DimWit Politics

Trump’s New 9th Circuit Hands Him A Major Win On Immigration

 Breaking News

Trump’s New 9th Circuit Hands Him A Major Win On Immigration

Trump’s New 9th Circuit Hands Him A Major Win On Immigration
September 13
15:10 2019

It is indeed the ultimate “reversal of fortune” ending the nearly 3-decades of progressives using the radical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to circumvent logical presidential policies by repeatedly obstructing the President’s authority under the Constitution with a slew of injections, that have virtually halted the Presidents attempt to safeguard America’s national security interests.

However, this once liberal bastion has aggressively been reshaped by the President into a more moderate court following the tenet of jurisprudence, the science or philosophy of law, rather than “activist judges” conflating their progressive orthodoxy with the law.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

As was the case earlier in the week when an Obama appointed judge once again used the pretext of the law in an effort to obstruct the Presidents decree in preventing illegal aliens seeking asylum, to first seek asylum into the first country they enter, rather than travel through that country with the sole intent of asking for asylum at the U.S. border.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in California had arbitrary reinstated a nationwide ban against the Trump Administration, preventing the President from exercising his constitutional authority, in deciding how to effectively manage the crisis at the border, by once again using the court to interfere with national security policies.

However this time the Administration appealed to the 9th Circuit to roll back Tigar’s egregious ruling and they won. The court within their brief cited that for now, it should only apply to the confines of the 9th Circuit, which encompasses California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon, and Washington.

The President had been continually frustrated by the 9th Circuit from the moment he took office, with Democrats filing lawsuits and rushing to the San Francisco-based court seeking injunctions in stopping the Administration’s attempt in bringing some semblance of order to the otherwise chaotic situation at the border, instigated by a do-nothing congress, who’s only concern is to continually obstruct the President and investigate.

However, since 2016, the President has vowed to transform the 9th Circuit from an extremist activist court to a more moderate institution, which thus far the President has succeeded by appointing 7-new federal judges to the bench, making the 9th Circuit the most “reshaped” appellate court in the nation.

The radical transformation of the court, which has 29 seats, is largely the result of Trump’s push to nominate conservative judges, bypassing Senate Democrats, who would otherwise delay and obstruct his efforts.

Judge Tigar (an Obama appointee), first blocked the asylum policy in July after a lawsuit by groups that help asylum seekers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then partially limited the impact of Tigar’s injunction.

The new ruling meant that only the Border States of California and Arizona were impacted by Tiger’s ruling and not New Mexico and Texas.

However not content with the ruling Tigar attempted to once again construct his own immigration policy by stressing a “need to maintain uniform immigration policy,” suggesting that nonprofit organizations acting as conduits  for illegal aliens don’t know where asylum seekers who enter the U.S. will end up living and making their case to remain in the country.

Tigar then cleverly attempted to cite new evidence, on Monday before issuing a second nationwide injunction, using the ACLU to bolster his ruling.

“The court recognized there is grave danger facing asylum-seekers along the entire stretch of the southern border,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement, this constituted Judge Tigar’s “new evidence.”

Legal scholar and judicial data guru Adam Feldman told Fox News, “As the 9th Circuit shifts to become more conservative and better parallels the Supreme Court’s ideological baseline, I could only imagine fewer liberal 9th Circuit decisions and fewer overturned 9th Circuit decisions generally.”

About Author

Robert. A

Robert. A

Related Articles

4 Comments

  1. JoeyP
    JoeyP September 15, 18:45

    If we can impeach the REST of these Liberal Activist judges who INSIST on going by their illegal agenda than by Constitutional law and replace then with REAL judges, that would be excellence of the highest order . . . Team Trump and his allies 2020.

    Reply to this comment
  2. Randy131
    Randy131 September 15, 19:19

    It seems that most Liberal Judges have “government branch envy”, just like some Progressive Females have “penis envy”, as the Liberal Judges want to be legislatures, so they rewrite or make new law from their benches with their rulings, or they want to be able to direct the people of the USA on what rules and regulations they must obey or ignore, in place of what the President puts forward in his “Executive Orders & Decrees”.

    These Liberal Judges want to be a Representative in the “US House”, a Senator in the “US Senate”, or the President as the “Commander-in-Chief”, using their rulings from their benches to fulfill those positions.

    The Liberal Judges don’t interpret and follow the law as it was written and intended, but change or rewrite it from their bench in order to legislate what they think is best for the people, not what it was intended to mean and do.

    A prime example of this is what Justice John Roberts did to the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA), when he changed what the Democrats, in order to get all their political party in the “US Congress” to vote it into law, proclaimed was not a tax, but a penalty for those who had to pay the federal government if they did not voluntarily enroll in the ACA.

    But to make the ACA constitutional, Justice John Roberts rewrote the law, where the penalty was no longer such, but instead Justice John Roberts proclaimed it to be a tax, even though it didn’t meet the mandated definition of a tax that was written into the US Constitution.

    Reply to this comment
    • Msbee
      Msbee September 16, 00:28

      Your comment was spot on. The whole ACA thing boggles my mind, whatever little I have left. A penalty for not enrolling is totally egregious while a tax for not enrolling is a tax on nothing. If I didn’t enroll, I would have no health care and I can be taxed? The taxes I have paid have always been for an asset or something I had like income, property, capital gains, etc. If I had none of that, I would not have to pay taxes. So, if I do not have their ACA, which is nothing, why should I be taxed?

      Well, I just commented on your “prime example” but I am grateful that the 9th circuit is finally going to not be the “go to” court for liberal agendas.

      Reply to this comment
  3. Kurt Walker
    Kurt Walker September 15, 20:10

    It is definitely time for the courts to get their act together and stop attempting to “make the laws” In this case the final decision is the right one. Our nation has no idea who is coming across the border, criminal or terrorist.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

Ed

Soros is attempting to turn our criminal justice system on it's ear by buying elections...

If Bill Gates Paid $100,000,000,000 it would only be .0000192309% of the $52,000,000,000.000 she proposes...

Take a Look!

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.