Are activist judges taking over the country?

Are activist judges taking over the country?

2569
0
SHARE

Once again, Trumps immigration pause to improve vetting of those who may wish to do us harm was shut down by an Obama justice in Hawaii. U.S. District judge Derrik Kahala Watson, a fellow law graduate of Harvard law school with the former President, the judge went one step further, and proclaimed his injunction covered the entire United States. This was based on the judges interpretation giving those who want to come to our country who are not U.S. citizens the right to travel and freedom of association, rights singularly for U.S. Citizens. Using the claim that the temporary pause of immigration from six countries violates the establishment clause on the basis of religion is absurd as 44 countries that are predominantly Muslim are not on the list.
These rights have been solely given to the citizens of this country for the past two hundred years alone. Obama made appoint to ensure that he met with and had dinner with Obama the night before his ruling. A ruling that was 48 pages long and highly detailed. This judge must have worked all night to get it written, typed and proofread. Obamas shadow government must have had to work overtime to get it done.
This rights were extended to an imam by the justice strictly for the purpose of bringing his family over because he was Muslim. It was a blatant abuse of judicial power, in effect claiming that if someone who is in our country and an immigrant has family he wants to bring over, and if he Islamic, that there must be a special right granted to bring them here, effectively ending any control over the security of the country and the ri9ght of the people. There would be no limitations on who could come here and would end any control over the borders of the country.
In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of association does not include bringing non vetted immigrants to the country. The President had been given specific power over immigration as far as giving the President the right to ban any alien for any reason for any reason whatsoever. The judge in Hawaii never even mentioned this statute. Nor did he mention any prior decision made by any court that gave him this right to circumvent the Constitution or the rule of law.
It was such a misapplication of the law that five judges dissented from reviewing the original decision that has since been rescinded, and have stated about the Hawaii judges decision that it was in fact
“filled with many, obvious and fundamental errors and went against all precedent”. No matter how we as individuals may feel about the President or the executive order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the Presidency.”
These same five judges recognize that the President has both constitutional (Article 1 Section 8) and statutory authority (the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act) to control immigration as applied to national security.8USC182 states 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 non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.”
A Ninth Circuit former chief Justice Alex Kozinsky stated
“ There was no basis for the prior Ninth Circuit decision. This Hawaii decision goes further that any court has gone before. Hopefully it will be reviewed, but in the interim, the country’s safety is put into jeopardy because one federal judge decided to anoint himself as the one Supreme Court of the country”.
Law professors from Jonathon Turley to Jeffrey Toobin, liberal law professors have also condemned the original decision and the Hawaii overreach. There have been countless articles written about the courts losing credibility, and these injunctions, both the original one and the one that Hawaii and Maryland have delayed have no precedent, and both injunctions have no historical basis in fact.
Calling it a Muslim ban has been thrown around for the past few weeks, but what if Obamas Christian ban. 95% of all immigrants over the past few years have been Muslim, only 5% Christian were allowed to flee the genocide taking place in the Middle East.
There are many areas that this judge got wrong. Used in the injunction was remarks made by President Trump during his campaign, and ignored the language of the executive order. The justification that the Executive Order in the interest of national security and were applied to these six countries that are state sponsors of terrorism as designated by Obama with no government to assist in the vetting process.
The judiciary aggressiveness towards this President is based on the premise that the President can not be trusted. Judges must be impartial and pay continual respect to the Constitution, legislation and Supreme Court decisions. The interests of the judicial branch as irrelevant, as the competing interests and intent of the other two branches and the decision must be made about the decisions in our republic.
There is no inherent “right” to immigrate to our country. And how far can the entire argument be taken. Will we allow a rogue federal judge to stop any conflict in the future because it may harm Muslims more than others? And as in a footnote in Hawaii, will the judiciary now being setting refugee limits contrary to established law? Will the activism of the judiciary turn us into a third world country where everyone must be let in.
This must be fought in the halls of Congress and in the courts that continue to follow the Constitution.