I am so grateful to my friend from California. We have
traveled around the world and stood for people who weren't able to
stand for themselves, and I look forward to continue doing that. Just to continue on, Ken Klukowski has a terrific article, ``Travesty
of Legal Errors in Immigration EO Lawsuit.'' It is a great article
pointing out problems with Judge Robart's decision. Then, this article from Hans von Spakovsky on February 6 from Daily
Signal, he points out:
``This fact is obvious from an examination of his seven-page order,
which contains absolutely no discussion whatsoever of what law or
constitutional provision the president has supposedly violated. That
temporary restraining order is now on an emergency appeal before a
panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.''
It contrasts a 21-page opinion issued by Massachusetts District Court
Judge Nathaniel Gorton. ``Unlike Robart, who totally ignored the
federal statute, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), cited by Trump in his executive
order, Gorton bases his decision denying the temporary restraining
order on an examination of the extensive power given to the president
under that statute. . . . ''
The article goes on: ``That is exactly what the president has done.''
Whether you agree or disagree, he had the power to do it. The order signed on January 27 on Protecting the Nation From Foreign
Terrorist Entry into the United States suspends for only 90 days,
unlike the 180 days President Obama did for Iran, the issuance of visas
to anyone--not Muslims--just to anyone from those countries of concern
as classified by the Obama administration. And then Gorton goes on to make further notes, saying ``the decision
to prevent aliens from entering the country is a `fundamental sovereign
attribute' realized through the legislative and executive branches that
is `largely immune from judicial control.' ''
And then it goes on in this article to quote the Supreme Court.
``Robart's opinion ends with a claim that seems like a joke.
``He says that `fundamental' to his work is `a vigilant recognition
that--the court--is but one of three equal branches of our federal
government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the
wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches.
``Instead, says Robart, his job is `limited' to `ensuring that the
actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country's law,
and more importantly, our Constitution.' ''
That shows that he intentionally and knowingly abused his authority
as a judge by not citing either one.
Keywords matched
visas Immigration