that Trump could get away with this.

      Gorsuch will be confirmed, after the usual media hoopla. Then comes Ginsburg, who is an inflatable doll being kept alive with chemicals. Then a couple of the other justices already mentioned here.

      The simple and ineluctable fact is that the Constitution does NOT allow unlimited immigration from anywhere, and not even Stupid Sotomayor would get away with writing an opinion that states such. Perhaps this EO was poorly crafted and that’s the reason they are pouncing on it.

      gothamette

      February 4, 2017 at 11:56 am

      • Fifty years ago someone may have written “The simple and ineluctable fact is that the Constitution does NOT contain a right to gay marriage.”

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 4, 2017 at 12:01 pm

      • Point taken, Lion. But this one we’re gonna fight. This one isn’t going to go down without a knock down drag out. We have President Bannon now. 🙂

        gothamette

        February 4, 2017 at 4:54 pm

      • “And FDR lost, bigtime. There is NO WAY that Trump could get away with this.”

        What are you talking about? After the court-packing plan was announced, the Supreme Court backed down and stopped striking down New Deal laws. FDR won, big time.

        As for simple and ineluctable facts, the obvious meaning and interpretation of the Constitution has NEVER stopped the Left from insisting with a straight face that the Constitution requires whatever policies the Left wants. And there will always be judges who agree with them.

        sabril

        February 4, 2017 at 12:24 pm

      • Both cuckolds and libtards are on the same life boat together with their American citizens whom they try to govern. Both groups are trying to fight Darwin’s evolution, where one is retrogressive and the other denying HBD.

        Gorsuch is such a jerk who doesn’t believe in assisted suicide, when patients are better off dying than to suffer excruciating pain while on life support, simply because IT’S THE LAW. This is no different from the misanthropes who try to destroy society in the name of GOD.

        JS

        February 4, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    • “If the Courts really start holding that there is a constitutional right to immigrate, Trump should…” go full Moldbug.

      chedolf

      February 4, 2017 at 1:19 pm

  8. The judge is a GWB appointee. Family values don’t stop at the… Columbia River?

    I read the ruling. He agreed with Washington State’s claim that the executive order is causing them “irreparable harm” because of how it affects their tax base, universities, and various and sundry other things. Irreparable harm? Try importing massive numbers of Muslims. How do you repair that harm?

    Hermes

    February 4, 2017 at 11:03 am

    • His name is James Robart, right? In the photos I see of him, he is wearing a bow-tie with his judge’s robe.

      I don’t understand how anyone could take a man like this seriously. He looks like a gay cartoon. Leave it to the Bushes.

      Lowe

      February 4, 2017 at 12:39 pm

      • GWB’a USAG appointee for the western district of WA caused the WH fits because he refused to investigate obvious vote stealing by county workers in King Co in 2004 that stole the governors race that year for the Ds. Word on the street was Bush’s appointee wanted a bench appointment from the Ds when his fed gig was up. The guy was also closeted according to rumors. Too often R appointees in Blue states spend their energies preserving relationships w the enemy for careerism purposes.

        Curle

        February 4, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    • I haven’t read the ruling, but using “irreparable harm” in that sense would seem to invalidate just about everything that elected officials do. Raise taxes? Irreparable harm. Place tariffs? Irreparable harm. Remove subsidies? Irreparable harm. There are winners and losers in every legislative and executive action.

      Richard

      February 4, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      • “Irreparable Harm” is one of the requirements that has to be met for a party that is requesting a stay or an injunction. Another requirement is having a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits”. And that latter requirement is why any reasonable judge would have denied the plaintiffs request for a stay just as the judge in Boston did. Given that the language of the statute specifically authorizes the President to ban any class of alien he sees fit, the likelihood plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of this case is virtually nil.

        PerezHBD

        February 4, 2017 at 8:46 pm

      • I did read the ruling, although not being a lawyer, I can only take it on the words as written. The real problem with it is that it wasn’t based on anything either in federal law or the constitution that might make it illegal. So the law doesn’t even matter in this case. Feelz trumps law.

