The White House issued a statement vowing to file for an emergency stay of a federal judge’s order to block President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting immigration and refugees from high risk countries from the Middle East.
“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate,” read a statement from Sean Spicer to reporters.
The statement explained that Trump’s order was issued under his constitutional authority to protect the American people.
U.S. District Court Judge James Robart took the unusual step of issuing a emergency stay of Trump’s order as the attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota filed a lawsuit to overturn the legislation.
The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s order violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, including what they say is discrimination against a particular religion.
But Trump defied the order, sending a message on Twitter on Saturday.
“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” he wrote.
IMPEACHABLE “BAD BEHAVIOR
While the White House continues its legal fight at the Appellate Level, members of Congress have begun taking a very hard look at District Judge Robart, for what may be “impeachable bad behavior.”
Robart is a US District Court Judge. DISTRICT Court. His jurisdiction rests solely in portions of Washington State. Yet the Judge declared that his restraining order “applies nationwide.” He does not have judicial authority “nationwide.”
Robart granted “legal standing” to two states which filed the legal case. In order to have legal standing, a person or corporation must be personally/directly affected. Neither Washington State nor Minnesota, two Plaintiffs in the case, can show that either “state” was affected at all. Perhaps citizens WITHIN each state may have been affected, but not “the states” themselves. So Robarts agreeing that the states have “legal standing” seems odious on its face.
Next, Robart decided the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed” in their lawsuit. This is so totally specious as to defy belief.
“The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that individual aliens outside the United States are “inadmissible”—or barred from admission to the country—on health, criminal, security, and other grounds set forth in the INA.
However, the INA also grants the Executive several broader authorities that could be used to exclude certain individual aliens or classes of aliens for reasons that are not specifically prescribed in the INA. Section 212(f) of the INA is arguably the broadest and best known of these authorities. It provides, in relevant part,:
Over the years, Presidents have relied upon Section 212(f) to suspend or otherwise restrict the entry of individual aliens and classes of aliens, often (although not always) in conjunction with the imposition of financial sanctions upon these aliens. Among those so excluded have been aliens whose actions “threaten the peace, security, or stability of Libya”; officials of the North Korean government; and aliens responsible for “serious human rights violations.” READ MORE