Folks, you may agree or disagree with the action Trump took. This Ticker isn't about that. It's about the willful, intentional and unconstitutional acts of the 9th Circuit that continue a long tradition in the US Court system of acting as if controlling law, including the Constitution, does not exist whenever it suits some particular group of people. Any government body that does such a thing by accident must be called out. If it was an accident then said body will immediately correct its mistake. Any government body that does such a thing through evidenced intent must be disbanded and removed from power. If it is not, when such a means exists (and it certainly does, as the Constitution gives the power to Congress to disband or reorganize any part of the court system; the only Constitutionally-required court is the Supreme Court) then all such co-conspiring components of the government have declared themselves illegitimate.The point about whether one agrees with Trump or not is THE bedrock point here. Justice isn't about what policies you like. Justice is about the proper and consistent application of the law. Period. If the law is simply a suggestion, then no law has to be observed. And mind you I think there are many laws that are in fact "suggestions" in practice. No, actually they are a form of state taxes as a lottery. Think speed limits on highways. Almost nobody does the posted speed limit. Modern technology makes it entirely possible to fine each and every person on a highway who is speeding. It isn't done because if everyone got a fine in the mail, there would be an uprising like we've never seen before. But this is beyond the point. Point here is that the 9th circuit as well as recent decisions by the Supreme Court, among others (1),(2),(3) shows a distinct hostility to the constitutional rights of citizens in the service of liberal ideology. In case one thinks me unqualified to speak on legal matters, see The Hill :
Whether or not a particular judge or panel of judges likes the policy judgment made by the president, it is the president, not the judge, who was elected to make that decision. Indeed, the notion that a single federal trial court judge can take it upon himself to determine national security and immigration policy, in the face of explicit determinations made by the president with the full support of law actually adopted by Congress, is so far beyond the judicial role as to pose a serious threat, not just to our national security, but to the rule of law. That a panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the order does not place it on more solid footing but rather merely expands the lawlessness to a higher court. One can only hope that the Supreme Court will put a stop to this usurpation, and quickly. Otherwise, we as a nation have a much bigger problem to confront than terrorists seeking entry to the United States.And speaking of the 9th Circuit. I understand that north of 75% of its decisions are reversed on appeal. 75%. If you had an employee that did their job incorrectly 75% of the time, would you still employ that person? If you had a contractor who did work on your property and 75% of his work had to be revisited by another contractor, would you hire that contractor again? I think that if a court is full of personnel that cannot do their basic job, those persons should be removed from their jobs. Now I'm all for respecting the decisions of the court. But that support is predicated upon the courts doing their jobs correctly 99% of the time. If the courts are not going to do their jobs properly, then as predicted by the founders, good men will not see the point of being law abiding. We know where that leads.