Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 9      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 
Courting disaster -- Supreme Court decides against homeland security

pic393.jpg
Jihadi Judge and Obama deep state plant Derrick Watson with "a like-minded" individual

Michael Cutler (FrontPage) says that within days of taking office President Trump issued an Executive Order that would, among other actions temporarily, suspend the entry into the United States, of citizens of seven countries that are associated with terrorism and/or are unwilling or unable to verify the identities and backgrounds of their citizens.

Those countries were: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. 

In this dangerous era it is difficult to prevent the entry of foreign terrorists from many countries. However, when it is impossible ascertain the true identities or previous affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations for aliens seeking entry, our government is forced to "fly blind" in a storm.

Trump's Executive Order was issued to provide the U.S. government with an opportunity to attempt to develop a means of properly vetting aliens from these countries and was entirely consistent with long-standing immigration laws, specifically with Section (f) of 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens).

This statute has been used by previous presidents to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

Terrorists certainly fall into that category.

Here is the relevant paragraph:

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.

Subsequently, the Trump administration eliminated Iraq from the list of countries and "tweaked" his executive order that has been largely described in the media as a "Travel Ban" for the citizens of "Six Muslim Majority Countries."  The media, out of an apparent desire to obfuscate the purpose of this Executive Order, has assiduously ignored the actual title of the Executive Order, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States which concisely articulates the purpose of that Executive Order, a purpose that is now blithely being ignored by the media and some federal judges.

Nevertheless, on June 26, 2017 the Supreme Court decision inexplicably exempted aliens from the Executive Order who had "bona fide relationships" with close family members or entities in the United States. Here are two relevant paragraphs from the Supreme Court decision:

For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe's wife or Dr. Elshikh's mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO-2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.

An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security.

Begrudgingly the Supreme Court noted "the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security" when aliens have no connection to the U.S.

Does that mean terrorists who have relationships in the U.S. are welcome to enter?

"…the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security" is not a suggestion or an option but an absolute mandate.

The legal attack Presidential authority to safeguard national security did not end there.

Hawaii Federal Judge Derrick Watson decided that the notion of "familial relationships" should be expanded, as was reported on July 14th by NBC News: Federal Judge Loosens ‘Travel Ban' Restrictions to Exempt Grandparents, Others.  Here is the relevant excerpt from that report:

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson wrote in a ruling that the government's interpretation of those qualifying for an exemption to the travel restrictions is too narrow.

"The Government's definition represents the antithesis of common sense," Watson said in his ruling. "Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents."

Watson ruled the government cannot use a main provision of the travel ban to exclude "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States."

Unbelievably, the Supreme Court, in a five to three decision, agreed with Judge Derrick Watson to expand the familial relationships with persons already in the United States.

Here are the true issues ignored by the media and some judges:

First and foremost, by focusing on the issue of "bona fide relationships" with persons and entities, an irrelevant issue, the true issue, national security, the sole purpose behind the Executive Order, is purposefully and blatantly ignored.

Most terrorists have relatives. Brothers have convinced their siblings to engage in terror attacks. Consider the infamous Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the deadly terror attack at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.

Sometimes entire families have close relationships with terrorist organizations.

On April 28, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about the San Bernardino terror attack, "3 people tied to shooter in San Bernardino terrorist attack arrested on federal conspiracy, marriage fraud and false statement charges." 

The terminology "Persons already in the United States" would apparently not limit this exemption to claimed family members of America  citizens but to aliens who managed to enter the Untied States previously.

Without a reliable means of vetting these aliens to determine their true identitied, there would be no reliable way to know if they truly have relatives in the United States.

Even DNA testing would be worthless when dealing with in-laws and purported members of the extended family members.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling that provided exclusions for aliens with "bona fide relationships" with entities that include schools and employers ignores that a significant number of terrorists have attended school in the United States and/or had jobs that enabled them to effectively embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

The day before a terrorist participates in an attack he/she is likely to hide in plain sight by going to his job or by attending classes.

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title "Immigration Benefits" of the official report 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel - Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

On March 19, 2002, I testified at a Congressional hearing on the topic, "INS'S March 2002 Notification Of Approval Of Change Of Status For Pilot Training For Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta And Marwan Al-Shehhi."  Back then members of Congress, from both parties, demanded our immigration laws be enforced to prevent future attacks.

That was then, this is now:

The July 13, 2017 Breitbart article, Indian Student Pleads Guilty to Federal Judge Murder Plot, included these paragraphs:

Yahya Farooq Mohammad, 39, came to the U.S. originally on a student visa. Mohammad was attending Ohio State University when he and three other Muslim men, all of which are foreign nationals, were charged with attempting to send money to a leader of the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda, Breitbart News previously reported.

While in prison and awaiting trial, Mohammad told another inmate of his plans to murder U.S. Federal Judge James Knepp, the man overseeing his court case, according to the Associated Press.

"Family reunification" has been one of the emotional arguments exploited by the open-borders immigration anarchists and now it is being exploited by federal judges and even the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is time to contemplate the suffering of American families who will never be re-united with their loved ones - the families ripped apart by the deaths of their loved ones at the hands of international terrorists and transnational criminals whose presence in the United States ultimately cost their family members their lives.

These families will never be "reunited."

The famed playwright, George Bernard Shaw's lamented, "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."

Our government must, for once and for all, learn the lessons of the past to prevent tragedies, atrocities and carnage in the future.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

Obama-appointed rogue judge refuses to comply with Trump executive order

pic377.jpg

Truth Feed News says our judicial system is in crisis.

Rogue local judges have become political activists, serving as martyrs for Obama instead of doing their job.

In a sane world, this disgrace of a judge who is defying a clear Trump executive order, would be immediately removed from his position for insubordination and should lose all credentials.

From FoxNews:

In a seeming act of defiance toward the Trump administration, a federal judge in San Francisco has refused to reinstate the president's sanctuary cities order.

