In a ruling issued on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge, and Obama appointee, prevented the President of the United States from enforcing his own executive order to protect the nation from migrants from terror-riddled countries. The (Judicial-Activist) judge then prevented every other judge and every other state from following the President’s order, the judge making himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute President.
The judge then held that American universities and immigrants living here can prohibit America from ever limiting immigration from Muslim-heavy countries, claiming the First Amendment gives Muslim-dominant nations a right of immigration to America.
Such arrogance and abuse of authority sound familiar? Such First Amendment favoritism toward Islam sound familiar? Well, Obama did appoint this judge, and a rule of thumb with federal judges is they tend to mirror the psychologies of the man who appointed them.
The judge’s ruling is completely lawless, mirroring Obama’s deep state allies in his shadow government’s attempt to sabotage the Trump presidency. There is no precedent for the court’s order. In fact, every precedent is against the court’s order; just read the detailed logic and scholastic citation of proper governing legal authorities from the decision of a moderately liberal Boston judge who upheld every part of Trump’s prior order.
To give you an idea of how lawless the decision is, just try to find the analogous case the Hawaii judge cites for his ruling; there is none, not one single prior example of another judge ever doing what this Judge did to the extent he did it.
To give you another example of how baseless the court’s ruling is, even liberal law professors and scribes criticized the more limited Ninth Circuit decision that this Hawaii judge goes far beyond. Liberal law professor Turley noted Trump should win a challenge against that ruling. Liberal democrat professor Alan Dershowitz noted the same. Liberal law scribe Jeffrey Toobin conceded the same.
Here are a few reasons why:
First, nationwide injunctions for non-party plaintiffs are not supposed to happen. A district judge presides over his district, not the nation. He should not overrule other judges, nor dictate his opinions on the whole nation. The law does not make him a single judge Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court itself warned against issuing any relief not individually and specifically necessary to the plaintiffs before the court. Noting that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs,” the Supreme Court warned against extending its reach beyond “the particular federal plaintiffs” in the case.
|Rogue Judge Derrick Kahala Watson.|
What kind of case was that the Ninth Circuit saying not to extend your ruling beyond the plaintiffs in front of you? An immigration case (Nat’l Cir. for Immigration Rights v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984). The Ninth Circuit repeated this principle again and again. That is why the Supreme Court reversed a California judge’s order just like this Hawaii judge’s order — imposing a national ban beyond his limited district jurisdiction of the parties before him.
Second, there is no constitutional right to a visa or a right of immigration or emigration. A quick recap of key Supreme Court decisions explains why. Aliens “outside the country receive no constitutional protection.”
The Supreme Court repeatedly held an alien seeking initial admission to the United States “requests a privilege, and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.” Thus, the President “may shut out aliens” whenever the President determine such “entry would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.”
Congress expressly authorized this Presidential action in the one statute the Ninth Circuit tried to hid in its prior decision, cited above at 8 U.S.C. 1182. The actions of the President in respect of enforcing this law “are largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” This is because the Constitution entrusts “the power to regulate immigration” exclusively “to the political branches of the Federal Government.”
As the Supreme Court recently reiterated during Clinton’s presidency: judicial “deference to the Executive Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context” given the “sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations.”
Admission into America is a privilege, not a right. Congress gave the President broad statutory authority to exclude any aliens he saw fit to. A full recitation of that law is useful, because it is the one law the Hawaii judge, like the Ninth Circuit, hid from:
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.
Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
The law is clear in the power it gives the President, in the statute cited above — 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). Like the Ninth Circuit decision before, the Hawaii judge goes out of his way to pretend this statute does not exist. Indeed, it is never addressed in any real way in the court’s entire opinion (much of which appeared pre-written prior to the oral argument).
Just as we have a right to decide which strangers enter our home and who sleeps next to our daughters’ bedroom or eats our family’s food, we as a country enjoy the democratic right to decide who enters our country, who lives next to us as a neighbor, and who enjoys the fruits of our ancestral inheritance.
The Hawaii Obama judge went much further in the opposite direction: he claimed an immigrant here has a right to bring in whatever other immigrants he wants, even citizens from terror-riddled, Sharia-law-supporting, failed, corrupted states that cannot vet or screen would-be aliens entering America. Ask San Bernardino how that worked out.
Third, the First Amendment does not apply to foreign aliens. That is how we kept terror-minded anarchists out of the nation and sabotage-minded communists out of the nation. That is how every President for more than a century limited migrants based on ideology or statehood. That is why we were much more successful than Europe in limiting the anarchist-inspired violence (that led Europe into World War I) and in limiting communist internal sabotage (that led much of eastern Europe into communist totalitarianism).
