November 20, 2018
Black Robes Stealing America
Timothy Birdnow
Oops they did it again!
An Obama-appointed judge issued a restraining order on Monday forcing the Trump Administration to process asylum claims for the Caravan invasion.
Fox News has the story:
"Trump issued a proclamation on Nov. 9 that said anyone who crossed the southern border would be ineligible for asylum.
U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order after hearing arguments in San Francisco.
The request was made by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which quickly sued after President Trump issued the ban this month in response to the caravans of migrants that have started to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border."
End excerpt.
It doesn't matter what the law says, or how angry the public is over this. Judges simply overturn the will of the People to promote their radical agenda.
The law couldn't be any clearer; the President has overwhelming discretion on who gets into this country. Federal judges have no say in it. But since the President is hated by both parties he must step gingerly to avoid being impeached, so he has to obey these tiny tyrants.
America is being given away piece by piece by those entrusted with guaranteeing our rights. And too few are really angry about it.
Oops they did it again!
An Obama-appointed judge issued a restraining order on Monday forcing the Trump Administration to process asylum claims for the Caravan invasion.
Fox News has the story:
"Trump issued a proclamation on Nov. 9 that said anyone who crossed the southern border would be ineligible for asylum.
U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order after hearing arguments in San Francisco.
The request was made by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which quickly sued after President Trump issued the ban this month in response to the caravans of migrants that have started to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border."
End excerpt.
It doesn't matter what the law says, or how angry the public is over this. Judges simply overturn the will of the People to promote their radical agenda.
The law couldn't be any clearer; the President has overwhelming discretion on who gets into this country. Federal judges have no say in it. But since the President is hated by both parties he must step gingerly to avoid being impeached, so he has to obey these tiny tyrants.
America is being given away piece by piece by those entrusted with guaranteeing our rights. And too few are really angry about it.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:58 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.
1
And too few are really angry about it.
That's pretty easy to say, but what exactly do you advocate if we were to get "really angry" about this unmoored by law or constitution judicial tyranny that's been going on since at least Griswold v. Connecticut, or better, since it among other things established all the judicial president required to implement terror famines as well as pretty much ended any Constitutional restraint that's not worded as a "thou shall not" Wickard v. Filburn?
This is the subject of the Z Man's latest essay, "Kritocracy Then Chaos". Whatever the Constitution says, the constitution that we actually follow gives all the power to our robed masters. You ever read Livy on the tyranny of the second decemvirate?
That's pretty easy to say, but what exactly do you advocate if we were to get "really angry" about this unmoored by law or constitution judicial tyranny that's been going on since at least Griswold v. Connecticut, or better, since it among other things established all the judicial president required to implement terror famines as well as pretty much ended any Constitutional restraint that's not worded as a "thou shall not" Wickard v. Filburn?
This is the subject of the Z Man's latest essay, "Kritocracy Then Chaos". Whatever the Constitution says, the constitution that we actually follow gives all the power to our robed masters. You ever read Livy on the tyranny of the second decemvirate?
Posted by: Anonymous at November 20, 2018 12:40 PM (FPIRN)
2
Thanks for the link Anonymous! I cannot say I disagree.
It appears too few in America care about this, and as a result we had the last election, which should have gone in a landslide for Republicans. It didn't. Congress could disband any court that issued some crazy ruling but it refuses to do so. The President can exercise nullification, too, as Andrew Jackson did when he refused to enforce the SCOTUS ruling in Worcester v. Geogia. He famously said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". SEe, that is why the Executive and the Judiciary, and Legislative branches were separated in the first place.
And Nullification was argued for by both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act, a matter largely forgotten by most people today.
But, given the pucillanimous nature of the GOP in Congress, Trump would be impeached for defying a court order.
It is illegal to threaten a judge over a court ruling, too. But it's reaching the point where these creeps need to face a little public pressure. If the Left can chase Republicans out of restaurants, why shouldn't people put some heat on these judges?
I don't know, but Americans should at least give their representatives and senators hell over this. Congress CAN rein these judges in - they just chose not to.
Of course, judicial overreach goes all the way back to SCOTUS asserting the right to judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. They've been doing it ever since.
Happy Thanksgiving!
It appears too few in America care about this, and as a result we had the last election, which should have gone in a landslide for Republicans. It didn't. Congress could disband any court that issued some crazy ruling but it refuses to do so. The President can exercise nullification, too, as Andrew Jackson did when he refused to enforce the SCOTUS ruling in Worcester v. Geogia. He famously said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". SEe, that is why the Executive and the Judiciary, and Legislative branches were separated in the first place.
And Nullification was argued for by both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act, a matter largely forgotten by most people today.
But, given the pucillanimous nature of the GOP in Congress, Trump would be impeached for defying a court order.
It is illegal to threaten a judge over a court ruling, too. But it's reaching the point where these creeps need to face a little public pressure. If the Left can chase Republicans out of restaurants, why shouldn't people put some heat on these judges?
I don't know, but Americans should at least give their representatives and senators hell over this. Congress CAN rein these judges in - they just chose not to.
Of course, judicial overreach goes all the way back to SCOTUS asserting the right to judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. They've been doing it ever since.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at November 21, 2018 03:50 PM (Vl+LV)
3
Oops; I meant James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, not John Adams. I was trying to do three things at once and misspoke.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at November 21, 2018 05:24 PM (IJhtV)
24kb generated in CPU 0.0124, elapsed 0.4509 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4417 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.4417 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
