Courts

Dershowitz: Supreme Court Will Uphold Trump Travel Ban

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal’s liberal.

A renowned attorney at Harvard Law, Dershowitz has staked a claim as one of the most left-leaning constitutional experts in the country.

And now his fellow liberals are fuming at his latest prediction.

After pointing out that the injunctions by several federal judges on Trump’s refugee ban are ridiculous, he’s predicting the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the president’s order.

And now liberals are scrambling to find a way to stop that.

Here’s more from Newsmax:

Federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii who blocked President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban overstepped their bounds by using his campaign rhetoric to justify their rulings, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Saturday, and what’s more, he thinks the Supreme Court will uphold the ban.

“I’m putting my reputation on the line,” Dershowitz told Fox News in a morning interview. “I predict if the case gets to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will uphold the major provisions of this ban.”

That’s because the ban blocks focus more on campaign rhetoric than constitutional law, Dershowitz continued.

“Focusing so heavily on campaign rhetoric and essentially saying, ‘look, if Obama had issued the very same order with it would be constitutional, but if Trump issues it it’s unconstitutional because he said some things about Muslims in the run-up to the campaign or Rudy Giuliani said some things and other people said some things,’ that’s not the way the law is supposed to operate,” Dershowitz explained.

Dershowitz said he believes the Justice Department under Trump is “getting smart,” as it is not filing its appeals to the Ninth Circuit court district, where it will likely get an adverse ruling, but to the Fourth Circuit, a “much more conservative court” that would be more likely to uphold the travel ban.

And if the case makes it to the Supreme Court, Trump will likely win his case, as the vote would be split 4-4, said Dershowitz.

Meanwhile, Dershowitz said he believes the courts, in ruling against both of Trump’s travel bans, are performing psychoanalysis, not constitutional analysis.

“There is precedent in extreme cases, where legislators in an in enacting a statute say things that you can look to the legislative intent,” said Dershowitz. “I have never heard of a case where the rhetoric of a candidate, ambiguous rhetoric to be sure.”

He also said he does not believe the ban is a Muslim ban, but rather focuses on countries like Iran, “the greatest exporter of terrorism.”

“Not only no vetting, but it sends terrorists out in order to kill Americans,” said Dershowitz. “Iran has so much blood on its hands of Americans and American allies, to exclude a country like Iran from the list would be absurd.”

Continue reading…

Read More...

Courts, Politics

Limbaugh: U.S. ‘On the Verge of Genuine Constitutional Crisis’

News broke yesterday of the intentions of federal Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland to seriously consider mandating an increase in refugees to the U.S.

As if placing an injunction on Trump’s latest travel ban weren’t bad enough.

Now Rush Limbaugh is warning that we’re staring down the barrel of a constitutional crisis in which the executive and judicial branches are in full scale political war for power over the nation.

Here’s more from Breitbart

Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned of a coming constitutional crisis should the certain federal judges continue to deny President Donald Trump the ability to institute his policies.

Limbaugh pointed to the precedent set by the federal judiciary’s effort to deny Trump’s travel ban and argued it could lead to other limits on the president’s powers down the road.

Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com):

We are on the verge of a genuine constitutional crisis because of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opening the door for this Hawaii Obama-appointed judge to deny Trump’s travel ban the second time going, and I want to get into detail as to what this really means and what the left is really doing here.

It’s not a legal dispute. This is, as I said yesterday, is a silent coup that is taking place that I’m sure has been strategized since before Trump was inaugurated. But the profound, devastating possibilities that result from this in terms of a president losing all constitutional — do you realize with this judge’s ruling, I’ll tell you where this is going.

Let’s say that Donald Trump decides at any time in the near future that he needs to deploy troops, and so he does, and so a leftist activist goes to a court, shops and finds a judge, like the guy in Hawaii, and claims that Trump said during the campaign that he was gonna do X Y, or Z, whatever, and the deployment of troops is not really for the stated purpose, and the judge could shut it down!

This judge’s ruling has — if the guy’s not stopped, if the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn this, or if Trump doesn’t just ignore it like Andrew Jackson did, then we’re getting to the point where the president, because of the judiciary, will have totally lost constitutional authority to defend the country because of this little ruling in Hawaii that was made possible by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And it’s all about this idiotic notion that a presidential candidate on the campaign trial making statements is the equivalent of an inaugurated president stating policy.