The bold move to not reinstate President Donald Trump's executive order -- which sought to slash funding to cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities -- comes amid a battle between the State Department and local governments across the country over the edict from Washington.

The U.S. Department of Justice had asked U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick to reverse his own injunction in April against Trump's executive order. The injunction was issued in response to lawsuits by San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote a memo in May saying the executive order should be applied narrowly to a small number of grants and to very specific violations of immigration law. The memo said cities that "willfully refuse to comply" with federal law could lose grants from the Justice and Homeland Security departments, but not other federal funding.

The Justice Department said the memo negated the need for Orrick's injunction.

Orrick said he found Sessions' memo unconvincing, asserting it would allow the attorney general to reverse his stand at any moment.

The judge's injunction stops enforcement of the executive order across the country, and allows the lawsuits to go forward.

Orrick's refusal to reverse it strikes another blow to Trump's attempt to punish cities that give safe haven to those in the country illegally.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

High Court overrules leftist judicial insanity

pic161.jpg

Joseph Klein (FrontPage) says the Supreme Court has restored a measure of sanity to the judiciary. On Monday, it overruled significant portions of the decisions of two of the country's most liberal federal appeals courts, enjoining the implementation of President Donald Trump's 90 day suspension of travel from six terrorist prone countries and 120 day suspension on the entry of all refugees. 

The Supreme Court handed the president a partial victory, but a victory nonetheless. His second executive order temporarily suspending travel from Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Libya and Syria, pending an executive department review of current vetting procedures, has now been cleared to go into effect immediately, except as to visitors with "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." It is expected to actually take effect within 72 hours from the date of the Supreme Court's decision.

The "bona fide relationship" caveat raises some concerns about potential loopholes. For example, the Supreme Court indicated in its ruling that a "foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, clearly has such a relationship." The Court also stated that an individual with a documented job offer from an American company, a student accepted by an American university or a lecturer invited to address an American audience would presumably qualify as having "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." Jihadists could exploit such pathways to entry. On the other hand, a non-profit organization in the United States devoted to immigration issues cannot simply contact an individual in one of the designated countries, add that person to its client list and then try to create the appearance of a bona fide relationship after the fact. Despite the inherent difficulties in distinguishing legitimate claims from false ones and opening the door potentially to the entry of some jihadists in the process, the practical likelihood of harm is small in the time remaining during which the suspension will still be in effect. And despite the caveat, the Supreme Court has still set an important precedent for establishing the legal scope of broad presidential powers in controlling the influx of refugees and other migrants into the country in the interest of national security. The message to the lower courts so quick to strike down whatever President Trump proposed is not to so injudiciously overstep their bounds in the future.    

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the merits of the case this October, assuming it does not regard the case as moot because the suspension period will likely be over by then. 

President Trump issued a statement declaring that the Supreme Court's decision "allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland." 

This case never should have had to go to the Supreme Court in the first place. The pretexts used by the lower courts to block President Trump's executive orders, both the original one and a modified version tailored to meet certain objections from the 9thCircuit Court of Appeals, were completely bogus. 

President Trump acted well within his constitutional and statutory authority to issue both of his executive orders. "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty," the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. "The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power."

Congress reaffirmed the president's power with respect to decisions excluding aliens in the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), which was originally enacted in 1952, and has been amended several times, including in 1996. The following language has remained intact: "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." (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).

Both of President Trump's executive orders, in the interest of protecting national security, directed changes to the policy and process of admitting non-citizens into the United States, particularly from countries known to be havens for terrorists. They were intended to provide a period of review for relevant agencies to evaluate current procedures and to propose and implement new procedures. 

The lower courts that blocked President Trump's executive orders from going into effect replaced his judgment with their own, despite lacking access to the kind of classified information on threats to national security that the president of the United States has at his disposal. The president has great latitude in this area and does not have to satisfy a burden of proof to the courts that his policy judgment is correct. The lower courts demanding such proof violated the separation of powers by intruding into areas that are clearly within the president's domain. They did so on the spurious grounds that President Trump's orders discriminated against Muslims and were motivated by his alleged anti-Muslim animus. 

While the six affected countries in the second executive order are all Muslim majority countries, they represent only six out of the 56 Muslim majority countries that belong to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The vast majority of the world's Muslim population are not at all affected. Non-Muslims as well as Muslims in the six designated countries would be affected by the travel suspension, however. The countries themselves were selected on the basis of their being nurturing grounds for the export of terrorism, a perfectly rational basis to distinguish one country from another for the purposes of national security. 

As Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote, while commenting on the Supreme Court's decision allowing parts of President Trump's second executive travel suspension order to go forward now pending further consideration on the merits, "a ban that applies to countries that have a serious problem vetting potential terrorists would be valid even if all of those countries had Muslim majorities.  The president has a right to focus on Islamic terrorism as a primary source of danger to Americans, and Islamic terrorism comes disproportionately from Muslim majority countries."

President Trump's travel suspension orders evidenced no invidious discrimination on their face. Moreover, whatever the president said as a candidate regarding his thinking about Muslims is irrelevant when determining the legality of what he actually did as president. According to Professor Dershowitz, who predicts that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide for the most part in President Trump's favor on the merits of the case, at least with respect to persons with no existing connection to the United States, "The high court will recognize the implications of striking an otherwise legitimate ban because of what a president said when he was a candidate.  To follow the lower court reasoning, the very same ban could be constitutional if issued by one president and unconstitutional if issued by another.  That is not the way the law generally operates in this country."

All in all, the Supreme Court's decision to allow President Trump's travel suspension order to go forward immediately for the most part vindicated the principle of separation of powers and served the best interests of the nation in helping to protect the country's security.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

Today's Supreme Court announcements on decisions

The Supreme Court is set to announce decisions on last cases before summer recess.

Should include Trump's travel ban.

Here's the Twitter feed . . .

Update:  Supreme Court will review Trump travel ban in October -- allows it to take effect this week!

The action today is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency. All nine judges ruled in favor of it.

Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by the Court.

Reinstates Trump's travel ban unless you have a relative inside the U.S. or other special circumstances.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #5 

Famous Harvard law professor educates the anti-Trumpers at CNN


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

SCOTUS requests Trump visa restriction challengers file legal responses by Monday, June 12th

pic1025.jpg

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that President Trump has requested the Supreme Court grant an expedited review of lower court rulings that have blocked the temporary travel restrictions and visa bans.

pic1027.jpg

The Supreme Court justices have now asked challengers to the Trump Executive Order to file their responses to the petition for review (the requests for stays of the lower courts’ rulings).  Those responses are due on or before 3 p.m. Monday, June 12.

pic1026.jpg

At least four of the above, will vote against the implementation of Trump's travel ban.

And it won't have anything to do with the Constitution or the law, but on their progressive ideology.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

What Speaker Gingrich said about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Newsmax.com is reporting that POTUS Trump has upped the ante with his battle with the federal appears court (the 9th circuit) stating this week that he "absolutely" has considered proposals to break up the San-Fran-based 9th Circuit. Trump made these comments in a recent interview with The Washington Examiner and his complains are on the heels of the appeals court continuously blocking his orders.

Trump accused his opponents of "judge shopping," and told the Examiner they "immediately run to the 9th Circuit." While giving a nod to congressional proposals to split up the appeals court into smaller parts.

"There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous," Trump said.

Newt's been on board for this for quite some time. Here's a throwback for you on Newt speaking about just that. A man, with all his flaws, who is still a great thinker about conservative values in a day when image usually counts for more than substance.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

Does Judge Orrick think Barack Obama "fundamentally transformed" executive orders?

pic746.jpg

Andrew C. McCarthy (PJMedia) says William H. Orrick III is a Democrat campaign bundler and left-wing political activist. He has been known as "Judge Orrick" since 2013, when President Obama managed to get him on the federal bench -- with the assistance of Republicans Senators Jeff Flake (Arizona), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Susan Collins (Maine). All other Republicans opposed Orrick's nomination, except Bob Corker (Tennessee) who failed to vote.

It was as Judge Orrick that the San Francisco-based social justice warrior issued a 49-page decision this week. His decision purported to invalidate President Trump's executive order (EO) on federal funding for "sanctuary" jurisdictions -- cities, counties and other municipal subdivisions that refuse to cooperate in federal immigration-law enforcement.

I say "purported" because Orrick's screed is a ruling about nothing. The Trump Justice Department had argued that the EO did nothing to alter pre-existing law. Though Orrick tendentiously disputed this construction of the EO, he admitted that his opinion "does nothing more than implement" the Justice Department's view. He further conceded that his ruling had no effect on the administration's power to enforce conditions Congress has placed on federal funding (i.e., the very conditions Trump incorporated in the EO by telling his subordinates they could only act "to the extent consistent with law"). Meanwhile, the administration has not endeavored to strip any federal funding from any sanctuary jurisdictions.

So, in effect (or should we say, non-effect?), nothing has happened and nothing has changed. The ruling's sole achievement is a fleeting star turn for its author. Actually, make that another star turn: In 2015, Judge Orrick thrilled the Democrat-media complex by carrying water for the National Abortion Federation, which wanted an injunction against a whistleblower's release of videos showing Planned Parenthood officials selling baby parts -- oh, sorry, I mean "fetal tissue."

The ruling is instructive, though, as a measure of how politicized the judiciary has become. Consider the matter of executive orders.

Orrick's opinion includes the following remarkable passage (at p. 16):

Government counsel explained that the [Executive] Order is an example of the President's use of the bully pulpit and, even if read narrowly to have no legal effect, serves the purpose of highlighting the President's focus on immigration enforcement. While the President is entitled to highlight his policy priorities, an Executive Order carries the force of law. Adopting the Government's proposed reading would transform an Order that purports to create real legal obligations into a mere policy statement[.] [Emphasis added.]

Can it be that, after eight years of Obama's usurpation of legislative power, judges have forgotten what proper executive orders are?

Contrary to Obama's practice and Orrick's apparent belief, executive orders do not carry the force of law -- at least not presumptively. They are supposed to be policy statements that give presidential guidance to subordinate executive officials. That is because the president has no unilateral authority to decree law -- it is for Congress to write the laws; the executive branch just enforces them.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

The sanctuary cities ruling turns out to be nothing much

pic724.jpg

Paul Mirengoff (PowerLine) says there is considerably less to Judge Orrick's ruling on "defunding" sanctuary cities than initially seemed to be the case. Andy McCarthy explains that the ruling is basically an "advisory opinion" (which courts aren't supposed to issue). The ruling is advisory because neither San Francisco nor Santa Clara, the municipal plaintiffs before Judge Orrick, faced any sort of enforcement action pursuant to the executive order they challenged. Indeed, no entity anywhere in the country appears to have been threatened with one.

Moreover, Justice Department lawyers told Judge Orrick that the executive order at issue does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already existing law -- a construction completely consistent with the order as written. Unfortunately, Orrick refused to believe the Justice Department.

Andy has much more to say about the matter, including the judge's motivation for taking his 49 page excursion. The column is worth reading in full.

So is this piece by Hans von Spakovsky. Hans argues that an exception to the injunction described by Judge Orrick seems to allow the Trump administration to go ahead with what it has actually been planning to do all along: cut off eligibility to certain grant programs that already require compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. Section 1373 prohibits local jurisdictions from restricting government officials or entities from communicating immigration status information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It looks, then, like Judge Orrick has not inflicted a defeat on President Trump after all. He's merely performed some world-class grandstanding and, presumably, enhanced his self-image.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

Judge who blocked Trump sanctuary city order bundled $200K for Obama

pic712.jpg

Fox News Insider is reporting that Federal Judge William Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump's order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama.

Orrick, of the Northern District of California, issued an injunction against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president's plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities that harbor illegal immigrants.

As FoxNews.com reported:

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional. 

