Robert Barnes:
Opening Statement
On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom, whose position is likely to ultimately win?Just a quick review of the two written orders can tell you which one is likely to win. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid of almost any reference to any precedent, which is the “evidence” for lawyers on the law. Add in comments made by the Seattle judge verbally, and if any aspect of that is correct, the Seattle judge’s opinion will lose, and Trump’s position will win.
The Evidence
Both judges appeared to reject the position of many critics: both appeared to reject the position the First Amendment prohibits the order; both appeared to reject the position the Fifth Amendment prohibits the order; both appeared to reject the position that Congressional statutes prohibit the order. Both appeared to reject claims the order discriminated on the basis of speech or religion in any way that immigration law precludes or forbids. Instead, both agreed all that mattered is whether the laws had a “rational basis.”Here is where the Boston judge and the Seattle judge appeared to disagree. According to reports of what was said at oral argument in Seattle, the Seattle judge believes rational basis review requires the law-making branches of government “prove” with “facts” presented in court that their position is the correct one. As the Boston judge noted, this interpretation of the law — inviting the judicial branch to replace the elected branches of government — is directly contrary to precedent. This is why the Seattle judge’s opinion is likely to lose out ultimately, and Trump’s will prevail.
As the Boston judge explained, the Supreme Court provided that rational basis review merely means the law “bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.” The Supreme Court made clear rational basis review “is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices.” (Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993).
Immigration law includes a “delicate policy judgment” courts must not invade, as the Supreme Court itself said, and the Boston judge reiterated. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). As the Ninth Circuit reiterated, “we defer to the political branches in the immigration field.” Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 703 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2012). As the Boston court noted, the order clearly and expressly relates to concern of “infiltration by foreign terrorists” from countries identified as a risk for just that without further vetting procedures put in place. Rational basis review “is not a genuine effort to determine the actual reasons for the law, nor to inquire into whether a statute actually does further the announced interest of government. All that is required is a) does a government interest exist in securing the country from terror?; and b) does the law limiting entrants purport to relate to that interest? It does not matter if the judge thinks it shouldn’t relate or won’t relate. That decision is for the lawmaker, not the law interpreter.
Seattles pretty well a liberal city anyway and this liberal activists judge is just pushing their own personal agenda on us all and the ruling will be overturned its our national security that at stake
The left only cares about one thing; opposing anything Trump proposes. No, it does’t matter that the Obama, Clinton and Carter had all done the same thing. No, it doesn’t matter that they are endangers lives. It doesn’t matter that it makes perfect and logical sense. The left simply opposes it, just as they have opposed anything the Republicans proposed during the Obama administration.
The more infantile the left acts to cling to power, the more they show they are too irresponsible to wield such power.
The media once again reveals their deveptive manner of propagandizing. This judge in Washington is described as a Bush appointee, attempting to paint this ruling as representing a mainstream view against Trump’s order temporarily pausing entry into the US from 7 countries.
When you delve deeper into the past of this leftist judge and his ruling, you learn:
1. He was only appointed by Bush because extreme leftist Senator Patty Murray used a senatorial privilege to block the judicial candidates Bush wanted to appoint, and pushed for this clown.
2. This is the same ultra-leftist who chanted, “Black Lives Matter!” while he was in session in his court.
3. When you read his ruling, he presents absolutely no legal basis for his ruling. None. His ruling is purely politically based.
Now, as Laura Ingraham has already pointed out, the 9th Circuit Coirt, where this appeal will next go, is extremely liberal, and has the dubious history of being most overturned Circuit Court in the nation. So we can count on this going to SCOTUS, making the confirmation of Gorsuch all the more important.
Trump’s directive contains elements that are illegal and in direct violation of U.S. Code governing immigration:
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part I › § 1152:
He’s ordering federal employees to break the law.
@Greg:
And yet, the judge who issued the stay did not reference that law in his order. Perhaps because the exceptions mentioned (which you did not post) render Trump’s order perfectly legal?
Even more interesting, is the question of why Trump’s 90 day temporary entry ban of foreigners from 7 specific terrorist-associated countries is somehow illegal, when Obama’s 2011 ban against the same countries for 6 months was legal.
Other than leftist political hypocrisy, of course….
@Pete, #5:
If you click on the link in Post #4 to the statute in question, you’ll find that each exception mentioned has a clickable link leading to the item itself. So far as I can tell, none provides justification for what President Trump has directed.
In 2011, Obama altered the screening process pertaining to the issuance of visas to Iraqis in response to a specific threat. The exact screening changes were not revealed, but the net result was to lengthen the screening process for Iraqis and delay the issue of new visas for 6 months. The focus was narrow, and the reason was specific. Trump isn’t actually “doing the same thing.” His directive is very broad in its effect, and no specific circumstances have been cited justifying so broad an action.
@Greg:
Trump’s vetting is in response to a specific threat… that ISIS will infiltrate terrorists within the refugees. The scope is far broader because in 2011, Obama had not quite yet finished screwing up the entire region and unleashing ISIS upon the world.