Trey Gowdy Demolishes The 9th Circuit Court Over Executive Order Ruling

The fury over the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is only just getting started. Now Congressman Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, has weighed in on the matter.

And he eviscerates the liberal justices on the court. His concluding line is gold: “There is a reason we elect the Commander in Chief and do not elect federal judges.”

Here’s more from DC Statesman

It seems their opinion was based more on politics than the Constitution. So it seems appropriate to highlight an incredible statement issued by a Constitution hawk like Rep. Trey Gowdy.

Gowdy released this statement:

“No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today’s ruling. The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible. Unlike the district court order, there is at least a court opinion which can be evaluated.

Of particular interest is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ suggestion that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration. The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President’s national security conclusions.

Legal permanent residents, non-citizens with current valid visas, non-citizens with expired visas (which were once valid), aliens with no legal standing, aliens who have committed a crime but have not yet been deported and aliens who are not even present in the United States but seek to come are just a few of the categories the Supreme Court will need to determine what process is due, if any. It seems clear to most of us – not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – there is no right to come to this country for non-citizens of the United States. It also seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the Commander in Chief. There is a reason we elect the Commander in Chief and do not elect federal judges.



Judge Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’

After yesterday’s ruling by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco to uphold the block on Trump’s refugee ban, conservatives blasted the justices for its typically leftwing bent in its decision.

Judge Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work” detailing how the justices completely ignored the plain language of the statute that authorizes the president to issue an executive order banning refugees.

Here’s more from Breitbart:

Thursday on the Fox News Channel, in reacting to the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding the blocking of President Trump‘s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work.”

Napolitano said, “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”

“I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president,” he added.



Leftwing 9th Circuit Court Blocks Trump Exec Order

The notoriously left-wing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the lower court ruling in rejecting President Trump’s appeal of the block on his refugee ban.

The decision sets up an almost certain collision court at the Supreme Court. And now the result could come down to whether the Senate confirms Judge Gorsuch in time to vote.

Here’s more from Breitbart:

San Francisco’s federal appeals court asserted a novel theory on Thursday to claim jurisdiction over the legal challenge to Executive Order 13769, affirming the lower court’s order halting President Trump’s temporary travel-restriction policy.
Federal appeals courts lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s temporary restraining order (TRO), which is a stop-gap measure that lasts for 14 days or less (unless extended) in extreme circumstances when a court does not even have the time to hold expedited hearings on the legal merits of a lawsuit. Judge James Robart from the Western District of Washington issued a TRO to block President Trump’s executive order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit claimed jurisdiction anyway, reasoning that although the district court explicitly held that its TRO was not a preliminary injunction (which, unlike a TRO, can be reviewed by an appeals court):

In light of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which the Government has argued that emergency relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism, we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction.

The Ninth Circuit went on to reject several of the tenuous theories the states of Washington and Minnesota asserted to claim standing to bring this lawsuit. Nonetheless, a three-judge panel of the court adopted one of the novel theories asserted by the state, holding that, “as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.” Some of those students are effected by the immigration order.

President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Congress has plenary authority over all immigration decisions, and that Congress had delegated complete discretion to the president in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to make such decisions, especially when national security was at stake.



Appeals Court Rejects Trump Bid to Restore Travel Ban

While Americans were more focused on the build-up to the Super Bowl over the weekend, an appeals court quietly rejected President Trump’s request for an injunction on a lower court’s block on the refugee travel ban.

This sets up an epic battle that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, and could be voted on by Trump’s newly-nominated Judge Gorsuch.

Here’s more from Newsmax:

A federal appeals court on Sunday denied the Justice Department’s request for an immediate reinstatement of President Donald Trump’s ban on accepting certain travelers and all refugees.

The Trump administration had appealed a temporary order restraining the ban nationwide, saying a federal judge in Seattle overreached by “second-guessing” the president on a matter of national security.

The appeals court’s denial of an immediate stay means the legal fight over the ban will continue for days at least. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco asked challengers of the ban to respond by early Monday, and for the Justice Department to file a counter-response by the evening.

Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the administration, told the appeals court that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States — an assertion that appeared to invoke the wider battle to come over illegal immigration.

“The power to expel or exclude aliens is a fundamental sovereign attribute, delegated by Congress to the executive branch of government and largely immune from judicial control,” according to government’s filing.

The government has suspended the ban’s enforcement in compliance with order of the order of U.S. District Judge James Robart. His ruling was an extraordinary setback for the new president, who only a week ago acted to suspend America’s refugee program and halt immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries that the government said raise terrorism concerns.



Pence: Gorsuch Will Join Supreme Court ‘One Way or the Other’

The Trump administration has been blazing trails to make it abundantly clear: it’s our way or the highway.

Now Vice President Pence is joining the fun with a promise that the administration will force the Gorsuch nomination through the Senate, not matter what. And now major war is about to break out.

Here’s more from Newsmax:

Vice President Mike Pence is pledging that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will be seated on the high court “one way or the other.”

Pence’s comments during a speech in Philadelphia to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, echoed President Donald Trump’s comments from earlier in the week. Trump urged the Senate’s Republican leader to scrap longstanding rules and “go nuclear” if Democrats block Gorsuch.

Trump on Tuesday nominated the 49-year-old Gorsuch — a Denver-based U.S. appellate court judge — to a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court.

Pence says the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death belongs to the American people.

“This seat does not belong to any party or any ideology or any interest group, this seat on the Supreme Court belongs to the American people, and the American people deserve a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” Pence said.



White House Vows ‘Emergency Stay’ of Judicial Order Thwarting President’s Immigration Order

President Trump is pressing his Department of Justice to file immediate action with appellate courts to issue an immediate stay on the block by a federal judge yesterday. It’s going to be a fight to the finish.

Here’s more from Breitbart:

The White House issued a statement vowing to file for an emergency stay of a federal judge’s order to block President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting immigration and refugees from high risk countries from the Middle East.
“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate,” read a statement from Sean Spicer to reporters.

The statement explained that Trump’s order was issued under his constitutional authority to protect the American people.

U.S. District Court Judge James Robart took the unusual step of issuing a emergency stay of Trump’s order as the attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota filed a lawsuit to overturn the legislation.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s order violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, including what they say is discrimination against a particular religion.

But Trump defied the order, sending a message on Twitter on Saturday.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” he wrote.



Trump Tweet-Slams ‘So-Called’ Federal Judge

President Trump fired off a series of tweets in response to a federal judge’s order on Friday blocking Trump’s ban on refugees. He then promised swift action on reversing the order.

And now there’s a full-blown war between the courts and the White House.

Here’s more from Newsmax:

In a series of angry early-morning tweets, President Donald Trump on Saturday slammed a judge’s decision to put on hold his week-old executive order preventing refugees and travelers from seven Middle East countries from coming into the United States.

Trump insisted that the “ridiculous” decision of the “so-called judge” in the case will be overturned.

Screen Shot 2017-02-04 at 9.23.50 AM

On Friday, federal judge James Robart in Seattle put a nationwide block on Trump’s order for the temporary ban. The White House responded that it believes Trump’s order to be “lawful and appropriate” and that the Department of Justice will file an emergency appeal in the matter.

Hours after Robart’s ruling, however, airlines were being told by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials that they could allow travelers from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen to board travelers affected by the ban.

Robart was appointed to the bench in the Western District of Washington by President George W. Bush in December 2003, taking the judge’s seat the following year. On Friday, he made his ruling apply nationwide; other judges issued orders concerning only specific travelers, not a blanket ruling concerning all.



Is Judge Thomas Hardiman Next in Line for SCOTUS?

With the fight over the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court coming to a boil, some are already discussing the next fight that will come over the Court should Donald Trump have the opportunity in the next four years to nominate yet another judge.