The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.

The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.

The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.

At the time, The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.

Related:  Previously, Obama's pro-sanctuary city judge ruled for his sleazy ex-client bankers


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

Republicans go "nuclear," bust through Democratic filibuster on Gorsuch

pic601.jpg

Fox News report here . . .



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
beadaniel

Registered:
Posts: 101
Reply with quote  #12 
And Obama stopped in Hawaii  on his way to the Pacific Island vacation to visit his longtime friend, Derrick Watson, 48 hours before Derrick issued the injunction.  Interesting timing.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

Leaked DHS document is another Democratic Party scandal

pic549.jpg

John Hinderaker (PowerLine) says Michael Patrick Leahy over at Breitbart.com has an explosive story: "Mystery Surrounds Leaked Draft DHS Document at Center of Controversial Travel Ban Decisions by Two Federal Judges." Actually, though, it doesn't seem to be much of a mystery.

On February 24, AP reporters Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell published an AP "exclusive": "DHS report disputes threat from banned nations." The story was based on an anonymous draft Department of Homeland Services document that was leaked to the Associated Press, presumably by someone at DHS. The document seemed to have been created for the express purpose of undermining President Trump's travel order. Indeed, it likely was created for that purpose.

The document is here. It says:

DHS I&A assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.

The two judges who issued orders blocking implementation of the president's travel ban relied explicitly on the AP story and the leaked DHS document. Judge Chuang, the federal district court judge in Maryland, wrote:

Among other points, they note that the Second Executive Order does not identify examples of foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen who engaged in terrorist activity in the United States. They also note that a report from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, concluded that "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity" and that "few of the impacted countries have terrorist groups that threaten the West." l.R. 158.

Emphasis added. The Hawaii judge, Derrick Watson, wrote:

The February 24, 2017 draft report states that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats against the United States and that very few individuals from the seven countries included in Executive Order No. 13,769 had carried out or attempted to carry out terrorism activities in the United States. …

According to Plaintiffs, this and other evidence demonstrates the Administration's pretextual justification for the Executive Order.

Judge Watson was in error: the draft report, which was never approved or finalized by DHS, is neither dated nor signed. February 24 was the date of the AP story based on the leaked document. No one at DHS has taken responsibility for writing it.

The judges were wrong to base their decisions in part on the leaked document. President Trump had clear constitutional and statutory authority to issue the travel order, and whether the judges, or some anonymous person at DHS, agreed with his judgment is irrelevant.

But Leahy skillfully unpacks what happened here. The draft report came from DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which was headed by David Grannis, an Obama holdover bureaucrat. Grannis is a partisan Democrat who previously worked as a staffer for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Jane Harman. A DHS spokesman "would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked document…."

How about the reporters? It pretty much goes without saying that AP reporters are Democrats. But Leahy also points out that Vivian Salama formerly worked for Rolling Stone, where she wrote that Yemen -- one of the countries covered by the travel order -- "holds a special place in my heart." She has bitterly denounced U.S. drone strikes in Yemen.

So it appears that what happened here is that Democratic Party activists in the Department of Homeland Security either created a bogus document or dug up a poorly-researched draft document that had never been issued, and fed it to Democratic Party activists at the Associated Press. The Democratic Party activists at the AP published a story based on the anonymous document, which two Democratic Party activists on the bench used as a pretext for orders enjoining the president's travel order.

Those orders should be viewed as purely political acts that have no basis in any valid judicial reasoning or authority.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 

Obama judge wants to order Trump to take in more than 50,000 refugees

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that Judge Theodore Chuang, who presides over the U.S. District Court of Maryland, ruled against Donald Trump's second Executive Order on travel ban restrictions in mid-March. At that time, he left open the door to force the President to double the number of refugees to more than 100,000 as former president Obama planned the year before. The judge will rule on that case on March 28th, Breitbart reports.

Chuang, an Obama-appointee, served as deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2014. Instead of recusing himself, he has decided to order President Trump to follow his immigration policy.

The judge has scheduled a hearing on the issue for March 28th. He's responding to a request made during the travel ban lawsuit, by the International Refugee Assistance Project and HIAS, Inc. to double the number of refugees.

If a judge can dictate policy on travel bans from an office in Maryland, why not dictate the entire immigration policy or any policy for that matter?

If he finds on plaintiffs' behalf, Chuang will revoke the section of that exec order that limited the maximum number of refugees authorized to enter the United States in FY 2017 to 50,000.

Chuang wrote in his decision temporarily halting the travel ban: "On March 6, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order which bars, with certain exceptions, the entry to the United States of nationals of six predominantly Muslim countries, suspends the entry of refugees for 120 days, and cuts by more than half the number of refugees to be admitted to the United States in the current year."

Chuang is suggesting that since the former president wanted 110,000 refugees, then the current president must do it, but Obama's decision to take in the increased numbers was merely a presidential determination without any legal or congressional backing.

The courts are part of the Deep State which is currently running our government. There is a cabal of government bureaucrats, judges and politicians who are on the left who plan to keep the government on the left.

They don't need to meet in the fashion of a conspiracy, they just know what to do and are of the same mind as the hard-left president who gave them power.

In FY2016 alone, HIAS received more than $19 million in federal taxpayer funding to resettle 3,884 refugees, only 4% of the total number of refugees, and has been collecting for decades.

IRAP "organizes law students and lawyers to develop and enforce a set of legal and human rights for refugees and displaced persons," and they make their money from corporations. They are reliant on the refugees for their existence.

These people don't care about flooding the country with the Third World at a pace that makes assimilation impossible, they care about the money.

Ironically, HIAS Inc, is a Jewish organization and they want to import tens of thousands of people who hate Jews. They also get their funding from the government they now seek to sue the government to keep the money flowing.

The judge is overstepping his powers and attempting to dictate to the Executive Branch. In addition, he is redefining his role as one of setting policy and enacting legislation, instead of interpreting law as the Constitution dictates.