But even at that the judge doesn’t have the right to do what he did! He doesn’t have the congressional right, he doesn’t have the statutory right to do what he did, because basically this judge shut Trump down because, in this judge’s opinion, Trump is a bigot. And anti-Muslim means bigot, and we are not going to allow our president to represent us this way is essentially what this judge was saying.

Read More...

Courts

Tyranny: Judge May Force Trump to Double the Refugee Limit

The federal judge in Maryland who issued an original injunction on President Trump’s second executive order on refugee travel is now upping the ante.

In a small footnote in his decision he left open the window on the possibility that he could actually order Trump to honor Barack Obama’s decision to allow entry for double the number of refugees Trump wants to block.

Unbelievable.

Here’s more from Redstate

U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in federal court in Maryland is considering ordering the federal government to admit all 100,000 so-called refugees into the United States as authorized by former president Barack Hussein Obama despite President Donald J. Trump’s “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” issued on March 6, 2017, to be effective March 16, 2017 (the “March 6 E.O.”), which at Section 6(b) limits the entry of refugees to 50,000:

Sec. 6(b)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any entries in excess of that number until such time as I determine that additional entries would be in the national interest.

That language is very similar to that contained in Trumps first, and now revoked, executive order to protect the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States, which read at Section 5(d):

5 (d)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

On March 15, 2017, Judge Chuang issued “an injunction barring enforcement of Section 2(c),” the so-called travel ban, contained in the March 6 E.O. While the injunction is limited to the travel ban, Judge Chuang’s decision, contains a troubling footnote on page three which reveals that the parties agreed to continue to litigate Section 6(b) of the March 6 E.O.:

On February 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction of S 5(d) of the Executive Order, ECF No. 64, requesting that the Court enjoin a specific provision of the First Executive Order. With the agreement of the parties, the Court set a briefing and hearing schedule extending to March 28, 2017. The Court will resolve that Motion, which the parties have agreed should be construed to apply to the successor provision of the Second Executive Order, in accordance with the previously established schedule.

That’s right, Judge Chuang may, after the March 28 hearing, decide to substitute his judgment for that of the President of the United States and decide to let in the number of refugees enter the United States that the president who appointed him wanted to admit, a number which the current president has determined “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

President Trump is well within in his authority here. The law cited by cited in the March 6 E.O., Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, gives the President a great deal of authority to decide who is allowed to enter the United States:

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

Judge Chuang is well on his way to provoking a constitutional crisis by engaging in the judicial tyranny being encouraged by the sore losers that still refuse to accept that Trump won the election.

Read More...

Courts, International

Deja Vu: Fed Court Blocks Trump’s New Immigration Order

After President Trump signed his second executive order on immigration, all eyes have been on federal courts and whether this new order would be blocked as the previous order was.

That question was answered over the weekend when a federal judge in Wisconsin issued a restraining order.

Since the second order was specifically designed to get around the courts, this almost certainly sets up a new war with the judicial branch.

Here’s more from Breitbart

A second federal judge—this one in Wisconsin—on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s new executive order (EO) on immigration travel, while the federal judge who blocked the first EO is reserving judgment on the revised EO.

Trump signed EO 13780 on Mar. 6, replacing his original order (EO 13769), temporarily restricting immigration from several terror-prone nations. Judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the first EO. The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit kept the TRO in place.

Lawsuits have also been filed against the new EO 13780. The plaintiff states in the original TRO lawsuit—a growing list that currently includes Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon—asked Robart to rule that the TRO blocking EO 13769 likewise applies to the new EO. Robart released an order Friday stating that none of the parties have properly filed new motions in that litigation — and that he will reserve judgment until there is a relevant motion and the legal issues have been fully briefed before his court.

However, on that same day, Judge William Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin did issue a new TRO against the new EO, holding that the plaintiff in that new lawsuit had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and would suffer irreparable harm unless the court provided immediate relief. This new lawsuit in Wisconsin concerns a man with a family member in Syria who has applied for asylum and claims that EO 13780 is thwarting that asylum request.

A TRO is a temporary emergency measure that typically lasts less than two weeks, only long enough to give a district court judge enough time to fully consider an urgent matter in a lawsuit. A TRO is only issued in extraordinary situations.