Every federal court followed that process in limiting immigration from Muslim-terror nations after 9/11. This Hawaii court’s decision directly conflicts with those Circuits; but, per usual, it never even mentions any of those authorities. As the Second Circuit noted: “one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups.
The September 11 attacks were facilitated by violations of immigration laws by aliens from predominantly Muslim nations. The Program was clearly tailored to those facts.” This court’s ruling would overturn all of that, and basically claims every president since Teddy Roosevelt violated the First Amendment in our immigration policies.
Put simply, the Hawaii federal judge ruled that because the imam was Muslim and his would-be migrant visas wish-list came from Muslim-dominant nations, the First Amendment gave him a special right to bring whomever he wanted into the country, even from terror-riddled countries in security compromised states the President recognized as a direct threat to the peace of the people.
The First Amendment has never applied to a right of immigration of foreign aliens, nor does it compel religious favoritism toward Muslims. This is the new left’s interpretation of the Constitution, and it is as perilous to our politics as the deep state within and radical Islam abroad.
The Hawaii Obama judge didn’t interpret the Constitution; he rewrote it, usurping to himself the sole power to control borders, then delegated the exercise of that power to a Muslim imam and his free visa wish list. The judge dishonored the rule of law in his order and disrespected our legal traditions and governing legal authorities in his reasoning for it. He effectively declared himself king and executioner.
Meet the new left’s America: foreigners first, Muslims preferred, law last, elections irrelevant.
(Robert Barnes is a trial lawyer with high profile wins in constitutional, criminal, and civil law. You can follow him @Barnes_Law.)
“This grandstanding judicial supremacism has to stop,” wrote Roger Kimball. Indeed, it’s hard to see how the logic of this temporary restraining order would ever permit a Trump administration to have any immigration policy whatsoever with regard to majority-Muslim countries.
What’s more, the idea that these courts are putting forth that restricting entry to a country with a majority religion suggests bias against that entire religion would make any and all immigration policy unconstitutional. Very few countries don’t have a majority religion, after all.
Regardless of one’s views on the particulars of this executive order and its efficacy, the ability to determine who can enter the country is one of the most obvious and important sovereign decisions a people makes. That power is vested in the executive branch and should not be enjoined by rogue judges like judge Derrick Kahala Watson. Unelected and unaccountable judges ignoring the law in favor of their feelings is a threat to self-government and rule of law. It needs to stop.
Donald Trump Fumes Against ‘Judicial Overreach’ After Immigration Order Blocked Again: President Donald Trump fumed against a federal judge in Hawaii who blocked his second Executive Order limiting immigration into the United States from six Middle Eastern countries.
“This new order was tailored to the dictates of the Ninth Circuit’s, in my opinion, flawed ruling,” he said. “This is the opinion of many — an unprecedented judicial overreach.” Trump referred to his second attempt at an executive order as the “watered down” version, vowing to take his case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
“We are going to win,” he said. “We are going to keep our citizens safe.” Trump admitted that he didn’t want to replace his first executive order in the first place, suggesting that perhaps he would go back to the original.
“The best way to keep foreign terrorists or, as some people would say, in certain instances, radical Islamic terrorists, from attacking our country, is to stop them from entering our country in the first place,” he said as the crowd cheered. The crowd booed the ruling, which Trump said, “makes us look weak.”
Trump made his remarks during a political rally in Nashville, admitting to his fans that he had to be careful about his rhetoric or the “dishonest” media would accuse him of attacking the courts.
Derrick Kahala Watson, a district court judge, has frozen President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban nationwide just hours before it was to take effect. This came after Watson heard the state of Hawaii’s case against the ban.
Hawaii was the first state to challenge to President Trump’s new executive order, which replaced the one that was signed at the end of January but that was halted by a federal judge. The new order was specifically designed to fare better in court, but Hawaii’s lawyers argued that it is still discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Here’s what you need to know about Derrick Kahala Watson, the district court judge who froze Trump’s travel ban on Wednesday.
1. He Was Nominated by President Barack Obama in 2012
In November 2012, President Barack Obama nominated Derrick Kahala Watson to serve on the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. This came after Judge David Alan Ezra assumed senior status in June 2012. In April 2013, the Senate unanimously confirmed Watson in a 94 to 0 vote after months of delays.
2. He Previously Served as an Assistant Attorney in California & Hawaii
According to the Obama White House, Derrick Kahala Watson earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School, graduating in 1991 same year as Obama. Upon graduating, he started work at the San Francisco law firm Landels, Ripley & Diamond. He was an associate at the firm from 1991 to 1995.
