The most puzzling thing about the Donald’s capitulation to the Seattle judge, and the consequent insufferable reaction of the leftist press, e.g. the BBC, was on what safe ground he would be if he just said he was going ahead.
I and many others have been quoting USC8 Section 1182(f), which gives him all the ammunition he needs. American Thinker has an article on it, which Chuckles called “viewpoints”, his way of saying he did not fully accept it. However, the writer has certainly summed it up:
1] The standards for granting a temporary restraining order are quite high.
2] The plaintiffs here aren’t even the people from the excluded countries. They are the states of Washington and Minnesota, who claim that their citizens will be harmed if the temporary ban is not lifted.
3] President Trump clearly has discretion to decide whom to admit to the United States and whom not to [the USC8 Section 1182(f)]
4] [He] has the right to exclude people from a certain country, or even a certain religion.
5] It is clearly not a “Muslim ban,” because so many Muslim countries are excluded from it.
6] Presidents are traditionally given wide latitude by courts in matters of national security.
7] It is highly questionable whether federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions.
Therefore at most, Judge Robart should have stayed his decision pending appeal to circuit courts.
The sheer brazen gall of the man showed he was certainly not alone in doing this – there is a far bigger game going on and perhaps that’s what they’re studying at the WH during this weekend – what the bigger game is.
I’m going to throw in now comments from Chuckles:
They can issue injunctions on just about anything. A closer look almost always shows it’s pure waffle, amounting to – ‘perhaps we should have a closer look at all of this, examine all the facts, consult all the stakeholders, mumble,mumble mumble’.
It lasts till it gets to a higher court, who simply assert as you do, that the President has the right to do so by proclamation, which he has done. There is no requirement to do any consulting. Equally, the order can be ignored, as the original proclamation is legal and constitutional.
Many non-Americans (and many lefty Americans for that matter) have a great deal of difficulty in getting their heads around the utter separation of power in the US. Unlike other countries, when the House makes the law, like immigration law, the responsibility for implementing that is not handed over to a minister of State or Immigration, all executive power is vested directly in the President, and he, and only he, has the absolute power to implement everything in any law of the land.
In practice, of course, he appoints lackeys to do the grunt work. But the idea that a court of law can prevent him from doing anything at all, is a lefty delusion, as that power is limited to actions that are outside the law as written, or unconstitutional, which is why they always hand-wave and mutter that it ‘might’ be so, and attempt to use judicial activism, and constitutional ‘penumbras’ to make it so.
And, of course, the above power of the president includes much of the detail of the execution of the laws, which is where the president’s executive orders come from, where he can decree pretty much anything he desires.
The effectiveness and lifetime of these decrees are always dependent on whether the actions decreed are lawful – i.e. actually execute something contained in a law passed by Congress, and Constitutional.
In practice, if Congress is unhappy with an Executive Order, they would pass a law negating it, but here they are also subject to the Constitution and accusations of Congressional overreach if they try to legislate executive action.
Similarly the Judicial oversight is limited to legality or constitutionality.
What I get out of all that and from things I collated earlier today, is that this is certainly judicial overreach, something they’ve tried since the 60s and one of the issues of the American system. Quite a few commenters have mentioned that this is but one way they’re trying to get the Donald to overreact, which would lose the moderates who voted Trump and those who are giving him the benefit of the doubt. This is why the extremes of violence in the protests and the constant, organized, paid-for marches around the world.
For if he once showed he was building a stable administration, adhering to the law to the utmost, they would be dead in the water. So they must create the illusion of complete chaos and resistance to a Tyrant.
Into this, I’d like to insert this two hour vid by Ann Barnhardt:
… which clearly you can’t watch now but it will reinforce much of this. I’d also like to throw in some comments from one person on the article at AT:
President Trump is in the process of restoring American institutions and values intentionally devalued the past eight years. Ignoring the rule of law and the federal judiciary, even on a minor matter such as this temporary stay, could have the unintended effect of arming his adversaries.
I see this as intentionally provocative in a desperate attempt to get President Trump to overreact. This will play out in Trump’s favor. But, a hearing must be held–thats why the injunction is temporary. The government hasn’t been heard from yet. Note this ruling issued on a Friday afternoon with two days of closed federal courts.
He points out that it is indeed a game going on, for high stakes, then adds:
I’m not so sure the District Court Judge will stand on his temporary injunction after the government defends it’s E.O. at hearing in a few days.
Bringing the England/France rugby into it, once England had the power at the end, it was critical they made no new wild plays, that they ‘parked the bus’. Trump’s administration is ensconced, they have or will have both houses, they do not have the judiciary as yet. They will have SCOTUS but will still not be able to replace everyone at lower level in all courts.
This was a shot across the bows by the enemy who chose Seattle, as far from Washington as possible, from which the first attack would come. The Donald can stand on his undoubted right and play to the accusations of Executive Rule, something which got Andrew Johnson impeached … or he can hope that any challenge is referred to SCOTUS, which makes it all highly public and each judge’s vote would be exposed for all to see.
The Donald’s natural reaction came out through his tweets and it was savage, as ours was, as most commenters were. The calmer heads tried to rein him in for now and explained why.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the big one, in a similar way to which the Tories stymied UKIP and then destabilized them through agents Carswell and Evans, then turned to Labour and wrecked them. There is every chance, if they play their cards right, that they can blunt all judicial attacks long enough to take over all functions of State.
In a broad sense, this Robart was the UK’s Gina Miller, a front for the real power.
You might call that unhealthy in principle and it might be so but better it’s our sorts of values entrenched than the other.
This is why the play out there feels so end-game to me, it feels like they see everything slipping away now. They can only provoke and hope for a reaction from either the administration or from us. I’m not speaking only of the GOP/Dem thing, it is the things spoken of by Ann Barnhardt as well. This is civilization at stake.
Should they bump off the Donald, should they bump off Pence, I believe the next in line would continue the same path. On the other hand, it worried me, in the primaries, how Pence was so pally with Ryan, whom we know has been Soros-funded. Tillerson too is a worry.
That we can’t concern ourselves with for now. The major task is to kill off the left and PCishness, to see what the enemy comes up with after that.