When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down President Trump’s first Executive Order on immigration the mainstream globalist media heralded the decision and again accused President Trump of being xenophobic and racist.
We criticized the court’s decision for usurping the president’s Constitutional authority without addressing that aspect in their writings.
Now that the dust has cleared – and, while President Trump behaved like the adult in the room by offering a second, more narrowly tailored Executive Order – other members of the Ninth Circuit Court have taken the extraordinary step of filing a dissent rebuking their colleagues.
Noted Constitutional expert and law professor Jonathan Turley released his statement about this highly unusual move yesterday. Turley wrote:
“In a surprising move, five judges (including the highly respected Chief Judge Alex Kozinski) filed a dissent to the motion for rehearing. The blistering dissent showed that a significant number of Ninth Circuit judges strongly disagreed with the decision of the panel. (Some judges may have not approved of the panel decision but did not see the need for a rehearing). As previously raised by experts, the strongly worded dissent belies the claim that the original executive order was legally unsustainable. To see this type of vociferous dissent in a withdrawn appeal is remarkable in itself but it also shows the depth of opposition to the panel’s decision among other judges.”
“The dissenting judges objected that there is an “obligation to correct” the “manifest” errors of the panel. It called those errors “fundamental” and even questioned the manner in which the panel reached its decision with a telephonic oral argument. The dissent raised many of the problems that various commentators have raised, including myself. The lack of consideration to opposing case law, failure to address the statutory authority given to the President, and the sweeping dismissal of executive authority are obvious flaws. (These problems are also apparent in the ruling in Hawaii, though it was based on establishment rather the due process grounds) The dissenting judges refer to the “clear misstatement of law” in the upholding of the district court, so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.”
“The judges said that the panel simply “brushed aside” the clearly controlling case law of Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). Indeed, the panel noted that the panel missed entirely the rulings in Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) and Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977). In a statement that is particularly probative of the Hawaii ruling, the Supreme Court in Mandel recognized that first amendment rights were implicated by the executive action but found that ‘when the executive has exercised its authority to exclude aliens on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment 11 interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.’”
To make it as simple as possible, the decisions by all of the judges who have opposed both of President Trump’s Executive Orders, to date, have been so poorly constructed that they point to an underlying political bias. And, that should be unacceptable to any citizen who hopes for a fair application of the law when they enter a courtroom.
Bottom line: Had Hillary Clinton been our president her appointment of the next Supreme Court justice would’ve turned the nation’s highest court – the court of last resort – into a politically motivated and super-legislative body similar to the Ninth Circuit.
The mainstream globalist media should be ashamed of itself for exhibiting such a gross lack of intellectual integrity in its reporting of these events. Obama might as well have written these decisions himself, making President Trump absolutely correct when he said the purveyors of fake news are the opposition party.