Federal Judge Issues Restraining Order on Immigration EO

[EnglishPete]

I don't think his restraining order will hold up, and thankfully, many of the visas that were already revoked will take months to get back if they even try. By then, hopefully, the President's order will be re-instated.

It is more important to protect American's safety than to protect the emotional feelings of foreigners. Safety first. Trust me, Trump has more support across the country than some on the coasts may think. The people freaking out about this never liked him anyway, so I don't get worked up about it.

FDR locked AMERICANS up in camps and Democrats idolize him. That was terrible. Saying we want a temporary ban on immigrants from certain countries is hardly that controversial.

And there is another good thing that has emerged from this. The left has shown its true colours. Whenever in the past immigration controls have been discussed the left have said "of course nobody is advocating completely open borders, we just have this excuse and that excuse as to why this particular immigration control shouldn't be brought in".

Now, when there is finally a President in the US taking decisive action to tighten border controls and they all start screaming

OPEN BORDERS!!!!! EVERBODY WELCOME!!!!!! BORDER CONTROLS ARE NAZI!!!!

Well we've seen what a disaster open borders has been for Germany. I don't think Americans will want that for their own country, no matter how many astroturfed airport protests and fake cryinbg Senators say otherwise.

[EnglishPete]

The Pussygrabber regime is appealing Judge Robart's decision to the 9th circuit, on the basis that the President is immune to the judiciary. Not really exaggerating here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

If Trump is to achieve anything at all he cannot allow every single petty district Judge to have absolute power to declare any kind of EO they don't like to be legal or illegal according to their SJW sensibilities. That would simply allow the likes of the ACLU to shop around for a suitably SJW judge to grant them whatever they want. That's really a matter for the Supreme Court, not for any Congressionally established court.

If the judge has been acting unconstitutionally in his judgement then there is no reason for the President to submit himself to an unconstitutional order, and indeed every reason not to. The problem in this case appears is the State Department. They took a phone call from the Judge and said 'the judge has ruled. That's it we're getting back to normal'. Now of course the State Department technically work for the President but since he has limited power to hire and fire them he can't really do much if they say "we're taking orders from some obscure district judge and not you".

However a remedy may be available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

www.the-american-interest.com/2017/01/28/civil-service-reform-reassert-the-presidents-constitutional-authority/

and this from Inez Feltscher Stepman of ALEC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/317647-drain-the-swamp-trump-should-look-to-the-states-civil

If Trump can reclaim his right to fire at will any federal civil servants he can then get on with the important task of 'draining the swamp' i.e. mass purging of the federal bureaucracy to make it accountable and obedient to democratic authority. Its been reported that the White House team have already been talking with Governors like Scott Walker about their experience with such a system to prepare for implementing such an 'at will' system for the federal civil service, so good news there.

[EnglishPete]

A Great point here made by Professor Adam Perkins

Adam Perkins ‏@AdamPerkinsPhD  Jan 29
 Trump's ban makes sense in human capital terms: people from the banned nations tend to be over-represented in crime & unemployment stats.





https://twitter.com/AdamPerkinsPhD/status/825687733280600068

[EnglishPete]

The Pussygrabber regime is appealing Judge Robart's decision to the 9th circuit, on the basis that the President is immune to the judiciary. Not really exaggerating here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html


Given that the 9th is the most liberal appeals court, I'm looking forward to even more tantrums from the White House (or the Orange House, or the Dark Tower - wherever the whiner-in-chief is dosing up that night).

Wouldn't it therefore be sensible for the WH to find another judge on another circuit who could issue a judgement declaring the Robart judgement to be unconstitutional on the above grounds and ordering State Department employees to submit to the original EO.

[EnglishPete]

Wouldn't it therefore be sensible for the WH to find another judge on another circuit who could issue a judgement declaring the Robart judgement to be unconstitutional on the above grounds and ordering State Department employees to submit to the original EO.

No because the U.S. legal system doesn't work that way. Any federal judge can impose a nationwide injunction and there's a process that plays out. The judiciary is extremely deferential, usually, to the executive and legislative branches and so any injunction is rare.

What is the procedure if one judge imposes a nationwide injunction saying "Federal employees must not do xyz" and another imposes a nationwide injunction saying "Federal employees must do xyz"?