Here’s more from Newsmax:

Now that the nomination to replace Antonin Scalia has been settled — Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch landed the role — there is speculation that Judge Thomas Hardiman will be tapped as the next nominee in the event a selection is necessary.

Given the substantive backing that Judge Hardiman (of the 3rd Circuit) received from conservatives that helped make him a finalist to Gorsuch, there is already mounting speculation he will be on deck for the White House if Justice Anthony Kennedy, 80, decides to retire at the end of the court’s term this year.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer insisted that he didn’t “want to get in front of the president. [But Hardiman] continues to have the president’s support; somebody who the president was unbelievably impressed with. So we’ll have to see what vacancies come down the pike.”

“He’s an impressive, impressive jurist,” Spicer told me on Wednesday. “Obviously the four that really made that final list for the president were impressive [along with Gorsuch and Hardiman, the final four for Trump to consider included Appellate Judges Bill Pryor of Alabama and Wisconsin’s Diane Sykes].”

Hours before Trump made the Gorsuch announcement on Tuesday night, we spoke to former Pennsylvania Senator and past Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum about his vigorous support of Hardiman for the high court.

“I spoke to President Trump back in December, before he even took office about Tom,” Santorum said. “And I spoke to Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, and [Trump political operative] Dave Bossie.”



Trump Tells McConnell ‘Go Nuclear’ if Gorsuch Gets Blocked by Dems

Democrat leaders in the Senate are threatening to filibuster the confirmation of Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, despite that many of them already voted for him when he was up for the 10th Circuit Court. And now Trump is telling Senate Republican leaders to “go nuclear” if the Dems attempt to block him.

Here’s more from CNBC:

President Donald Trump said Wednesday he will urge Senate Republicans to scrap filibuster rules, or take the “nuclear option,” if Democrats in the increasingly tense chamber use them to block his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

After Trump nominated the 49-year-old conservative appellate judge to the top U.S. court Tuesday night, Democrats signaled they could delay the process. If they filibuster, Republicans, who have 52 Senate seats, would need 60 votes to confirm him unless they change the rule on the maneuver.

Trump told reporters at the White House he would encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to take that route, which would require only a simple majority.

“Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock that they’ve had in Washington, … if we end up with that gridlock, I’d say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was caught up in this web.”

Trump’s choice sets up a second straight year of bitter partisanship over the court seat, which was left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia nearly a year ago. Then-President Barack Obama nominated Washington appellate Judge Merrick Garland for the spot, but the Republican-controlled Senate never held a vote on him.

At his age, Gorsuch could help to tip the ideological balance of the court for decades. Democrats, already combative about the seat because of Garland, criticized Trump’s pick due to Gorsuch’s rulings such issues as gun rights and religious objections to a birth control coverage provision in the Affordable Care Act.



Busted: Dems Who Oppose Gorsuch Already Voted for Him

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) joined other liberal Democrats in criticizing President Trump’s selection of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court as potentially unfit.

There’s just one problem: a bunch of them already voted to confirm him to the 10th Circuit Court with no objections. Let’s see how they wiggle out of this one.

Here’s more from DC Statesman:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has already issued a statement that he has “serious doubts” over President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch:

“Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch’s ability to meet this standard,” Schumer said. “Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court.”

He then tweeted:

Screen Shot 2017-02-01 at 4.21.40 PM

He also tweeted it in Spanish, for some unknown reason.

But if he opposes his confirmation he will have to explain why Gorsuch was so popular when he was first confirmed as federal judge in 2006. He will also have to explain why Schumer voted for him then.

And Chuck Schumer wasn’t the only Democrat to vote for Neil Gorsuch, EVERY Democrat voted for him. He was unanimously confirmed to the bench:

Screen Shot 2017-02-01 at 4.22.18 PM

That included Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.

In fact, Gorsuch was one of two judges nominated by George W. Bush to be unanimously confirmed. I suspect President Trump took this into consideration when he was nominated last night. It’s hard to oppose his nomination when you are on record already having voted for him.

But it certainly is by no means impossible. Get ready for a fight.