        Mike Street Station

        February 5, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    • When I first heard of this my first thought was professional cowardice, esp given the superficially bogus reasoning provided in the newspaper explanation. I’ve seen a lot of this from the front line bench. Judge gets hot potato, says ‘oh shit’ and shifts it up to his putative superiors to dispense with leaving them an easy to reverse order so they won’t get too mad at the cowardice maneuver.

      Curle

      February 4, 2017 at 2:51 pm

      • I think Judge Robart is just a cuckservative. Before this week his big claim to fame was declaring “Black lives matter!” in court as he finger-wagged a police union.

        Richard

        February 4, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    • There is now a constitutional right to prevent irreparable harm, especially to publicly-funded institutions?

      map

      February 4, 2017 at 3:27 pm

  9. Can the judge be given an appointment as a third world ambassador? Maybe we can bring HRC back to state temporarily to help the judge with his diplomacy.

    That should help the judge get a better understanding of how his rulings impact the people.

    Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

    February 4, 2017 at 11:22 am

  10. This is the version I was looking for. This is exactly the world they want.

    Remember, this movie is a parody of dystopia.

    The Philosopher

    February 4, 2017 at 12:34 pm

  11. Legalising open borders is essentially saying you agree the USA as an entity is to be eliminated.

    Its high treason using semantics.

    The Philosopher

    February 4, 2017 at 12:44 pm

  12. Defy the goddamn judge is the easiest, most straightforward and most alpha approach.

    Clay

    February 4, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    • I’d totally support of Trump going full dictator with so-called draconian actions. I’d also be in support of the total liquidation of the judiciary, congress, the press/hollywood, as well as sending the military to oust the politicians who rule CA, NY, and IL. . .so I guess I’m an extreme guy.

      It’s because I get the sinking feeling that the Left is much closer to complete dictatorial power than Trump could ever hope to be. And they would have had it straight up if Hillary had won. If I had the cash, I’d be building my bunker in New Zealand with all those rich Leftists who know that the end is nigh.

      fakeemail

      February 4, 2017 at 3:23 pm

      • ” If I had the cash, I’d be building my bunker in New Zealand with all those rich Leftists who know that the end is nigh.”

        I saw that. Globalists have been buying up rural property, building bunkers and fortifying throughout the US and even Europe as well. Which makes my blood boil. Because many of the bastards building the bunkers in anticipation of carnage are the ones who set us on the path to carnage in the first place. My analogy is that they are preparing lifeboats for themselves at the same time they’ve aimed the ship at an iceberg. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

        destructure

        February 4, 2017 at 11:26 pm

      • “I’d totally support of Trump going full dictator with so-called draconian actions. I’d also be in support of the total liquidation of the judiciary, congress, the press/hollywood, as well as sending the military to oust the politicians who rule CA, NY, and IL. . .so I guess I’m an extreme guy.”

        Wouldn’t it just be easier to issue a new EO with slightly different wording? I think we should take simpler steps than going full dictator.

        Mike Street Station

        February 5, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    • I wouldn’t defy a federal court ruling, even one as outrageous as this one. The Democrats and GOPe were already looking for an excuse to impeach and remove him. It’s better to get Gorsuch confirmed and then have SCOTUS slap this down so hard that Robats is humiliated and other judges get the message. Rule that the president has an absolute right to do this, reinstate the ban retroactively and in the opinion write that Robarts was engaged in a flagrant abuse of his power making him unfit to be a judge.

      destructure

      February 4, 2017 at 3:32 pm

      • Refusing a court order is not an impeachable offense.

        Clay

        February 4, 2017 at 6:57 pm

  13. The Judge is a liberal hack who actually said “Black lives matter” from the bench.

    The reality of the situation is that this is a clear example of a judge legislating from the bench. This is a threat to our entire Constitutional form of government. The Supreme Court is going to be under enormous pressure to overturn this because if they don’t, Trump will probably just ignore them and the Courts will be permanently weakened.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 4, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    • When is the Otis breakdown of civil society index coming?

      It sure feels like civil war is nigh. 50% of the country is with Trumpism and 50% (minorities, rabid leftist whites, and the billionaire elite crowd) are against Trumpism.

      The two cannot peacefully coexist, so who is going to fire the first shot?

