Tags

, , , ,

With all the judicial tap-dancing over President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from seven specific nations in the Mideast, we have witnessed firsthand how liberal leftists on the bench can rewrite the law rather than interpret it.

Moreover, many in the national media are at fault for fanning the “social media” flames against the Executive Order by continuing to reference these seven nations as being “predominantly Muslim.” That is being done on purpose to bolster the groundless argument that the order targets a specific religion and therefore is unconstitutional.

Horse hockey! The roughly 2,500-word Executive Order never once uses or makes reference to Muslims. (Former New York mayor and current White House cyber-security adviser Rudy Giuliani unfortunately lit that fire by referencing Muslims in his early explanation of the executive order.)

It won’t take a revised Executive Order by Trump to precipitate a constitutional crisis. Why? Because the crisis already is happening. In a nutshell …

— We have a couple of radical leftist courts defying a sitting president who’s trying to reign in radical leftists.

— We have at least one liberal leftist court with a blatant record of overturned decisions claiming that foreigners with no standing as U.S. citizens can enjoy the rights afforded to U.S. citizens.

— And we have some liberal judges shooting down a presidential Executive Order based solely on its outcome and impact, not on the merits of the order itself and its legality under the U.S. Constitution.

On Saturday, the Washington Examiner revealed that 72 individuals from the seven nations where radical jihadists thrive have been convicted of terrorism since 9/11. (Convictions, mind you. Not included are who-knows-how-many others who are on watch lists and have yet to carry out acts of terrorism.) These are the same nations covered by President Trump’s “extreme vetting” executive order, bolstering the argument to uphold the administration’s temporary immigration ban.

The Examiner’s article sourced Jessica M. Vaughan, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, who filed a blockbuster report last year with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration and the national interest. The subcommittee was chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who was sworn in last week as the new U.S. attorney general.

Vaughan’s report noted that 380 out of 580 defendants convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. Her report further concluded that 72 of those convicted of terrorism came from the seven nations targeted in Trump’s executive order. At least 17 of them claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as “students,” and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

Of the 72 convicted terrorists …

20 came from Somalia
19 came from Yemen
19 came from Iraq
7 came from Syria
4 came from Iran
2 came from Libya, and
1 came from Sudan

Based on Jessica Vaughan’s report alone, President Trump acted in the best interests of taking another action to keep U.S. citizens safe. His Executive Order is constitutionally sound and should stand on its own merits. A minor revision to spell out who is exempt – green-card holders, those with already issued visas, and others who have been properly vetted – would strengthen the Executive Order and should make it court-proof.

In the meantime, it is entirely possible that the judges involved here can be bounced off the bench for playing politics. There are no specific terms of service for federal judges. They are appointed basically for life by the sitting president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. However, federal judges CAN be removed from the bench if they fail to exercise professional and personal responsibility, especially if they no longer appear to be fair and impartial.

To remove a federal judge, Congress would have to impeach him or her. That prospect has possibilities. After all, Republicans today hold majorities in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.

But Trump likely would be advised to push for impeachment only as a last resort in the cases of the judges involved from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as well as bow-tied U.S. District Court Judge James Robart. Impeachment proceedings likely would stir up another counterproductive firestorm of leftist senseless protest led by childish hippies Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Cory Booker and George Soros. There are other more expedient and less incendiary means to go forward on this.

Stay tuned. There’s more coming Monday when the next shoe is due to drop in this series of reprehensible court shenanigans.

Advertisements