The judges who sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals must get some kind of under-the-table bonus check every time they rule against the Trump administration. That’s the only sense we can make out of their lawless vendetta against the travel ban, which they have now ruled against – ONE MORE TIME – for no other reason than to say that they did. We characterize it that way because the Supreme Court has already ruled that Trump’s travel ban shall not be blocked by lower court injunctions, making this a symbolic gesture at best…you know, just in case there was still an Islamist somewhere who wasn’t sure where the 9th Circuit stood on this issue.
What’s really fascinating is that these lower courts keep finding new reasons to block the ban. First, they were blocking it based on comments Trump made on the campaign trail about Muslims. Next they were blocking it because it would place an undue burden on visitors, immigrants, and even state tourism dollars. Now they’re saying that President Trump doesn’t even have the authority to limit the issuance of visas to citizens of the barred countries.
“The Executive cannot without assent of Congress supplant its statutory scheme with one stroke of a presidential pen,” wrote the judges. “We conclude that the Proclamation conflicts with the statutory framework of the INA by indefinitely nullifying Congress’s considered judgments on matters of immigration. The Proclamation’s stated purposes are to prevent entry of terrorists and persons posing a threat to public safety, as well as to enhance vetting capabilities and processes to achieve that goal….Yet Congress has already acted to effectuate these purposes.”
No…no they haven’t.
It’s hardly worth considering the 70+ page opinion in any detail because it’s filled with gibberish whose only point is to obscure the fact that the judges are making a political decision – NOT a legal one. This is abundantly obvious. If President Obama had issued a similar executive order, we do not believe for one SECOND that the 9th Circuit would have blocked it – partially or wholly. In fact, we rather doubt that any of the same states that have sued to stop Trump’s order would have even raised a hand in protest.
Although we admit we may be wrong about that; when it comes to protecting Muslims, liberals really get energized.