Trump Could Simply Ignore Court’s Order Halting Travel Ban

Quand tu peux choisir l’issue de la décision juridique en fonction de quelle région la cause est attendue, on commence sérieusement à avoir un système juridique à la carte.

Ce n’est pas pour rien que le juge qui a instauré un décret sur l’immigration des 7 pays est à Washington et la cause en appel est attendu à San Francisco, tous les deux des bastions prolibérales.

Leur système politique est pourri, car c’est l’argent qui influence les décisions politiques, mais leurs justices semblent aussi pourries en fonction de quelle allégeance que tu es.

Je peux très bien comprendre la frustration du président Trump et la frustation du peuple devant autant de pourriture.


Betrayed the letter and spirit of our nation's founding: Allowed the courts to run amok. We can continue drinking the judicial-supremacy Kool-Aid, committing national suicide, or we can drain the swamp infested with with black-robed tyrants

Trump Could Simply Ignore Court’s Order Halting Travel Ban

By Selwyn Duke —— Bio and Archives February 8, 2017

Does our current status quo make our Constitution a suicide pact? Thomas Jefferson certainly said as much, warning that accepting judicial supremacy would make our founding document just that, a felo de se, as he put it in Latin.

Acceptance of judicial supremacy, by the way, is precisely why President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations is on hold. Imagine that, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78 that the judiciary is the “least dangerous” branch of government because it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse,” yet it’s trumping the man with the sword, the president. But does it have to be this way?

No, Trump could simply ignore the court ruling suspending his ban.

Outrageous!? Unconstitutional!? Actually, it’s wholly constitutional.

In his dissent from the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges marriage ruling, late Justice Antonin Scalia warned that with “each decision… unabashedly based not on law,” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.” What did Scalia know about courts’ power?

That it’s basically an illusion.

Let’s do a civics quiz. Why does the legislative branch have the power to make law? Why does the executive branch (presidency) have the power to enforce law? The answer in both cases is because the Constitution grants it.

Okay, now how is it that the judiciary has the “power” to rule on law and have its decisions constrain not just its own branch, but the other two as well? How have the courts become king? Because the Constitution grants…no, stop. It’s not in the Constitution—anywhere.

Justice corrupt

Rather, this “power” was declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

That’s right, the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the supreme power to have the final say on laws’ meaning.

It’s a great con if you can pull it off.

The point is that the judiciary enjoys this power at the executive branch’s pleasure. As soon as the latter says, to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, “The courts have made their decision; now let them enforce it,” that power goes bye-bye. The judiciary is reminded of its impotence.

So it isn’t just that the courts lack the sword or purse, the possession and exercise of which could simply amount to might making right. They also have no constitutional claim to judicial supremacy. In fact, the power is a violation of everything for which America stands.

Jefferson explained why in 1820, writing that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” This is where we are now, and have long been—suicide-pact territory. The will of a nation 320-million strong is expressed through its duly elected representatives and laws are passed….

And then that will is thwarted by five black-robed lawyers in a central-government tribunal.

Does this sound like a government of, by and for the people to you?

As time has worn on, the judiciary has become increasingly brazen, issuing rulings more and more distant from the Constitution. This is no surprise. As Jefferson put it, “Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps.”

They even conjure up rationalizations justifying this power and privilege. For example, they long ago invented, out of thin air, the concept of the Constitution as a “living document” that can be interpreted to “suit the times.” Yet since the interpretations so often conflict with popular will, the only common thread is that they suit the judges.

These esteemed jurists then put a veneer of legitimacy on their violation of law and duty by assigning themselves an intellectual-sounding designation. “Why, we’re not constrained by a 200-year-old piece of parchment like those knuckle-dragging originalists,” they say, “We’re ‘pragmatists’!”

To understand how outrageous this is, consider an analogy touched on by Chief Justice John Roberts when, during his confirmation hearings, he said his job was only “to call balls and strikes.” Expanding on this, judges can in fact be thought of as baseball umpires, while the game’s ruling body is the legislature and the rule book is the Constitution. Now, what if an umpire considered the rule book living and said, “With the great pitchers in these times, three strikes are insufficient; I’m giving the batter four strikes”? What if he then stated, “I’m not abdicating my duty. I’m a pragmatist!”

Would this be taken seriously? Or would he be laughed off the diamond?