Conley has ordered legal briefs filed on an expedited basis for the next stage of litigation and will hold a court hearing on Mar. 21 on whether to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction, a longer-term remedy that could stay in place for however long it takes to reach a final decision on the legality of EO 13780.

Although a TRO cannot be appealed, a preliminary injunction can, which could take either case quickly to the next level of the federal judiciary. The Washington case would go back to the Ninth Circuit, while the Wisconsin case would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.

The first case is Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-141 in the Western District of Washington.

The second case is Doe v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-112 in the Western District of Wisconsin.

Read More...

Courts

4th Circuit Court: No Protection for Guns Deemed ‘Dangerous’

Lower federal courts continued their steamrolling of the Second Amendment this week in a decision that should put fear into the hearts of all law-abiding gun owners.

In what will almost certainly become a dangerous precedent, the judges ruled that guns the court arbitrarily deems ‘dangerous’ do not qualify for Second Amendment protection.

Here’s more from NRA-ILA

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions in Heller and McDonald, many of the lower U.S. courts have been making up their own rules when it comes to the Second Amendment. Tuesday’s outrageous opinion by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan is yet another example of this. In that case, nine of out fourteen judges ruled that America’s most popular types of rifles, banned in the state of Maryland, have no Second Amendment protection.

The Court called the banned firearms – which include AR-15s and most magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles – “exceptionally lethal weapons of war.” It compared them to the M16, which the court claimed made them categorically unprotected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heller. The Court called the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic “slight”, despite the substantial differences in function and form, so much so that the federal law regulates each in highly dissimilar ways.

And in doing so, the judges joining the majority opinion actually said that they do not consider themselves bound by the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Heller (to say nothing of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution).

Heller, of course, concerned the most demonstrably lethal and crime-associated of all firearms: the handgun. Handguns are implicated in more deaths, and more firearm-related crimes, than all other types of firearms combined … by a very large margin. This was extensively briefed for the Supreme Court during the Heller proceedings, and no one contested that argument.

Moreover, the majority opinion in Heller did not shrink from these facts. The opinion’s author, Justice Scalia, put it very plainly: “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.” He continued: “But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

Read More...

Courts

Leak: Cruz Predicts Another Supreme Court Vacancy Soon

During the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) yesterday, Sen. Ted Cruz make a startling prediction that took everyone by surprise.

He revealed, “I think we’ll have another Supreme Court vacancy this summer.”

The question on everyone’s mind is whether he has inside information. And if so, who will be retiring?

It would almost certainly be a liberal.

Here’s more from Redstate

Ted Cruz has befuddled the masses today with a quote that is striking a lot of people as either odd, prescient, or indicative that The Zodiac will strike again (It’s me. I think that.). He says that there’s going to be another vacancy on the Supreme Court soon.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) made a pretty odd prediction Thursday: He said he believed there would be a Supreme Court vacancy shortly after Neil Gorsuch’s likely confirmation to fill the existing one.

“I think we’ll have another Supreme Court vacancy this summer,” Cruz said at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “If that happens, as much as the left is crazy now, [Democrats] will go full Armageddon.”

There are plenty of theories in the Washington Post piece this excerpt comes from, but Aaron Blake of The Fix seems to think it would be irresponsible to suggest that The Zodiac Killer will re-emerge and somehow pave the way for Ted Cruz – who is totally not The Zodiac, you guys – to be nominated to the highest court.

I am not so burdened with journalistic “responsibility.”

…Okay, fine, no, I don’t think Cruz is going to knock off Ruth Bader Ginsberg to open up a seat. What’s actually going on is that there have been rumblings that Anthony Kennedy is considering retirement. These rumors have persisted for a while now, and with the legacy he’s racked up in SCOTUS – the Affordable Care Act, gay marriage, etc. – now would be a great time to step aside before Donald Trump comes in and mucks everything up.

People have also speculated that Ginsberg is getting up there in years, and because of that, and the fact that State of the Union Addresses happen past her bedtime, she might not make it Trump’s full term.

Read More...

Courts

9th Circuit Halts Immigration Case, Waits for New Trump Ban

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to honor a request by the U.S. Justice Department for a stay on further action in the courts on the case concerning President Trump’s refugee ban.

The request came after Trump announced he’ll be issuing a new ban designed to circumvent the courts which should make the first one moot.

Or it could inflame the war.

