This is the statute that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court left out of its 29 page decision, which goes to the core of Trump’s executive order.
The 9th Circuit Court justices did not address it at all, and for an obvious reason, it undercuts the plaintiff’s motion from the git-go, it makes the decision by the State of Washington’s federal (hack) judge a steaming pile of nonsense:
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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 restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
It’s all full stop after this, there’s no wiggle room, hence the reason for these justices to not even address the statute in their 29 pg pile of crap. This statute makes the (State of Washington) Federal judge’s initial decision ridiculous, and subsequent 9th Circuit Court’s judicial ruling, egregious. This of course brings me to another issue on how this judicial ruling is being understood by those abroad who rely on the legacy media for their information on what’s what in US politics.
Enter the Helsingin Sanomat, which is not the least bit curious about the above information, in fact, all they do is take on face value what the Democrats and their operatives are slinging their way. Read this laughable editorial, they’re actually happy about it, caring not a whit that the ruling is actually flat out unconstitutional.
Trump increases insecurity with false threats
The Court rejected the argument of the onslaught of terrorists coming to the United States, and limits the president’s decision-making.
published: , Last update:
US federal appeals court in San Francisco made a very important decision in rejecting president Donald Trump’s regulation that temporary banned Muslim refugees and the citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
The decision handed down on early on Friday, Finnish time, was significant on both the subject matter and the president’s powers on issues of national security.
Trump reacted as usual, and tweeted in capital letters that our nation’s security is at stake.
United States of America shall determine its own national security, but in the Finnish view it was clear, that the claim in the dispute was not the case. It was also unanimous in the three-judge Court of Appeal’s decision, as well as in the single federal judge’s ruling previously annulled.
By signing the entry ban on 27 of January Trump carried out a partial election campaign promise of Muslims being banned from the country. It came as a nasty surprise for the large part of the world that Trump behaves as if he believed he was still campaigning.
Terrorism is a serious threat to the United States, but the grounds Trump provided for his ban, the allegedly uncontrollable immigration of terrorists to the United States is but pie in the sky.
The citizens of Muslim-majority countries, are going through a tight sieve prior to entry into the United States, whether they came as a research professor or as family members. Screening of asylum can stretch for years.
What’s even more worrisome than Trump’s delusion of threats is his view that the courts do not have the authority to interfere in the decisions of the President on National Security. That view, the court definitively annulled.
According to the decision the federal judiciary specifically has the right to assess the constitutionality of executive decisions.
The importance of the decision emphasizes, when you consider it, what a contrary decision could lead to in Trump’s case.