Obama's imperial presidency lives on in his Deep State. There are three branches of government -- the Executive, Congress and the Judicial -- all are embedded with his hard-left appointees who will destroy the Constitution if they can.

The good news is that a judge in Virginia has backed Donald Trump's travel ban. All of these jurists' actions interfering with national security and immigration policies are illegal and will be overturned.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #15 

Watch how differently Democrats treat Trump's SCOTUS nominee vs Obama's


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

Hawaii judge's ruling could lead to constitutional crisis

pic495.jpg

Paul Mirengoff (Powerline) says that when a Ninth Circuit panel issued a decision striking down President Trump's original travel ban,  I described its opinion as "limited in impact, but full of mischief." The biggest piece of mischief, I thought, was the panel's suggestion the administration's order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims.

Citing statements made by Trump when he ran for president, the panel found that this argument raises "serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions." However, it "reserve[d] consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed."

This bit of result-driven idiocy has now become the basis for the decision by a federal district judge in Hawaii striking down the Trump administration's new travel ban. Eugene Kontorovich at the Volokh Conspiracy exploded it following the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling. He wrote:

The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show "that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims." But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history -- the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.

Indeed, a brief examination of cases suggests the idea has been too wild to suggest. For example, the 10th Circuit has rejected the use of a district attorney's campaign statements against certain viewpoints to show that a prosecution he commenced a few days after office was "bad faith or harassment." As the court explained, even looking at such statements would "chill debate during campaign[s]." If campaign statements can be policed, the court concluded, it would in short undermine democracy: "the political process for selecting prosecutors should reflect the public's judgment as to the proper enforcement of the criminal laws." Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995).

There are sound policy reasons for ignoring campaign statements or promises to shed light on subsequent official action. For one, campaign promises are often insincere, designed to appeal to voters. Indeed, they are explicitly instrumental, and their goal is not policy outputs, but election. Moreover, implemented laws or policies are often substantially different from promises, as is the case here. . . .

More broadly, constitutional structure supports examining only executive statements to interpret executive action. When Trump made his most controversial statements, he was private citizen. He had not sworn to uphold the Constitution, or to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He was, in this sense, a legally differently obligated person. His policies and their relation to the Constitution would presumably be affected by his oath -- that is why the Constitution requires it.

Moreover, the Constitution's oft-forgotten opinion clause supports disregarding pre-inauguration statements. The Constitution puts at the president's service the officials of the administration and requires they advise him as asked. What it means here is that the president must be seen as the unitary head of the executive branch and the pinnacle of a process of executive decision-making. That process is the only constitutionally recognized executive process. A candidate's possible plans or promises are not part of the process.

Kontorovich concluded:

By accepting the use of preelection statements to impeach and limit executive policy, the 9th Circuit is taking a dangerous step. The states' argument is in essence that Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws.

This would mean that Trump is automatically disbarred, from the moment of his inauguration, of exercising certain presidential powers, not because of his actions as president, but because of who he is -- that is, how he won the presidency.

This is why claims of an attempted judicial coup against President Trump are not at all far-fetched. Indeed, the effort to deprive a president of certain powers because of who he is and how he won the presidency can very plausibly be viewed as a partial coup.

Don't expect the Ninth Circuit to stand in the way. It was that court that pointed the way for the Hawaii judge. Reversal is possible, but unlikely.

Thus, it probably will be up to the Supreme Court to stop what can reasonably be called the partial judicial coup. If it fails to do so, we might be in for a constitutional crisis.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

Surprise! Muslim Brother is principal plaintiff in Hawaii case blocking Trump travel ban

pic487.jpg

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that the main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump's revised temporary travel ban is an Imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering "irreparable harm" from the president's executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries according to research by WND.

Via WND:

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering "irreparable harm" from the president's executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.

One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh's mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump's ban were allowed to go into effect.

Hawaii's Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii's claim that it amounts to a "Muslim ban." The state's attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state's tourism industry and its Muslim families.

The Muslim Brotherhood connection:

Elshikh was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah law throughout the world.

Elshikh is living in the U.S. on a green card, which gives him permanent legal status.

The proof that his mosque is affiliated with the Brotherhood is found in the court records for Honolulu County, which lists the deed holder as the North American Islamic Trust.

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist and now private consultant to law enforcement at Understanding the Threat, said all mosques under the "Muslim Association of" moniker are typically affiliated with the Brotherhood.

But the clincher in this case is that the mosque property is traced to NAIT, "confirming it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization," Guandolo told WND in an email.

So it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially running our foreign policy. One Muslim with ties to a terrorist organization can file a lawsuit to dictate who comes through our borders. This abuse of power must be reigned in by President Trump immediately.

Read the full lawsuit: "State of Hawaii and ISMAIL ELSHIKH, Plaintiffs, vs. Donald J. Trump, et al."

Read the rest of the research done by Leo Hohmann here.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #18 
What gets me is Obama, the Muslim Usurper, can completely ignore every constitutional law and edict and then when Trump, a constitutional President who is a Natural Born Citizen who the American people elected (not through fraud) but through a landslide follows the Constitution and state laws, these George Soros funded traitors make up the law?

Up is down and down is up with Liberalism.

Fight fire with fire, Trump.  Ignore everything this Muslim Usurper enacted and restore our Constitutional Republic.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #19 

Thomas Jefferson's opinion on radical leftist judges

pic477.jpg

Doug Ross (DirectorBlue) says the The brilliant words of Thomas Jefferson echo through the ages, a slap in the face to rogue despots wearing black robes.

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...

...Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps...

...Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control...

...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

You got that, "Judge" Derrick Watson and "Judge" Theodore Chuang?

You don't get to rewrite the Constitution, you leftist hacks.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 

No sovereignty allowed -- rogue judges give legal standing to future, hypothetical immigrants

pic472.jpg

Daniel Horowitz (ConservativeReview) says when President Trump issued his revised immigration order, I warned that unless we reassess our erroneous views of judicial power, the courts would create an affirmative right to immigrate.