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      February 4, 2017 at 5:28 pm

      • I agree civil war is inevitable, and it was inevitable even without Trump.

        The left will fire the first shot. They kinda already have.

        I don’t know what is going to be the catalyst to set it off officially, but it’s coming.

        Otis the Sweaty

        February 5, 2017 at 1:57 am

      • I don’t think there will be a civil war in the sense of armed conflict. But in the sense of lawfare? There’s already one going on and it looks like it’s about to heat up.

        fortaleza84

        February 5, 2017 at 10:47 am

      • The problem lies from the fact that states cannot secede. But then again, how connected are Northeastern and Left Coast Blue States to Middle American Red States?

        There isn’t much of a connection. How about you establishing a new home in Indianapolis?

        Middle America is a ghost region, simply because no cares, and neither does Trump.

        JS

        February 5, 2017 at 12:29 pm

      • So there is a looming prolecide and a NAM massacre? Yeah? Our American elites are anti-HBD, but when push comes to shove, humans will show their ugly side.

        JS

        February 5, 2017 at 12:33 pm

      • That’s exactly the point. People are bathed in luxury and don’t know scarcity anymore so never show their ugly side.

        Make people actually have to choose and you’ll see how greedy and self preserving they actually are.

        It’s gonna be ugly. Damnit, thought Trump would mean peace in our time, but I guess those words are ominous given it was Chamberlain who said them.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        February 5, 2017 at 1:46 pm

      • “I don’t think there will be a civil war in the sense of armed conflict. But in the sense of lawfare? There’s already one going on and it looks like it’s about to heat up.”

        It seems that we already have armed conflict in Berkeley.

        Mike Street Station

        February 5, 2017 at 6:18 pm

  14. The EO was poorly executed. There is no getting around this.

    7 countries with very little history of terrorism towards the US, already standing visas interrupted on a dime, greencards not allowed either.

    It’s a fucking mess, you can’t govern purely from the executive branch, if Trump is serious about this he needs to work with congress and pass some immigration law.

    This EO better be a diversion (7D chess crap) because otherwise it’s just burning a lot of political capital for something with very little effect.

    I was hoping for stronger enforcement on the Mexican border, stringent immigration standards across the board. Political capital is real and I feel like he just burned through a lot of it for something that will have little to no effect.

    The President can enforce immigration bans if the situation calls for it, but an immigration ban that supersedes far above currently standing immigration law without any cause (or are we at immediate national threat from these 7 nations?) is completely debatable by the judicial branch.

    This issue isn’t about Democrat judges being against immigration control, they can’t do anything against a solid immigration bill. But an EO that extends that far, oh yeah they definitely can, the supreme court ruling in Trump’s favor would set a dangerous precedent for the executive branch, not something we want to codify in case law.

    Kaz

    February 4, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    • Trump is clearly acting within the law. Read the statute. Congress gave the President the authority to ban any class of alien whose entrance he deems detrimental to the United States. The law is cut and dry. There is precedent for Presidents doing exactly what Trump just did. That’s why the judge in Boston refused to stay the order. Any judge who is not a partisan hack would look at the law and see quite clearly that plaintiffs lack a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits and are therefore undeserving of any sort of injunctive relief.

      PerezHBD

      February 5, 2017 at 1:33 am

    • I am also disappointed that Trump has chosen to fight a big political battle over what amounts to window dressing.

      Richard

      February 5, 2017 at 10:27 am

      • It’s a cheap way to shift the Overton window and desensitize he masses to immigration restriction.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        February 5, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    • Kaz,

      It’s all part of the same piece, whether it’s these countries or the Mexican border. The left would’ve reacted in the same way.

      map

      February 6, 2017 at 4:17 am

  15. I keep hearing some talking heads saying we can’t deny people entry based on religion. We should be able to discriminate against any non-citizen for any reason. We shouldn’t have to give a reason why if we wanted.

    Now these fools say we can’t have free association and now foreigners can’t be discriminated against.

