At least as far as the ninth circuit appeals court is concerned, the law is trumped by ideology. In this case the ideology of inclusion, diversity, and multiculturalism. As long as at least some Muslims aren’t going to commit mass murder, then we have to admit them all and let it shake out later.
The blood of your families is on the hands of the leftist/anarchist politically correct judges who have stopped the president from using the powers granted him by the Constitution.
Exerpt from The Guardian
Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban suffered a major setback on Thursday after a panel of three judges upheld a temporary ruling which had halted the president’s limit on people arriving from seven Muslim majority countries.
In its unanimous ruling, the three judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld the temporary restraining order, which was issued by Judge James Robart, a federal district court judge in Washington state, and has blocked the enforcement of many key parts of the executive order.
The court found that “the government has not shown a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury.” In particular, its ruling noted “the government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.”
Almost immediately, Trump tweeted his response: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”
Speaking to reporters in the West Wing shortly after that the ruling, he characterized it as “a political decision” and said that “the safety of the nation is at stake”. Trump added that he “looks forward to seeing them in court”.
Thursday’s ruling does not end all litigation over the executive order, which sparked international outcry when it was first issued. Instead, it simply means that its provisions – which include a 90-day travel ban from seven Muslim-majority countries, a 120-day freeze on admission of any refugees into the United States, as well as indefinite halt to admitting any refugees from Syria – cannot be enforced again as the legal battle moves forward. There are roughly 20 lawsuits against the travel ban currently making their way through courts in various states.
On Robart’s injunction, the federal government can now ask the supreme court to review the ninth circuit’s ruling. But the unanimous ruling suggests that the Trump administration will struggle to make a convincing argument.
The supreme court could also sidestep controversy and defer an appeal, leaving the ruling in place as the case works its way through other courts.
The appeals court decision follows a hearing Tuesday night, where lawyers for the state of Washington, which was challenging the ban, argued with attorneys for the justice department.
The selection from the Guardian’s report on this afternoon’s decision offers the basics of the story. I encourage you to click on the link and read all of it because as part of its decision the court has ruled that Trump’s Tweets can be used as evidence that he’s a bigot who hates Muslims. In other words, his mindset can be used against the president’s ability to write laws.
I’m not a legal scholar, but I think I’ve hit on an extremely dangerous new legal precedent.
Also in the opinion, the judges wrote that “it is well established that evidence of purpose” from a case’s context can be used in court – meaning that the states can cite Trump’s claims and tweets, for instance about his preference for Christians and call for a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims”, as admissible evidence.
Trump’s long history of controversial statements, the court suggested, can therefore be used as legal weapons against him.
There is no evidence that Trump hates Muslims. He’s repeatedly said that he seeks the public’s safety. But now the left can argue that he’s a Muslim hater, a woman hater, Mexican hater, etc. and possibly get otherwise lawful orders overturned. In other words, to keep it simple, if Obama does it, it’s legal. If Trump does it, it’s illegal.
This is not the rule of law. It’s a recipe for the assassination of judges and a civil war.
What’s happened is that we’ve had a judicial coup d’etat in the United States. The balance of power is such that a handful of judges, unelected, rule the country now.