Even though the revised order applies only to prospective immigrants who have never stepped foot on our shores, we predicted that the courts would completely erase national sovereignty. They did not disappoint.

Over the past few days, several liberal legal groups and a handful of blue states (led by Hawaii) have sued against the new order. One Obama-appointed federal district judge grotesquely manipulated the rules of standing and issued a temporary restraining order against the executive order, even in a case where Trump’s moratorium was inapplicable.

Trump’s original executive order was on solid enough ground, backed by seven statutes and Article II powers. But this new order cuts to the very foundation of a sovereign nation, the president’s foreign affairs powers, and Congress’ plenary power over immigration, which it delegated 100 percent to the executive branch to ratchet down immigration as needed.

"The manipulation of the rules of standing is how the judiciary has become a super-legislature. Hence, an affirmative right to immigrate."

Yet none of these issues were even cited by these federal judges, who have replaced the law and the Constitution with their personal social justice agenda.

Courts becoming unprecedentedly zealous while interfering with immigration law.

On Friday, Judge William Connelly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a temporary restraining order against the new Trump moratorium as it relates to family members of an asylee living in America who is concerned that, despite his approval for asylum status, the petition to bring in his wife and daughter from Syria will be blocked by Trump’s order when it takes effect. Although Connelly did not issue a nationwide injunction on the underlying moratorium, the fact that the judge is granting any relief raises some serious questions.

The Trump administration already made it clear that this order does not apply to those refugees already approved and in the pipeline. So how does a plaintiff get standing to sue based on a "fear" that when the order takes effect (on Thursday), his family might be excluded --  if their contention is that they were already in the pipeline?

To begin with, the courts have no right to demand that any alien be admitted to the country even after his visa is approved. But for the courts to grant standing preemptively to someone who doesn’t even have an injury-in-fact is a clear indication that they plan to attack the merits of the underlying executive action when it takes effect. The manipulation of the rules of standing is how the judiciary has become a super-legislature. Hence, an affirmative right to immigrate.

In addition to the pending lawsuit in Wisconsin, the state of Washington went back to District Judge Robart and asserted that the temporary moratorium on immigration from six countries and the refugee program (sections 2(c) and 6(a)) even for FUTURE hypothetical immigrants should be subject to his original TRO. While Robart declined to issue a judgement because of a lack of proper filings, it is safe to assume he will issue some sort of TRO on the revised executive order as well. The logic behind such an order would be no less insane than the logic behind his original TRO.

And don’t think the chicanery is limited to the 9th Circuit. As we’ve noted before, most of the circuits are irremediably broken. They are flipping federal immigration power on its head by allowing states to complain that Trump limiting dangerous immigration is adversely affecting their tourism industries. It would be akin to a state obtaining standing to sue against a president's foreign policy or military decisions. Meanwhile, states were denied standing to sue when Obama violated immigration law and Arizona is being forced by the 9th Circuit to grant driver’s licenses to illegals unlawfully amnestied by Obama.

There is nothing more dangerous to our national security than the stolen sovereignty at the hands of the unelected courts. They are remaking the Constitution, erasing our borders, ignoring foundational statutes, overturning 200 years of settled case law, and unilaterally expanding their own jurisdiction.

Where is Congress?
 
Look at the House GOP’s agenda since January. It has been devoid of any substance. What other majority party with control of the White House has failed to act on a single significant issue in its first 100 days? Why are they not passing bills defending Trump's executive order, and why are they not stripping the courts of jurisdiction over immigration?

Trump’s only major accomplishment thus far was the refugee moratorium and that is hanging by a thread thanks to the erroneous outsourcing of legislative and executive authority to the courts. It's time for Trump to work with House conservatives to bolster his immigration agenda against the courts, instead of fighting conservatives to enshrine Obamacare into law.

Trump must demand that Congress back his immigration order in the April budget bill by defunding the refugee resettlement program and the issuance of any visas from the six countries on his list. House conservatives should also work with Trump to defund Obama’s executive amnesty.

Instead of threatening conservatives with primary challenges if they fail to betray Trump's own election mandate, why not threaten to primary the RINOs for not backing his immigration agenda? Or is it easier to go after conservatives because they are politically expendable?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

Judicial Watch sues the CIA, DoJ and Treasury for records related to intelligence leaks regarding investigation of General Flynn

pic410.jpg

Judicial Watch announced yesterday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury regarding records related to the investigation of retired United States Army Lieutenant General Michel Flynn's communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency et al. (No.1:17-cv-00397)).  (The National Security Agency refused to confirmor deny the existence of intelligence records about communications between Gen. Flynn and Amb Kislyak.)

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the agencies failed to respond to a January 25, 2017, FOIA request seeking:

Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the investigation of retired Gen. Michael Flynn's communications with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak between October 1, 2016 and the present.

This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all related warrants, affidavits, declarations, or similar records regarding the aforementioned investigation.

For purposes of clarification, please find enclosed a CNN report regarding the investigation, which cites information that was provided to CNN by members of the Intelligence Community.

In its complaint Judicial Watch asks the court to order the agencies to search for all records responsive to its FOIA requests and demonstrate that they employed reasonable search methods; order the agencies to produce by a specific date all non-exempt records and a Vaughn index of all withheld records; and instruct the agencies to cease withholding all non-exempt records.

On January 23, 2017, CNN reported that the government was investigating Flynn, former national security adviser to President Trump:

The calls were captured by routine US eavesdropping targeting the Russian diplomats, according to the intelligence and law enforcement officials. But the officials said some of the content of the conversation raised enough potential concerns that investigators are still looking into the discussions, amid a broader concern about Russian intelligence-gathering activities in the United States.

The officials all stressed that so far there has been no determination of any wrongdoing.

FBI and intelligence officials briefed members of the Obama White House team before President Barack Obama left office about the Flynn calls to the Russian ambassador, sources said.