From 1995 to 2000, Watson served as an assistant United States attorney in the Northern District of California. And from 1999 to 2000, he was the deputy chief of the Civil Division. In 2000, Watson joined the San Francisco law firm Farella Braun + Martel LLP, where he focused on product liability, toxic tort, and environmental cost recovery litigation.
Then, starting in 2007, Watson served as assistant United States attorney in the District of Hawaii, and in 2009 he became the chief of the Civil Division.
3. He Was the Fourth Article III Judge of Native Hawaiian Descent in U.S. History
When Derrick Kahala Watson was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, he became only the fourth person of Native Hawaiian descent to serve as an Article III judge in American history, according to the Asian Pacific American Caucus. Watson was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
At the time of Watson’s nomination, Hawaii Congresswoman and Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Judy Chu released a statement celebrating the selection. “I am thrilled that the Senate has voted to confirm Derrick Kahala Watson’s nomination to the U.S. District Court,” she said at the time.
“This decision continues a significant trend of working to ensure that our federal judiciary reflects the diversity of the American people. Judge Watson is a strong addition to the federal bench, and will surely be a great public servant for the people of Hawaii.” In addition, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said that Watson will do Hawaii proud.
“Today, Judge Watson made history,” she said in a statement. “I am confident he will serve Hawaii with distinction and honor. He has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice and fairness in our legal system. I am proud to welcome this Kamehameha Schools graduate to serve in such a prestigious capacity. We are fortunate to have someone of his stature serving on our District Court.”
Upon announcing Watson’s nomination, President Barack Obama said that the selection represents his “continued commitment to ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves.”
4. He Says That the Executive Order Was Intended to ‘Disfavor a Particular Religion’
In his decision, Watson stated that President Donald Trump’s travel ban was intended to disfavor a particular religion, even if the White House argues otherwise.
He does say that it is “undisputed” that the order does not “facially discriminate for or against any particular religion,” but he goes on to say that “Because a reasonable, objective observer – enlightened by specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance – would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs…are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.”
Those who have brought challenges to the travel ban have argued that it discriminates against Muslims and violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The original travel ban called for religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries to receive special treatment, but this was removed in the second version of the order so that there is no longer any reference to religion.
Overall, Watson says that the new order isn’t any less unconstitutional than the old one, though he specifies that it isn’t as if the administration could never put a similar order in place and have it be found constitutional.
“Here, it is not the case that the Administration’s past conduct must forever taint any effort by it to address the security concerns of the nation,” Watson writes in his decision. “Based upon the current record available, however, the Court cannot find actions taken during the interval between revoked Executive Order No. 13,769 and the new Executive Order to be ‘genuine changes in constitutionality significant conditions.'”
Watson quotes from the 10th Circuit’s decision; they said that any future travel ban should be “be purposeful enough for an objective observer to know, unequivocally, that the government does not endorse religion. It should be public enough so that people need not burrow into a difficult-to-access legislative record for evidence to assure themselves that the government is not endorsing a religious view.”
5. He Cited Donald Trump’s Past Comments in His Decision
In his decision on Wednesday, Watson took into account past statements that Donald Trump has made as proof that his executive order is a Muslim ban, saying that this is vital context and that he need not only rely on the actual text of the order.
For instance, Watson quotes from a Trump press release from December 2015 which reads, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States…”
Watson also quotes from some of Donald Trump’s advisors like Rudy Giuliani, who said in a Fox News interview in January 2017 that Trump asked him to come up with a way to legally ban Muslims from the United States.
Giuliani explained, “I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'”
Watson also quoted Stephen Miller, a White House senior advisor who said in February that this new travel ban will have “the same basic policy outcome” as the first one, which suggests to Watson that the order has not fundamentally changed and is still as unconstitutional as it was before.
In addition, Watson quotes from a March 2016 interview in which Donald Trump says, “I think Islam hates us.” Trump went on to say in that interview that “there’s tremendous hatred” and that “we have to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful.”
Watson says in his decision that these “plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose.” Watson also says that any reasonable person would conclude that the order’s stated secular purpose is secondary to its goal of suspending Muslim immigration.
Finally, Judge Watson rejected the White House’s argument that the travel ban is not discriminatory because it only affects six countries. “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson writes. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”
An unannounced trip that Barack Obama took to Hawaii just days before a ruling from a Honolulu federal judge on Donald Trump's new immigration restrictions has lead to accusations of improper meddling as observers noted that Obama at one point may have been within five minutes of U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson's house.
Related posts at following links:
Egyptian-Muslim Imam Suing President Trump For New Muslim Ban