I am sometimes stunned at judicial rulings. And this is one such time.
We just recently saw the Supreme Court uphold the travel ban instituted by Trump. That case was based on the laws which give the president latitude in his executive authority, to ban the entry of aliens into the US.
So how can this liberal judge, ignoring that precedent set just months ago by a superior court, issue such an injunction?
Also, in the travel ban case, Clarence Thomas noted that we may need to investigate the use of these pre-emptive nationwide injuctions issued by a single federal judge.
Thomas noted that while the plaintiffs had the right to file lawsuits, that the policy should be implemented and in effect pending the results of court action, NOT to have a situation where any executive action is blocked by a single court, until it winds its way to the Supreme Court for final resolution.
That makes sense to me. The executive order of the president should be enforced and in effect while leftists sue, rather than them being able to simply block actions for indefinite time periods pending the Supreme Court eventually hearing the case.
Judge Tiger undoubtedly got his high fives from his liberal friends, but legally, this dude has less legal knowledge than I do.
Read much more at
The Revolutionary Act ^
An Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred — in direction contradiction to both the immigration law and to the Supreme Court’s ruling this year.
In dismissing the administration’s new policy requiring that only asylum applicants who entered the country through designated points of entry be processed, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco held that the Trump Administration was essentially rewriting immigration law.
Advocates against President Trump successfully argued before the judge that immigration law required people fleeing persecution to be allowed to seek safety in the United States regardless of how they arrived in the country.
There’s only one problem with the advocacy groups’ arguments and with the judges ruling; the language within the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) itself. The fact is that Congress foresaw the possibility of explosive situations like the one in Central America.
For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the INA reads, in part, “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” [emphasis added.]
That is exactly what the President did.
What Judge Tygar purposely ignores is that Section 1182(f) of the INA actually gives the President the authority to respond to issues such as the one developing in Central America in whatever manner he feels appropriate. Consequently, the President’s proclamation is completely consistent with the powers afforded to him by Congress.
To make matters even dicier for Judge Tigar, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court decided on June 26, 2018, that the President was granted “broad discretion” in dealing with aliens attempting to enter the country.
So, where are we in this situation?
Unfortunately for our nation’s security, the court’s ruling essentially amounts to an invitation to all foreign nationals attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States to pursue their entry at all possible costs. The urgency of the matter, particularly in light of the growing wave of migrants accumulating south of the board, makes affirmative action by the White House a must.
First, it is imperative that the President undertake the appellate process with all possible haste. The President must seek emergency judicial review to the Ninth Circuit. Of course, the Ninth Circuit with its consistent liberal agenda will uphold the lower court’s ruling.
The President must then rapidly proceed to the Supreme Court where this case will undoubtedly be overruled.....
We just recently saw the Supreme Court uphold the travel ban instituted by Trump. That case was based on the laws which give the president latitude in his executive authority, to ban the entry of aliens into the US.
So how can this liberal judge, ignoring that precedent set just months ago by a superior court, issue such an injunction?
Also, in the travel ban case, Clarence Thomas noted that we may need to investigate the use of these pre-emptive nationwide injuctions issued by a single federal judge.
Thomas noted that while the plaintiffs had the right to file lawsuits, that the policy should be implemented and in effect pending the results of court action, NOT to have a situation where any executive action is blocked by a single court, until it winds its way to the Supreme Court for final resolution.
That makes sense to me. The executive order of the president should be enforced and in effect while leftists sue, rather than them being able to simply block actions for indefinite time periods pending the Supreme Court eventually hearing the case.
Judge Tiger undoubtedly got his high fives from his liberal friends, but legally, this dude has less legal knowledge than I do.
Read much more at
The Revolutionary Act ^
An Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred — in direction contradiction to both the immigration law and to the Supreme Court’s ruling this year.
In dismissing the administration’s new policy requiring that only asylum applicants who entered the country through designated points of entry be processed, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco held that the Trump Administration was essentially rewriting immigration law.
Advocates against President Trump successfully argued before the judge that immigration law required people fleeing persecution to be allowed to seek safety in the United States regardless of how they arrived in the country.
There’s only one problem with the advocacy groups’ arguments and with the judges ruling; the language within the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) itself. The fact is that Congress foresaw the possibility of explosive situations like the one in Central America.
For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the INA reads, in part, “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” [emphasis added.]
That is exactly what the President did.
What Judge Tygar purposely ignores is that Section 1182(f) of the INA actually gives the President the authority to respond to issues such as the one developing in Central America in whatever manner he feels appropriate. Consequently, the President’s proclamation is completely consistent with the powers afforded to him by Congress.
To make matters even dicier for Judge Tigar, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court decided on June 26, 2018, that the President was granted “broad discretion” in dealing with aliens attempting to enter the country.
So, where are we in this situation?
Unfortunately for our nation’s security, the court’s ruling essentially amounts to an invitation to all foreign nationals attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States to pursue their entry at all possible costs. The urgency of the matter, particularly in light of the growing wave of migrants accumulating south of the board, makes affirmative action by the White House a must.
First, it is imperative that the President undertake the appellate process with all possible haste. The President must seek emergency judicial review to the Ninth Circuit. Of course, the Ninth Circuit with its consistent liberal agenda will uphold the lower court’s ruling.
The President must then rapidly proceed to the Supreme Court where this case will undoubtedly be overruled.....
