BE WARY OF JUDGES WHO PUT POLITICS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION…

1031

Over the last several years, even going back into the Obummer years, I don’t think it has become much of a stretch to say that America now seems to be under siege by what can be described as being a rather left-leaning judiciary.  And while President Trump has done much in his attempt to rectify that situation, it has been over the course of the last couple of years that we’ve seen a rather disconcerting number of examples where a growing number of political hacks dressed in black robes have seemed to be far more interested in advancing the left’s political agenda than in following our Constitution.  It’s almost as if we are now being held hostage by a cadre of black robed anarchists, many of whom have succeeded in taking the term ‘activist judge’ to what is an entirely all new, and very dangerous level.

When it comes to the Judicial Branch of our government, there is a role for it to play ensuring the survival of our Republic but there are areas in which it has no business even attempting to get involved in.   One such area over which it has absolutely zero jurisdiction is that of national security.  There is but one individual responsible for the protecting of the nation, and that is the President of the United States.  And it was yet again that we have another rogue judge choosing to insert himself into an area that he has absolutely no business trying to insert himself but, because the area of concern, illegal immigration, is near and dear to the heart of Democrats and President Trump has a different approach, this judge, appointed by Barry, saw fit to declare the president’s actions unconstitutional.

And so by now I’m sure that all have heard about how a U.S. District Judge, Jon S. Tigar, has issued a temporary restraining order after hearing ‘arguments’ in San Francisco.  The request was made by two groups that are essentially nothing more than front groups for the Democrat Party, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which quickly sued after President Trump issued the ban this month in response to the massive caravans of migrants headed to the U.S. and that have now officially arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border.  There is nothing in the ruling that stops the hardened border enforcement and/or current expedited review and deportation program.  In essence, keep the illegal aliens out and the judicial ruling is moot, at least until defeated in higher courts.

Though it will likely frustrate Democrats, as well as their many cohorts in the left-wing ‘fake news’ media along with the many others in the open borders crowd, no court can successfully demand that the President of the United States stop all manner of border enforcement.  This is why it is critical to have a strong Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary focused on stopping illegal entry.  This ruling will obviously be appealed by the Department of Justice (DOJ); and, politically, the Democrats realize, in the big scheme of things, this ‘open-border’ narrative is not good for them.  But, at least for the short term Democrats continue to think that there is some level of political gain to be made, and so we shouldn’t expect their calls for an open border to fade away anytime soon.

On its face this ruling is ridiculous as it eliminates/undermines the legal process for asylum requests by removing the distinction of illegal or unlawful conduct in the application process.  President Trump issued a proclamation on 9 November that said anyone who crossed the southern border would be ineligible for asylum. The regulations, which will remain in place for three months absent a court order, could potentially make it harder for thousands of people who enter the U.S. to avoid deportation.  In recent years, tens of thousands of immigrants each year have shown up in the Arizona desert or on the north bank of the Rio Grande in Texas, surrendered to immigration agents and requested asylum. President Trump has rightly argued that the recent caravans pose a pretty serious threat to our national security.

Here we have another political hack in a black robe who has come totally off the rails and who has allowed himself to be convinced that he somehow possesses the authority to dictate to the president how he can carry out the duties of his office.  The issue at hand is a National Security crisis and it the president, and the president alone, who has the authority to do whatever it is that he deems necessary in dealing with it in his effort to protect American people and the sovereignty of the nation.   And in carrying out the most important duty, that of Commander in Chief, the president has the moral right to ignore this judge’s order.  These hostile mobs of insurgents declined asylum in Mexico therefore are not ‘entitled’ to asylum and must apply for immigration status in accordance with all U.S. laws, rules and regulations.

Now I may be wrong in thinking this, but I do not see what enforcement powers this judge can bring to bear, particularly since his ruling infringes on the Constitutional responsibility of the President to defend the nation’s security, starting with its borders. I would say to the judge, the case has no standing; you can rule all you want, but just try to enforce it. I also would come back at the judge with proceedings to impeach, convict, disbar, and then charge with sedition, and prosecute. When other leftist judges see what happens to one of them acting out of bounds, it should deter more than a few of them. Again, the best defense is a good offense, so I would take every one of these overreaching rulings by leftist judges as opportunities to go right at them with every hammer in the tool chest of the Executive Branch.

