In his book, Men in Black, Mark Levin wrote, “Judicial activists are nothing short of radicals in robes–contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, and using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society. In fact, no radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. . . Such is the nature of judicial tyranny.”
Such judicial activism was displayed this past February, by U.S. District Judge James Robart and the 9th Circuit Court in their rulings on Trump’s first travel ban. The court blocked its implementation, which temporality halted all refugee admissions from seven countries. The reason given for the ban was to give the U.S. government more time to properly vet individuals who may threaten national security.
Federal Law grants the President the authority to require such a ban. Federal Immigration Law Section 1182(f), states: “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 interests of 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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” This seems to give the President legal authority to ban travel from certain countries.
However, the courts did not agree. In a unanimous ruling the 9th Circuit Court halted the temporary travel ban. One reason stated by the Court was that the order did not provide “what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.”
It seems as if this “activist court” was more concerned with people from other countries than they are with the safety and welfare of the citizens of the United States. Which begs the question, Do, ‘all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants have due process rights?” According to the Court, the answer is yes.
Now here we go again. This past week, President Trump’s revised travel ban was rolled out. Like before, it was DOA. Judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked its implementation. In Hawaii, Judge Derrick Watson ruled that a reasonable person, “would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.” Also, in Maryland U. S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang, was convinced that the travel band was a Muslim ban, pointing to Trump’s campaign statements as proof.
There is news the Administration will challenge the ruling in Maryland in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Virginia.
Assuredly the Left is going to challenge, in the courts, every action the Administration takes. Many issues will find their way to the Supreme Court. These rulings reinforce the urgent need for President Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court to be quickly approved by the Senate. On March 20, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to begin hearings on the Neil Gorsuch nomination.
As Larry Arnn, writing for Hillsdale College, acknowledges, “Donald Trump’s nominees could keep the court split or they could tip the court back toward limited constitutional government for an entire generation. An opportunity exists to undo the Progressive judicial activism that has undermined our Constitution the past century. This court’s docket will certainly include controversial issues–such as Obamacare and immigration–and Donald Trump’s nominees will play an important role in the direction of our country.”