Obviously, it’s the job of the ruling body to alter the rules if necessary. Likewise, there is a lawful way to make the Constitution “live”: the Amendment Process. It’s long and difficult, and this ensures that before a change is made, a majority of the people agrees. This brings us to the problem with it—from the judiciary’s perspective:

Judges can’t control it.

So they usurp the people’s power with a wink and a nod. They must be stopped.

There’s more than one way to do this. Another little known fact is that Article III of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on immigration (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues.

Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court, except for the SCOTUS. So it could have made the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—a bench of fools now reviewing Trump’s immigration ban—disappear long ago.

Yet this would require that our cowardly politicians take a real stand on a contentious issue. They’d rather that judges, who don’t have to be re-elected, make the tough decisions. They can then pretend they did all they could and say, “The courts have ruled. The law’s the law!”

So is it any surprise the courts are going rogue? “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” as Lord Acton warned. And how can we have a balance of power among the three governmental branches, as the founders intended, when two branches refuse to exercise their power?

I’ve heard it said that if the president ignored the courts, it would spark a constitutional crisis. Newsflash: When a branch of government is continually trampling the rights of others and violating the Constitution, we’re already in a constitutional crisis. Showing the judiciary its impotence isn’t the disease—it’s the cure.

Only power neutralizes power. It’s shocking how we’ve betrayed the letter and spirit of our nation’s founding and have allowed the courts to run amok. We can continue drinking the judicial-supremacy Kool-Aid and committing national suicide, or we can drain the swamp infested with black-robed tyrants. It’s impotence for them—or irrelevancy for us.


Selwyn Duke -- Bio and Archives | Click to view 1 Comment

Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show.  His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.

Trump Could Simply Ignore Court’s Order Halting Travel Ban

Extrait de: Trump Rips Into "Political" Judges Deciding Fate Of Travel Ban, by Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, Feb 8, 2017

Speaking to a gathering of law enforcement officials, President Trump doubled down his attack against the Judicial branch, and went after the panel of Appeals Court judges weighing whether a court order blocking his travel ban should be lifted, arguing the judges should immediately reinstate the executive order in the name of national security, although he refrained from criticizing the appeals court directly in his speech on Wednesday.

“I don’t want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” the president said at a gathering of the Major Cities Chiefs Association in Washington.

"The courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right, and that has got to do with the security of our country, which is so important."

Trump further argued that his power to limit immigration shouldn’t be challenged in courts, reading aloud in a speech from a U.S. statute giving the president authority to stop the entry of "any class" of foreigner.

"You can suspend, you can put restrictions, you can do whatever you want," Trump told a conference of police chiefs and sheriffs in Washington, after reading the law. "It just can’t be written any plainer or better."

Trump made clear he is frustrated that the issue is being litigated at all, and he alluded to the 9th Circuit’s reputation for liberal leanings. "Now we’re in an area that, let’s just say they’re interpreting things differently than probably 100 percent of the people in this room," he said.

The statute Trump read aloud says in part that "whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

The President also vented his frustration at the legal arguments made by judges and attorneys on both sides of the case, even reading aloud a portion of immigration law he believes backs up his executive order barring the intake of refugees and people from seven Muslim-Majority countries.

“If these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they’d do what they should be doing” Trump said, adding “a bad high school student would understand this. Anybody would understand this,” he said.

“They were talking about things that just had nothing to do this,” he said of the judges, noting his amazement that it is "amazing we have a case going on for so long."

“But I have to be honest that if these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they do what they should be doing," he added. "It’s so sad."

As reported earlier, it’s unusual for a president to publicly comment on court cases dealing with their policy proposals,  particularly as a court is weighing a case, even more when the Supreme Court is likely to make a subsequent ruling.

Trump said on Tuesday evening that he watched the oral arguments in front of a three-judge panel of the San-Francisco based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was broadcast live on cable news. Trump argued that the country is in danger of being attacked by terrorists as long as the order is on hold.

“I think it’s sad, I think it’s a sad day,” he said. “I think our security is at risk today. And it will be at risk until such time that we are entitled and get what we are entitled to as citizens of this country. We want security.”

"Right now, we are at risk because of what happened," he said, adding later in the speech: "Believe me, I’ve learned a lot in the last two weeks. And terrorism is a far greater threat than the people of our country understand."

Whatever the ruling, the losing side is almost certain to turn to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then, moments ago, Trump followed up his address in the usual way: with a tweet.