DOJ petitioned the US Supreme Court on Thursday to reinstate President Trump’s extreme vetting policy, which was blocked by injunction by three federal judges, all of whom have proven to be robed political hacks for the Democrat Party, two of them from the famed far left Ninth Circuit.
All three judges usurped the executive authority of the President of the United States, effectively appointing themselves President, clearly impeachable offenses, in my opinion.
One of the judges who ruled against President Trump’s extreme vetting policy was not only a partisan Democrat but also a bundler/fundraiser for the Democrat Party, while another, Derrick Watson, had dinner with Harvard classmate Barack Hussein the night before he ruled to block President Trump’s executive authority. Pictured above are
Judge partisan political hack Watson and his wife with Hussein at Noi Thai restaurant in Honolulu the night before the Judge’s partisan political hack’s ruling.
I think it is clear that President Trump did not file this petition earlier with the Supreme Court as Neil Gorsuch had not yet been seated. With Gorsuch now on the bench, the likelihood of a favorable ruling is far more probable.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the president was acting within his national security powers when he issued his executive order in March halting admissions of most visitors from six majority-Muslim countries with ties to terrorism, and pausing admissions of refugees, according to The Washington Times.
“We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the Nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement announcing the filing.
Federal courts in Hawaii and Maryland have blocked various parts of the executive orders. The Maryland judge’s decision has since been upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while the 9th Circuit is considering an appeal of the Hawaii judge’s ruling.
The Trump administration has asked the justices to take the case and swiftly erase both injunctions, allowing the policy to take effect.
Justice Department lawyers said Congress has granted the president wide latitude to decide who is allowed to be admitted to the U.S.
But judges — primarily those appointed by Democratic presidents — have faulted Mr. Trump for his campaign rhetoric promising a ban on Muslims, saying that even though the current order is not such a ban, the “animus” then-candidate Trump showed toward a religion still taints his actions today.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the court made a mistake by “attempting to delve into the president’s supposed true motives, and pointed to the president’s speech last week in Saudi Arabia where “decried ‘the murder of innocent Muslims.’”
In petitioning the high court, Mr. Trump sets up the first major test for newly installed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The case is also likely to be a challenge for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who famously upheld Obamacare by refusing to look at President Obama’s rhetoric insisting the law wasn’t a tax. Instead, the Chief Justice, joined by four Democratic-appointed justices, said the law on its face was a tax, so it was constitutional under the federal government’s taxing power.
In the case of the vetting order, Mr. Trump argues that regardless of campaign rhetoric, his latest version was carefully drawn to meet courts’ demands, and is on its face legal.
The revised order would put a 90-day halt to most admissions of visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — each country that was initially identified by Mr. Obama and the previous Congress as needing special scrutiny.
The revised order also imposes a 120-day pause on refugee admissions.