AN EXCELLENT SOLUTION FOR OUR ‘OUT-OF-CONTROL’ JUDGES…

newt-1

I have said on any number of previous occasions that when it comes to how this political game of ours is played, that, at least from my point of view, I’ve wished those on our side would be a tad bit more willing to play the game in the same manner as it is constantly being played by those on the other side.  And what I view as being the perfect way to do just that was very clearly laid out by none other than Newt Gingrich first in 2009 and again in 2011.  Newt’s suggestion was to say that we should simply abolish the looney 9th Circuit court of appeals, altogether.  And to my way of thinking he was really on to something.  Those judges who cannot bring themselves to do that which they are supposed to do, interpret the Constitution as written, not in the way they wish it was written, should simply be abolished.

Now keep in mind here that that would be the very same 9th Circuit Court who so very famously declared that “Under God” was unconstitutional.   And, as those who have been paying the slightest bit of attention, of late, it was also the Court which recently struck down President Trump’s travel ban.  And if President Trump were to take the action laid out by Newt, it would be something not entirely unprecedented.  Because, you see, it was something that was done by Thomas Jefferson back in 1802.   Now if Trump is truly as serious as he claims to be, about his desire to keep America safe, then I think that he should at least consider taking this very bold step.  It would certainly get everyone’s attention and leave no doubt that he will not be deterred when it comes to carrying out that which he promised to do.

It was back in 2011 that then Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said, in reiterating something he said as early as 2009, that if elected president he would work to abolish federal judges if he didn’t agree with their “anti-American” or “dictatorial” rulings.  And it was during a Republican debate in Sioux City, Iowa, on Dec. 15, 2011 that Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly, no big surprise here, seemed to go out of her way to make mention of the fact that at least two ‘conservative’ former attorneys general had blasted Gingrich’s “dangerous” and “totally irresponsible” plan because it would alter the balance of powers.  Leave it to Ms. Kelly, even then, to go out of her way to make clear on just what side of the political aisle it is that her allegiance lies.  I’m sure she feels much more at home one NBC.

Now you can say what you want about Gingrich, but I think his recommendation then had a lot of merit and does even more so today.  It was then that Gingrich said, “It alters the balance because the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful.”  And he then went on to say, “I’ve been working on this project since 2002 when the Ninth Circuit court said that ‘one nation under God’ is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. And I decided that if you had judges that were so radically anti-American that they thought ‘one nation under God’ was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court.”  He then added, “Like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR, I would be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict what it was doing.”

As for those conservative former attorneys general, Gingrich wanted to know if they had actually ever studied “Jefferson, who in 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges?”  He said, “I would suggest to you, actually as a historian, I may understand this better than lawyers, and as lawyers, those two attorneys general are behaving exactly like law schools which have overly empowered lawyers that they can dictate to the rest of us.”  He insisted, “I would suggest to you, actually as a historian, I may understand this better than lawyers, and as lawyers, those two attorneys general are behaving exactly like law schools which have overly empowered lawyers that they can dictate to the rest of us.”  Just because it’s the way things have always been done, isn’t really reason enough to keep doing it that way.

So once again we have what is an original and very thoughtful approach coming from Mr. Gingrich to that which has become a growing and, rather significant, problem.  The infiltration of the courts by all manner of statists and collectivists has been detrimental to the Republic in so many ways, ranging from the one-man’s re-writing of the Constitution on issues as basic as the millennia old definition of marriage or the invention of whole new “rights” never even mentioned in the Constitution based on “emanations” to the implementation of arbitrary opinions of a single judge on how a school district should be organized or a curriculum taught.  Elimination of insane outlier courts would be a nice step and I would have no objection whatsoever if the first court to would be the 9th District court of appeals.

I for one would be very much in favor of President Trump taking such an action, and for a couple of pretty significant reasons.  For one thing I’m pretty sure it would leave no doubt amongst the many ‘snowflakes’, Democrats as well as those who wish to come here for no other reason than to kill us, that he is quite serious when he says that he intends to keep America, and Americans, safe.  Haven’t we had enough leftwing-pansy-ass-bullshit over the last eight years?   We finally have a president who we can expect to act as the adult in the room and not some childish crybaby.  Just because something hasn’t been done in a while, 215 years, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done again.  Especially not when we’re talking about something as important as keeping the homeland safe from terrorists!

Let’s face it, how much more can those on the left hate President Trump than they already do.  And how much more unhinged can they possibly become than they already are?  Look, the time has come to get serious about preventing those individuals who wish to do us harm the ability to come into this country.  And if the left, be they judges, politicians, or just your common garden variety liberal morons, can’t see the importance of doing so, then screw them.  What exactly should be the priority here?  If the left were to have their way we’d have no borders at all, no vetting whatsoever of those flooding in and no way to get rid of the undesirables among those entering the country.  And how stupid is that, let alone reckless and more than a little dangerous?  It would seem that liberalism is a mental illness.