Judge Andrew Napolitano isn’t mincing his words in describing the actions of the liberal activist Seattle judge, saying, “We have a federal district court judge in Seattle who basically second-guessed the President on the wisdom and propriety of the President’s executive order. And that is absolutely not the job of federal judges in our society.”
Napolitano says, “The law on which President Trump relied is crystal clear. A 1952 statute which says, just as John Roberts read from the government’s brief, that the president of the United States has the authority to suspend any immigration of an individual or a group or a class of people, for public health, public safety or national security. It’s not the President and the courts, it’s not the President and the Congress. It’s the President alone.”
Martha MacCallum advances the argument of those opposing the President, that “they are paying more attention to the 1965 law, which says that the President or the country can’t discriminate against immigrants based upon race, nationality or place of birth.” Judge Napolitano says that the President can discriminate on the basis of geography if he makes a finding that people from a geographical area are more likely than not to contain people to harm us. And the President can always discriminate for a short period of time in order to put into place more stringent vetting procedures, where people will be identified and examined on an individual rather than on a group basis, which is basically what President Trump said in that executive order.”
Judge Napolitano expects a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court on Wednesday, as “this is a court that is required to write its decisions and I think they know that the losing side is going to appeal this to the Supreme Court. My view is the President is so much in the right, the states are so much in the wrong, they don’t even have the standing to sue, meaning they can only sue if they have been harmed and they haven’t. They are claiming that people that live in those states are harmed and it’s the obligation of those alleging harm to sue.”
He contends, “But if the Justice Department wins and the states of Washington and Minnesota appeal to the Supreme Court, I don’t think the Supreme Court will hear it. But if the states win and the Justice Department appeals to the Supreme Court, I think the Supreme Court will hear it. Because the Supreme Court is interested in the orderly administration of governmental function and this is profoundly disorderly, for a single federal judge to stop the President from examining people with more care as they enter the country.”
Please like Rick on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/brick.wells.3 and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar I’m also at Stop The Takeover, https://www.facebook.com/StopTheTakeover/ and please follow on Twitter @RickRWells.