In general, the poo-slinging at the President done by the progressive left is strong proof they are willing to destroy anything and everything to advance their agenda. While this process is exhausting to witness from a distance – and I’m sure much more so to experience up close – 80 percent of it is just trivial crap. It’s the media throwing stuff against the wall in hope something…anything…will stick. What they have yet to learn is that you can’t bring down a tabloid king with tabloid slings and arrows – the President has lived his life in the tabloids and on Page 6, so scandals featuring ladies of ill-repute just don’t have legs.
But like an alcoholic clown who juggles chainsaws for a living, every now and again they slip up and do something that does real damage.
The case before the SCOTUS, Trump v. Hawaii is such a chainsaw.
I read some of the transcripts today and found them to be remarkable, disturbing and remarkably disturbing.
The logic of the lawyers opposing the travel modification is basically this: “because Trump said mean things about Muslims during the campaign – and even though this isn’t a Muslim ban – we must not allow him to exercise his executive power. We must now judge constitutionality by whether or not we like the person, not the actual law.”
How far back in a candidate’s history do we go to define his or her feelings on something? If the candidate apologizes and recants their former positions, is the law now constitutional? That seems to be what the Hawaii Circuit Court judge said. Maybe Trump could just tweet an apology to Yemen and everything would be OK.
In May of 2017, David French of National Review called it “Trumplaw” – “a new standard of judicial review, one that does violence to existing precedent, good sense, and even national security for the sake of defeating Donald Trump” – and that is exactly what this is. Hearing audio from the pleading and reading the transcripts reveals just how much of a silly charade this is – if I was seated on the bench, my first question would be this: “Are our lower court judges so fatally ignorant and partisan that they can’t recognize partisan stupidity masquerading as proper legal process? Why are we even wasting time on something this stupid?”
About the Fourth Circuit’s ruling upholding the ban of the ban (it’s not actually a ban), French wrote:
“Here is the essence of the court’s ruling: Trump’s campaign statements were so grotesque that they not only (1) hurt the feelings of a Muslim resident so much that he was granted standing to challenge an executive order that did not apply to him, but also (2) rendered an otherwise lawful executive order so damaging that the harm to the plaintiff’s feelings (and his wife’s possibly delayed entry into the United States) outweigh the government’s asserted national-security interest in pausing to reexamine foreign entry from hostile and war-torn countries.”
Can we now start suing office holders for lying about their policies when they were candidates?
Obama better hope the hell not.
If this is not a 9-0 decision in favor of the President, the SCOTUS will have lost credibility and every justice voting against this travel modification – one clearly within the prerogative of the Executive to protect national security – they should be impeached. Even if the President wins this one 5-4, the judges in the lower courts should be sanctioned or impeached.
Stormy Daniels is not serious business – Trump v. Hawaii is. It turns American jurisprudence on its head by ignoring the Constitution in favor of churlish political whim.
The Rio Norte Line 