"President Trump is on to something. The Obama-connected wiretapping and illegal leaks of classified material concerning President Trump and General Flynn are a scandal," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch aims to get to the truth about these crimes and we hope the Trump administration stands with us in the fight for transparency."



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #22 

The shadowy FISA Court -- no oversight, unchecked, vast powers, and rarely turn down a request

pic409.jpg

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) says they are called the second Supreme Court. There is no oversight, they go unchecked, have vast powers, and rarely turn down a request. Their appeals court is made up solely of Clinton appointees. Former president Obama greatly expanded the powers of the court.

Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have no oversight over the FISA court or the judges.

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

If true, the Obama administration allowed Trump Tower to be investigated as if they were foreign spies within the United States. It centered around Manafort, J.D.Gordon and Carter Page. Page never even met Trump, Paul Manafort, who also worked for Presidents Ford and Reagan, George H.W. Bush and candidate Bob Dole, was fired, and J.D. Gordon who served as the spokesman for the U.S. Navy and worked in the Pentagon under David Rusmfeld and Robert Gates, advised the campaign on national policy.

Most requests to the court are made by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Its powers have evolved to the point that it has been called "almost a parallel Supreme Court."

Their unlimited and unchecked powers has consequences. In 2013, a top-secret order issued by the court, which was later leaked to the media from documents culled by Edward Snowden, required a subsidiary of Verizon to provide a daily, on-going feed of all call detail records – including those for domestic calls – to the NSA.They let the government spy on every American using a corporation to assist.

When the U.S. Attorney General [in Trump's case it would have been Loretta Lynch] determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC.

If an application is denied by one judge of the court, the federal government is not allowed to make the same application to a different judge of the court, but may appeal to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

In the June case citing Trump, it is possible that they appealed to the Court of Review and still lost or they decided to write a more narrow warrant, leaving out Trump's name as reported in the media.

The warrant is said to have been approved in October. The same process could have been followed. If it ended up in the FISA court, it was almost a slam dunk. If it went to the Court of Review and ended up with Clinton judges, it definitely was a slam dunk.

The Court of Review is comprised of three Clinton appointees though one Richard Charles Tallman, is a registered Republican. The other two are José Cabranes, appointed to his first judgeship by Jimmy Carter and to FISA by Bill Clinton. William Curtis Bryson is a Clinton appointee.

FISA warrants are almost never turned down. FISA is a rubber stamp. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only 4 were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004.

Imagine how bad the first Trump warrant must have been.

Even though they are rarely, extremely rarely, turned down, the June order was turned down.

On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration had been conducting surveillance against U.S. citizens without the knowledge of the court since 2002. Such is the power of the Court.

In 2011, the Obama Administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases.

The searches take place under a surveillance program Congress authorized in 2008 under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the target must be a foreigner "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States, and the court must approve the targeting procedures in an order good for one year.

But a warrant for each target would thus no longer be required. That means that In July 2013, The New York Times published disclosures from anonymous government whistleblowers of secret law written by the court holding that vast collections of data on all Americans (even those not connected in any way to foreign enemies) amassed by the NSA do not violate the warrant requirements of Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reported that anyone suspected of being involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage or cyber-attacks, according to the court, may be considered a legitimate target for warrantless surveillance. Acting like a parallel U.S. Supreme Court, the court greatly broadened the "special-needs" exception to do so.

All of this is done without debate and without Congress.

The court's judges are appointed solely by the Chief Justice of the United States without confirmation or oversight by the U.S. Congress. This gives the chief justice the ability to appoint like-minded judges and create a court without diversity."The judges are hand-picked by someone who, through his votes on the Supreme Court, we have come to learn has a particular view on civil liberties and law enforcement".

The court has been fully politicized and usurps Congress and the Supreme Court.

Obama promised no more wiretapping, all the while he was growing his powers to secretly wiretap anyone in secret.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

In 2016, Barack Obama said: "You can't block a Supreme Court justice because you didn't win"

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) asks if you remember this?

Far-left icon Barack Obama, the man who single handedly destroyed the modern day Democratic Party, told a crowd of supporters last year,

"Democracy can't work when all you're about is trying to destroy somebody from the other party. If we demonize each other. If we block Supreme Court justices not because not just because that's how it's supposed to work but because we didn't win."

Agreed.

Obviously, the liberal media forgot about that Obama quote.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

Obama had the worst record in the Supreme Court in modern history

pic197.jpg

Elizabeth Harrington (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that Barack Obama had the worst record before the Supreme Court in modern history, losing half of the cases argued before the High Court in his two terms, according to a new study.

While liberals point to legalizing same-sex marriage and the upholding of ObamaCare subsidies as cementing Obama's legacy, the study reveals Obama had a much weaker record with the Supreme Court than previous presidents.

academic studywritten by Washington University professor Lee Epstein and University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner found Obama had the "worst record of any President" since Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, his presidential performance before the Supreme Court "may be the worst since the Zachary Taylor administration" in the 19th century.

"To assess presidential performance in the U.S. Supreme Court, we created a dataset of cases of concern to the president," Epstein and Posner wrote. "The dataset covers Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt through Barack Obama (1932-2015 terms), which amounts to 84 Court terms and 13 presidents."

The results were presidents "prevailed in nearly two-thirds of their cases; and captured over 60 [percent] of all votes cast."

However, Obama's success rate is "significantly lower" at just 50.5 percent, the lowest Epstein and Posner found.

"A few commentators have noticed Obama's problems in the Court, attributing them to Obama himself," they said.

The Supreme Court ruled on 186 cases during Obama's reign where the United States, Obama, or the attorney general was a party; or the solicitor general represented the petitioner or respondent in the case.

The study also suggests that presidents have had less success in the Supreme Court since the Reagan administration, when Ronald Reagan won 75 percent of cases before the Court.

Since the data revealed a "downward secular trend in presidential success ever since the Reagan years, it may be that the Obama administration is just the latest victim of a Court that has gradually been losing confidence in the executive branch," Epstein and Posner said.

Even still, Obama's record was an outlier.

"On the one hand, the data seem to confirm a story that scholars have long told: When the president goes to Court, he wins," the study said. "Over the course of the 84 terms and 13 presidents in our dataset, presidents prevailed in nearly two-thirds of their cases (and captured 60 [percent] of all votes). By comparison, the states won significantly fewer of their cases during the same period (53 [percent])."

Comparatively, Obama's performance was "especially poor." "He prevailed in just 50.5 [percent] of his cases -- a percentage slightly lower than the states' win rate while Obama was in office (55.4 [percent])."

Noteworthy losses during Obama's presidency included the blocking of an executive action giving work permits to 5 million illegal immigrants, "effectively ending what Mr. Obama had hoped would become one of his central legacies," the New York Times reported.

The Court also handed a "humiliating" loss to Obama in his attempt to make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in session.

"Indeed the case was so clear-cut one can only conclude that the president didn't care what the Constitution said," the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin observed at the time.

Experts have argued that executive overreach by President Obama led to more losses in the High Court.

In the 2016 term, the Obama administration argued 10 cases that resulted in unanimous decisions against the government, meaning the president did not receive a vote from his own justices he appointed to the Court, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

"[T]he reason this president has done so poorly at the high court is because he sees no limits on federal -- especially prosecutorial -- power and accords himself the ability to enact his own legislative agenda when Congress refuses to do so," wrote Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.

Epstein and Posner note that since the Reagan administration, presidents have averaged a 60 percent win rate before the Supreme Court, five points lower than in years' prior.

According to the study, one explanation to Obama's declining win rates is the arrival of more skillful attorneys who now practice for the Court.

"The president's win rate has declined as the quality of this group has increased," they said.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #25 

Barack Obama's absurd judicial legacy

pic1008.jpg

Lloyd Billingsley (FrontPage) says on Thursday, January 5th, in San Francisco, convicted killer Shiloh Heavenly Quine, 57, became the first inmate in the United States to receive "sex-reassignment surgery" fully funded by taxpayers. This sounds like typical California craziness but the story really concerns outgoing president Obama and his legacy the justice system.

Rodney James Quine, father of two daughters, was twice married and divorced. In February of 1980 in Los Angeles, Quine and an accomplice gunned down Shahid Ali Baig, a 33-year-old father of three, then stole Baig's car and $80. That year Quine drew a sentence of life without parole.

As Quine the convict discovered, life at California's Mule Creek state prison is tough and dangerous. Without the possibility of parole, Quine started pining for a change of scenery. Quine began claiming that he first knew he was really a woman at the age of nine, and prison officials believed the convict suffered a longstanding case of "gender dysphoria."

The convicted killer duly became Shiloh Heavenly Quine, living as a woman since 2008,  when prison officials authorized hormone treatments. When prison officials denied legal attempts for a name change, Quine called for "sensitivity training" for prison guards requiring them to use female pronouns with the convict, who remained in a men's prison.

Quine began pushing for a sex change operation, paid for by California taxpayers like everything else in prison. When officials denied the procedure, Quine attempted suicide. Faced with the prospect of transfer to a maximum security lockup, Quine complained of "severe pain," and wrote of feeling "tortured" and in risk of future harm. Quinn continued to push for the sexual "reassignment" surgery, and that's when Barack Obama came into play.

"For the next decade or longer," wrote Howard Mintz in the San Jose Mercury News in 2015, "President Barack Obama's political legacy in the Bay Area may be easiest to detect inside federal courthouses in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose." One of Obama's 11 picks in that area was Jon Tigar, a former criminal defense lawyer and judge in Alameda County.

According to a LifeSiteNews report, federal judge Tigar "assigned himself to Quine's case and appointed a team of San Francisco lawyers and the Transgender Law Center to represent him." Tigar's view was that denying a prisoner's sex-change operation may constitute "deliberate indifference" to a serious medical need and, if so, would be unconstitutionally "cruel and unusual punishment."

The Obama appointee thus made California the first state with a policy of providing sex reassignment surgery for violent criminals. As Terry Thornton of the California Department of Corrections explained, "The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution requires that prisons provide inmates with medically necessary treatment for medical and mental health conditions, including inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria."

Therefore the state was legally required to pay for the operation, which reportedly cost taxpayers $100,000. Activists with the Transgender Law Center said that figure was "exaggerated" but did not reveal the actual costs. Neither did California governor Jerry Brown, who in 2015 allowed the parole of transgender inmate Jeffrey Bryan Norsworthy, also known as Michelle-Lael Norsworthy.

With taxpayers on the hook, doctors have little incentive to keep the costs down. It is entirely possible that, like Caitlyn Jenner, Shiloh Heavenly Quine got the full treatment. The killer lost some key gear in the procedure but is now surely laughing it up en route to better digs in an unnamed women's prison.  The convict's IQ remains unrevealed, but Shiloh Heavenly Quine is a lot smarter than prison officials and Obama appointee Jon Tigar.

Those who are not doctors, and don't play one on television, will understand that sex-change surgery is an elective procedure and not a medical necessity. On the other hand, some mental patient might believe that refusal to force California's embattled taxpayers to fund such a procedure constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. As for such surgery being a right, as some activists contend, nothing is a right that puts mandates and costs on other people. And convicted murderers don't exactly enjoy the same rights as law-abiding citizens.

Obama appointee Jon Tigar's decision was politically correct, not medically correct.

Political correctness holds that transgender people are special, accredited victims of a homophobic society. Likewise, in the politically correct view, violent criminals are victims of a skewed justice system. In classic style, Judge Tigar's absurd decision elevated the concerns of violent criminals above those of true crime victims.

"My dad begged for his life," Shahid Bair's daughter Farida told reporters.  "It just made me dizzy and sick. . . It's kind of like a slap in the face."  

That's Barack Obama's judicial legacy for crime victims, their families and all citizens.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved