10 Disturbing Facts About the Travel Ban and Court Cases

Title: 10 Disturbing Facts You Should Understand About the Travel Ban and Dramatic Court Cases [Judicial Activism]

Many people are confused about the controversial court proceedings on President Trump’s travel moratorium.

Here is what you should know, that you won’t hear or see on the biased media or fake online news.

1. Judicial activists try to stop President Trump’s executive order. Following a lawsuit from the Washington State Attorney general, a Washington State federal judge decided to impose his own opinion on America by putting a halt on President Trumps temporary travel ban from 7 terrorist–infested countries.

The President has a constitutional right to protect America. A judge decided to interfere.

2. What is a judicial activist?

Many judges are not interested in interpreting and applying the law. They are political opportunists with a political agenda. They are “judicial activists”: they legislate from the bench, and impose their own values on us all.

3. Is there a national danger to our security for the country?

President Trump signed the executive order to temporarily delay travel while he instituted extreme vetting.

Why?

Because it’s too easy to come into the United States, and terrorists can take advantage of the lax enforcement.

During the first hearing his court, Federal Judge James Robart asked the government attorney, “How many arrests have been made on refugees from the seven countries?” The judge lied when he answered his own question: “none.”

Here’s a short list:

• Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to conspiracy to support the Islamic State.
• a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University.
• Another Somali refugee attacked nine Americans with a knife at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
• And at least 73 more cases like the ones above.

It’s the duty of the President to protect us. It’s not the duty of the federal courts to make travel policy.

4. The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals: Who are they?

The next higher court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is now hearing the case.

The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most judicially activist court in the United States. The federal district covers the following states and territories:

• Alaska
• Arizona
• California
• Guam
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Montana
• Nevada
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Oregon
• Washington

This is the court which decided that the phrase “Under God” in our national Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional … a decision overturned by the Supreme Court.

In fact, 79% of all 9^th Circuit rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court, they are so radically liberal.

5. To the Supreme Court? President Trump will appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court. If the case goes to the Supreme Court, there is a good chance that the Judicial activists will agree and deadlock against the 4 more conservative justices. A 4-4 split at the Supreme Court will let the lower court decision stand.

Unless the US Senate confirms Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. He believes in a strict constructionist approach to the United States Constitution. He will support the President’s executive order.

6. What are the main issues in the current appeals?

The opponents of the temporary refugee stay claim:

• This ban imposes a religious test on travelers (It doesn’t)
• The ban is an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment Rights (Nope)
• The President does not have the authority to issue a temporary ban on immigration (Yes, he does)
• Only a judicial activist imposing his political views could oppose the ban … a judge interpreting the law would support it.

7. What questions did the 9^th Circuit Judges and the Supreme Court Justices ask?

So far, the Justice Department attorney largely did a poor job. He  focused on the President’s constitutional authority to issue the ban, but he tripped up when the judges questioned whether refugees from those seven countries had committed crimes in this country.

The attorneys for Washington State, representing those who oppose the ban, had to explain to the panel of three judges why Trump’s order is a “Muslim ban.” The judges were really unhappy that the lawsuit had contended that it targeted all Muslims, when the ban only targeted 7 countries, which only impacts about 13% of the Muslim world.

8. What is the key judicial issue for discussion? Vice President Mike Pence said it very well: it’s not a court’s job to govern the national security of our country—nor should a judge be privy to classified information on how the President runs foreign policy.

But more pertinent to the facts of the case, the President has the authority to suspend immigration from any country. President Obama did that 19 times!

Let’s not forget that ISIS has publicly called for jihadists to infiltrate and attack America. Our military and national security forces should not ignore these lethal threats.

Remember, Trump’s executive order is based on common sense:

1. A temporary pause on refugees and those traveling to America from 7 failed states overrun with terrorists—and with no possibility of proper screening.
2. Time to create extreme vetting to make sure that you, your family, and everyone else in your community is safe.
3. Calls to prioritize and protect Christians and other religious minorities targeted for genocide.

Judicial restraint or activism? (Credit: FrontPageMag)

9. Are we safe now? Donald Trump did not campaign on false fear-mongering about the existential threat posed by ISIS and Islamic terrorism around the world.

The jihadists are at war with us. Terror at anytime, anywhere is real.

See the list above in #3 for the growing threat to this country from terrorists posing as refugees or students or visitors. Consider also that the 9-11 hijackers had overstayed their visas when they committed their horrific act of terror.

The current vetting process is not effective, and the Obama Administration did very little fix the problem.

The fact is that we are still not safe.

10. Time to stop judicial activism. There are two clear steps which we need to see in order to stop this destructive, dangerous judicial activism:

1. President Trump must appoint strict constructionists to all federal courts, not just the Supreme Court.
2. End the unreasonable “for life” appointments. Congress should set a retirement age for 70 years.

This county has battled judicial activism for decades. These liberal rulings upend the rule of law and put Americans’ lives in danger. We need to stand with the President’s travel ban and demand that he appoint federal judges who will interpret the law, uphold our Constitution, and protect our life and liberties.

Let me know what you think. Email me at craig@craighuey.com

Read another article: Supreme Court Bombshell: 2 Historic Decisions … The Travel Ban And Religious Freedom