Attorney General Jeff Sessions seems to have gotten the message at least when it comes to the travel ban, having now had enough of the game playing of the left and their unabashed obstruction of President Trump’s agenda.
Sessions responded to the latest interference on behalf of the Obama deep state shadow government their operative, planted choom buddy and so-called Hawaii District Court Judge Derrick Watson. Watson dictated to the President, DOJ and DHS how they will interpret the meaning of the word “bona-fide” as it relates to the a personal relationship in the application of the terrorist travel ban executive order.
AG Sessions, rather than going through the pointless process of filing an appeal to the libtards of the Ninth Circuit, Watson and Obama allies, has gone straight to the Supreme Court. On Friday Sessions asked them to block Watson’s dictate that prevents the Trump administration from enforcing the travel ban in the manner in keeping with the Supreme Court ruling and also for some clarification.
In its motion the DOJ stated, “The district court’s interpretation of this Court’s June 26, 2017, stay ruling distorts this Court’s decision and upends the equitable balance this Court struck.” They specifically asked for relief from two flawed aspects of the Waikiki Watson’s “ruling.”
First, “The district court’s categorical holding that the Order may not be applied to any refugee applicant as to whom the Department of State has obtained a contractual commitment from a resettlement agency — which includes every refugee permitted to enter the United States — effectively eviscerates this Court’s ruling partially staying the injunction as to Sections 6(a) and 6(b).”
Second, “the district court’s sweeping interpretation of ‘close familial relationship’ to encompass a wide range of distant relatives — including cousins, uncles, and siblings-in-law — effectively eliminates the ‘close’ requirement and has no basis in this Court’s ruling or the INA.” [Immigration and Naturalization Act]
They also appealed Watson’s Thursday ruling, saying, “Out of an abundance of caution, to ensure that there is no impediment to this Court’s prompt resolution of this issue, the government has also filed today a notice of appeal of the district court’s decision modifying its injunction.”
Sessions noted that it has been following the balanced approach ordered by the Justices but their leftist opposition has chosen to defy the Supreme Court, writing, “respondents pressed further in an effort to strip this Court’s stay of significant practical consequence. The district court [Watson] adopted both of respondents’ arguments, and denied the government’s request for a stay pending this Court’s review. The government therefore is left to seek this Court’s immediate intervention.”
The motion added, “First, for aliens abroad who seek admission as refugees, this Court held that the suspension in Section 6(a) of the Order and the annual cap in Section 6(b) ‘may not be enforced against an individual * * * who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.’”
DOJ went on to explain that since the “refugee” agreements are between the federal government and the refugee agency, and the relationship with the individual occurs after the foreigner actually arrives in the US, it is inapplicable. They also note that since this is the situation for every foreign “refugee” from the affected nations, the government’s ability to deny entry to those foreigners is effectively eliminated by the interpretation of Waikiki Watson as well as the authority of the President usurped.
They also argued that the government’s interpretation of “a close familial relationship” with a U.S. individual is more broad than the waiver provision included in the order, Section 3(c)(iv). Those family members were specified as being “a spouse, child or parent in the United States.” The Trump administration expanded that to include siblings, fiances, parents-in-law and children-in-law.
They write that the Watson interpretation includes grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law and argue that it empties the Court’s decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just “close” family members, but virtually all family members. Treating all of these relationships as “close familial relationship[s]” reads the term “close” out of the Court’s decision.
He also made it clear that Watson removed the Supreme Court from the decision and inserted himself in their place. We’ll see how well that aspect of this Obama tool’s actions sits with the Justices.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.