The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals carried out a “coup d’etat” when it ignored both federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent to maintain a suspension of President Trump’s order to bar entry to travelers from seven terror-supporting nations.
John Eastman, a commentator for the Hill, said the 9th Circuit’s ruling upholding federal Judge James Robart’s nationwide temporary restraining order “is nearly as bereft of legal analysis as was the original TRO.”
“For example, in determining whether Trump was likely to succeed on the merits, one might have expected some discussion of the relevant statute that unambiguously gives the president the authority to do what he did here (and what President Carter, in response to the Iranian takeover of our embassy in Tehran, did back in 1979).”
The statute says: “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 restriction he may deem to be appropriate.”
Eastman commented it “does not get much clearer than that, yet the 9th Circuit does not even cite, much less explain away, that statute.”
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh noted how judges who failed to follow the law were dealt with historically.
“You know, I long for the days of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln; just arrest the judges and put them in jail when they violate your constitutional authority. I don’t think people have any idea who Andrew Jackson was. They think he was a populist. They don’t know what he did. He went too far, don’t misunderstand. But this is simply outrageous.”
Eugene Kontorovich at the Volohk Conspiracy legal blog went further, blasting the 9th Circuit for citing Trump’s statements as a presidential candidate.
“There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive,” he said.
“The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show ‘that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered.’ … But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history – the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. … It provides absolutely no support for looking before the state of formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.”
He said the 9th Circuit’s ruling Thursday “throws open a huge door to examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions.”
At FoxNews.com, Hans von Spakovsky wrote the 9th Circuit “gets it wrong.”
“Neither the judge in Washington state nor the court has offered anything approaching a detailed discussion of 8 U.S.C Paragraph 1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”
He said, “It is just another example of arrogant federal courts grabbing power from the legislative and executive branches in violation of basic separation-of-powers principles.”
Joseph DeGenova, who was a U.S. attorney under President Reagan, said it was a decision based on politics, not the law.
“You could tell this was a pretty liberal panel. The ruling is outrageous,” he told LifeZette. “It’s an abomination. It’s an intrusion on the president’s authority in the area of foreign policy and national security.”
“This is a judicial coup d’etat,” he said, describing the result of the work of the 9th Circuit panel as “a judicial embarrassment.”
Limbaugh charged the original ruling by a federal judge in Washington state, Robarts, was “pure Democrat hackery.”
“This is simply a ruling that has nothing to do with the law. … This is pure left-wing hackery. They get to make it look like it’s law because they wear robes, and they are judges on a court. And so that imagery conveys all the authority and the rights that they have to do this kind of thing when it is in clear violation of the Constitution.”
He said the nation now is the middle of a political civil war.
Related column: “Travel ban: What Trump did wrong, and how he can fix it,” by Craige McMillan
It was Jeffrey Lord on CNN, Limbaugh said, who explained that “Thomas Jefferson said it’s up to each branch [of government] to decide how in the world they are going to define the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
Limbaugh said: “I don’t think we’re that far from a civil war in this country right now. I’m not talking about armed conflict, North v. South, but we clearly have a divide in this country that is in no way gonna be bridged. It isn’t gonna be bridged by compromise. It’s not gonna be bridged by walking across the aisle and getting along with people, and it’s not gonna be bridged by persuading people to agree with us and vice-versa.
“The only way this is ever gonna end is when one side gets defeated – politically defeated – and becomes a demonstrable minority,” he said.
Left-wingers do not want it to end, he pointed out.
“This is normalcy for the left. You must understand this. This is what they want life in American to be day in and day out. Remember, they are victims. They are not happy. As victims, it is impossible to be happy. It’s impossible to be content. They think there are no reasons to be happy. Even when Obama was winning and he was in the White House, they were still livid and angry every day! Over what? The fact that there was opposition to Obama!”