The Courts are deciding in favor of foreigners, even if they are potential terrorists, over U.S. citizens.
The 9th Circuit Appeals Court has refused to immediately reinstate the President’s lawful immigration order. They want to hear both sides of the issue first, which they have no right to do. His order is not up for judicial review.
This is meant to hurt the President’s credibility.
Americans are not safe anywhere. The liberal judges are colluding with the hard-left and are ignoring the Constitution of the United States. The original decision in the case rendered by Judge Robart was unconstitutional. Robart does prop bono work for illegal aliens while a sitting justice. He has accused the police union of killing blacks.
A federal appeals court early Sunday rejected the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to restore President Trump’s travel ban on immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the sanctuary city of San Francisco denied the DOJ’s request an emergency stay, pending full consideration of the motion.
The courts are clearly legislating from the bench and are violating the constitutional rights of the president.
When Barack Obama passed Executive Orders that were legislation, clearly the province of the Congress, the congress did nothing and the ACLU didn’t worry about him being a dictator. President Trump instituted a temporary ban as Barack Obama did, he’s not writing law, and they are worried he’s a dictator.
We are at war with the hard-left and their liberal useful idiots, like the tech giants.
Experts: Social media giants fight Trump’s anti-terror plan while providing platform for terrorists | https://t.co/l4tvYf4xwu
— Asa J 🇺🇸 (@asamjulian) February 5, 2017
These judges are legislating from the bench. They are counteracting a lawful order by the President of the United States that they have no right to do.
The Bush appointee who made the original decision in Washington, Judge Robart, is a Social Justice Warrior, a left-wing crackpot known as an activist judge who favors people here illegally over citizens. He’s also anti-police.
— Boston Bobblehead (@DBloom451) February 5, 2017
Trump’s executive order cites the president’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, specifically US Code Text 8/1182: “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.”
Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University, told the New York Times: “No court has ever reversed a presidential order under” that broad provision. But that “[i]n terms of the number of prospective immigrants involved, this is by far the most significant use of the power by any president.”
What are the legal arguments against the constitutionality of the order? David J. Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, cited a 1965 immigration law, which says “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”
Bier, however, writes in his Jan. 27 op-ed in the Times that “the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred.”
The ACLU is protesting on the grounds that the order is aimed at one specific religion, but it is not.
|02/03/2017||Order Temporary Restraining Order|
|02/04/2017||Video Video recording of hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington|
|02/04/2017||Emergency motion for stay|
|02/04/2017||Order denying immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for stay and setting schedule|