Here’s more from Breitbart

Late Thursday night the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered that it was staying further proceedings in the appeal of the Seattle-based district court that blocked President Trump’s immigration executive order (EO).

When the states of Washington and Minnesota sued, Judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) of Trump’s EO 13,769 in Washington v. Trump, which temporarily restricted travel from seven terror-prone countries.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, ignoring arguments that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear a case over an EO, that states lack standing to sue on behalf of their residents and organizations, and that courts should defer to Congress and the president on immigration and national security disputes.

The appeals court was voting internally this week on whether to rehear the case en banc, meaning that an 11-judge panel would reconsider the case. Given the heavy liberal balance of the San Francisco-based appeals court, the same eventual outcome was likely.

The U.S. Department of Justice asked the appeals court on Thursday to stay any further proceedings in the case, citing Trump’s announcement during a press conference earlier that day that he would issue a new EO during the week of Feb. 19.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas of the Ninth Circuit issued an order for the court granting that stay, noting that Justice Department lawyers have told the court they will promptly inform the judges of new developments expected in the coming days.

Read More...

Courts

Trump Shot Across the Bow on Twitter: ‘Our Legal System Is Broken’

After a week of back and forth between the White House and the federal courts, President Trump sent a tweet that appears to be setting the stage for serious action against the judicial branch.

Tweeting ‘our legal system is broken’ he could be setting up the argument that it’s time the jurisdiction and power of the courts be seriously curtailed.

Here’s more from Newsmax

President Donald Trump took to Twitter early Saturday morning to amplify his attacks on the judiciary, stating that “our legal system is broken.”

Quoting a Washington Times article published Thursday, Trump stated:

“Our legal system is broken! “77% of refugees allowed into U.S. since travel reprieve hail from seven suspect countries.” (WT) SO DANGEROUS!”

Screen Shot 2017-02-11 at 9.29.42 AM

The tweet adds to his constant battle with with judges who have ruled against his executive order on immigration.

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the U.S. will remain open to refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim-majority countries, rejecting a bid by the Trump administration to reinstate a travel ban in the name of national security, Trump lambasted the federal appeals courts, calling it “disgraceful” and threatened to “see you in court.”

However, aboard AirForce One Friday night, Trump told reporters he is considering issuing a “brand new order” banning citizens of certain countries traveling to the United States.

Trump noted that the order could be issued as soon as Monday or Tuesday

According to a Reuters report Friday, Trump gave no details of any new ban he is considering. He might rewrite the original order to explicitly exclude green card holders, or permanent residents, said a congressional aide familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified. Doing that could alleviate some concerns expressed by the courts.

Read More...

Courts

Trey Gowdy Demolishes The 9th Circuit Court Over Executive Order Ruling

The fury over the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is only just getting started. Now Congressman Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, has weighed in on the matter.

And he eviscerates the liberal justices on the court. His concluding line is gold: “There is a reason we elect the Commander in Chief and do not elect federal judges.”

Here’s more from DC Statesman

It seems their opinion was based more on politics than the Constitution. So it seems appropriate to highlight an incredible statement issued by a Constitution hawk like Rep. Trey Gowdy.

Gowdy released this statement:

“No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today’s ruling. The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible. Unlike the district court order, there is at least a court opinion which can be evaluated.

Of particular interest is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ suggestion that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration. The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President’s national security conclusions.

Legal permanent residents, non-citizens with current valid visas, non-citizens with expired visas (which were once valid), aliens with no legal standing, aliens who have committed a crime but have not yet been deported and aliens who are not even present in the United States but seek to come are just a few of the categories the Supreme Court will need to determine what process is due, if any. It seems clear to most of us – not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – there is no right to come to this country for non-citizens of the United States. It also seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the Commander in Chief. There is a reason we elect the Commander in Chief and do not elect federal judges.

Read More...

Courts

Judge Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’

After yesterday’s ruling by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco to uphold the block on Trump’s refugee ban, conservatives blasted the justices for its typically leftwing bent in its decision.

Judge Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work” detailing how the justices completely ignored the plain language of the statute that authorizes the president to issue an executive order banning refugees.

Here’s more from Breitbart:

Thursday on the Fox News Channel, in reacting to the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding the blocking of President Trump‘s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work.”

Napolitano said, “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”

“I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president,” he added.

Read More...