    This country needs to be broken up if we have to allow unfettered immigration. Legal immigration is already a disaster, just wait for open borders.

    ttgy

    February 4, 2017 at 8:27 pm

    • There is no restriction based on religion. But yes, the US government absolutely has the right and authority to deny citizenship to people for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the very fact of citizenship is quite arbitrary from an intellectual standpoint. Why, a 10th generation American whose ancestors fought in WW2, WW1, Civil War, etc. probably has no more right to be a citizen than a Somali refugee. The very fact of personhood and identity cannot be anything more than a historical accident, we human beings are just ideas and potentialities floating in a void, why should we deny the fulfillment of being an American citizen to anyone? Those who selfishly try to restrict this ultimate form of self-actualization should be deported!

      Panther of the Blogocube

      February 5, 2017 at 5:09 am

  16. You know, when you throw out the rulebook, do you really need referees? The judicial branch is the most rotten of all the federal criminal gangs. These unelected dopes just make shit up and overrule millions of people by themselves. The Rule of Law be damned. By any means necessary. This idea that some small group of nine can decide for everyone is not far from Autocracy.
    If you want your Autocracy, you can keep it. But we’ll run that for you, and forget that voting thing too.

    Joshua Sinistar

    February 4, 2017 at 9:27 pm

  17. The judge is a Republican. Bannon caused this by rushing through a shoddily written EO that any self-respecting jurist would have to strike down. The question now is whether Trump is willing to work with Congress to craft an actual law, which would take a few months but would be easily doable, or whether he wants to continue down Obama’s road towards a Presidential dictatorship.

    Peter Akuleyev

    February 5, 2017 at 1:41 am

    • The President doesn’t need to craft a new law when the existing law already gives him the power to determine what countries we need to issue a TEMPORARY restriction of immigration. What we need are judges who follow precedent and stare decisis.

      What do you want Congress to do, re-write the same law but add at the end “and we really mean that the President can do this.”

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 5, 2017 at 9:41 am

    • @ Peter Akuleyev

      The judge is a petty, resentful man who would have your children suffer through a third world invasion, because he never had any children of his own.

      Lowe

      February 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm

  18. Actually there was tremendous urgency to issue the travel ban. Muslim “refugees” from Somalia, Syria, Iraq, and the other four countries are flooding into America at the rate of 9,100 a month (110,000 a year), which was the goal set by Trump’s anti-American predicessor. Congress gave the president complete authority to regulate the flow of refugees into the country.

    Mark Caplan

    February 5, 2017 at 8:36 am

  19. The big picture here is that Federal Judges now believe they have the power to halt legalized Federal action nationwide, not because they rule the law to be unconstitutional, but because they don’t think the action is a good idea.

    From the web: “As of 2007, [Congress] had authorized 179 court of appeals judgeships and 678 district court judgeships. … As of 2007, Congress had authorized 352 bankruptcy judgeships and 551 full-time and part-time magistrate judgeships.”

    It’s preposterous.

    steve@steve.com

    February 5, 2017 at 9:46 am

    • @ steve

      It will only take one complete defeat to silence would-be challengers. Trump needs to make certain he wins this one, the sooner the better. The ideal outcome is the 9th Circuit Court throws it out, post-haste.

      Lowe

      February 6, 2017 at 2:48 pm

  20. The Libertarians are smart cookies when it comes to lawsuits and their ‘friend-of-the-court’ briefs have basically been re-writing US Law, and I talked with their curator MG on this.

    It seems they’re waiting it out to see how Trump approaches the matter. His thoughts were that if Trump plays this as restricting immigration he’s on shaky legal ground. But if he focuses on infiltration/invasion he’s on solid Constitutional ground. He also thinks the US should stop worrying about immigration so much and focus on quarantine/Americanization of problem nations.

    Most conservatives don’t get the Libertarian distinction between immigration (non-citizenship track) vs. infiltration/invasion. These’re very different things. Extreme conservatives stupidly confuse them with immigration-for-citizenship (playing into the Left’s hands) and assume the Libertarians are as stupid as they are.

    Libertarians locally are kicking out Muslim and other authoritarians worldwide. That’s the only invasion that’s going to win. In the Gambia they got rid of the local strongman with a coalition.

    Robert

    February 6, 2017 at 7:21 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: