Andrew Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’

[donnay]

Andrew Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’

Andrew Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’



by Pam Key 9 Feb 2017

Thursday on the Fox News Channel, in reacting to the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding the blocking of President Trump‘s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work.”

Napolitano said, “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”

“I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president,” he added.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...campaign=Feed:+breitbart+(Breitbart+News%2 9

 

[CaptUSA]

Libertarians seem split on this, but I agreed with the Judge. The President has the authority here. Whether he used that authority wisely is an entirely different issue.

 

[TommyJeff]

I agree with the judge on most every issue. This particular topic is rather involved and interesting. I do really enjoy a point he made comparing the president to three appointed judges. There is no way the founders wanted 3 appointed judges controling the executive branch. As my full position on this topic the judge was very helpful. Thanks for posting

 

[donnay]

Legal scholar on travel ban: Law favors Trump
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...ey-trump-immigrant-travel-ban-law-sot-gps.cnn

 

[euphemia]

Exactly. It is not a travel ban or a Muslim ban. It is a 90-day moratorium on admitting people from seven nations because their documents are unverifiable.

 

[donnay]

Actually, Trump Has a Duty to Ban Dangerous Immigrants
http://nypost.com/2017/02/09/actually-trump-has-a-duty-to-ban-dangerous-immigrants/

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, the Judge is the expert, and the 9th Circuit is infamous for bad rulings, so the Judge is probably right from a legal perspective.

He is saying that foreign policy is the authority of the executive branch, but is immigration policy specifically and solely "foreign policy"? That doesn't seem right. Seems like Congress should be involved.

Now on the other hand, as commander in chief during wartime (or accute, short-term emergency), the President would definitely have control over immigration. The problem with that reasoning is that there is no declaration of war, thus the wartime power of the President is irrelevant.

 

[euphemia]

And that's kind of how Trump is treating this: a short-term emergency. It's the way immigration works. People have to have verifiable documents. It's that way all over the world. I have a lot of missionary friends, and my daughter has gone overseas three times. No verifiable documents, no travel. Even in friendly nations sometimes a visitor has to produce documents on demand.

What would be helpful is if other nations would help out. It's their problem, too. If a flight connects in Madrid or Paris and the documents can't be verified, then the passenger either goes back to the point of origin or is arrested.

 

[CaptUSA]

And that's kind of how Trump is treating this: a short-term emergency. It's the way immigration works. People have to have verifiable documents. It's that way all over the world. I have a lot of missionary friends, and my daughter has gone overseas three times. No verifiable documents, no travel. Even in friendly nations sometimes a visitor has to produce documents on demand.

What would be helpful is if other nations would help out. It's their problem, too. If a flight connects in Madrid or Paris and the documents can't be verified, then the passenger either goes back to the point of origin or is arrested.

Yeah, what would really be helpful is if our government and media didn't exaggerate the threats of terrorism to us. Instead of using fear to divide people, you know, maybe we could discuss the issue rationally.

My fear of being killed by a foreign terrorist is about on par with my fear of drowning in my soup. Yeah, it could happen, I suppose, but no one is going to craft national policy around it. (i hope)

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And that's kind of how Trump is treating this: a short-term emergency. It's the way immigration works. People have to have verifiable documents. It's that way all over the world. I have a lot of missionary friends, and my daughter has gone overseas three times. No verifiable documents, no travel. Even in friendly nations sometimes a visitor has to produce documents on demand.

What would be helpful is if other nations would help out. It's their problem, too. If a flight connects in Madrid or Paris and the documents can't be verified, then the passenger either goes back to the point of origin or is arrested.

Except this is no short-term emergency. It's been 16 years.

 

[brushfire]

Activist judges

 

[euphemia]

Except this is no short-term emergency. It's been 16 years.

Not really an emergency, but the neglect of the last 16 years has put the problem at critical mass. Trump was very clear during the campaign. He wanted a 90 day waiting period to assess the process.

 

[AZJoe]

So the president has the power to at will bomb, invade or drone assassinate the citizens of a sovereign nation, but cannot temporarily delay immigration to upgrade vetting processes.

 

[TheCount]

So the president has the power to at will bomb, invade or drone assassinate the citizens of a sovereign nation

Yes, he does. But he shouldn't.

Getting the picture yet?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

So the president has the power to at will bomb, invade or drone assassinate the citizens of a sovereign nation, but cannot temporarily delay immigration to upgrade vetting processes.

Good question.

 

[fcreature]

Libertarians seem split on this, but I agreed with the Judge. The President has the authority here. Whether he used that authority wisely is an entirely different issue.

Agreed. 9th circuit is trash and needs to be dismantled. I'm getting tired of the Judicial branch. It's like they're fighting the executive branch over who can grab more power than they were intended to have... meanwhile the legislative branch is happy giving to give up as much power as possible.

 

[charrob]

I agree with Judge Napolitano that Trump has the authority to stop foreigners from coming into the country: ie. no new Visas and no new Green cards as per the executive order. From the way the Judge talks, I think Trump has the authority to deny anyone he wants (ie. even though Trump's executive order was not a Muslim ban, the Judge makes it sound like Trump has the authority to even do that if he wanted). And I tend to agree with him: Trump probably has that authority. I think Trump also has authority over the States who complain that they lose tax revenue because of the ban.

What the Judge doesn't discuss in this video, however, is that one of the reasons the 9th Circuit refused to lift the injunction was that 5th amendment due process rights have been overlooked for both current Visa card holders and current Green card holders.

As has been stated in another thread, the re-writing of this executive order needs to emphasize that all current Visa card holders and current Green card holders are exempt from the new, re-written, executive order. Only then would the courts have no say.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Not to be taking sides here but to be fair 9th has had some rough treatment in the past:

Featured:9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court
Daily Caller

 

[KEEF]

Yeah, what would really be helpful is if our government and media didn't exaggerate the threats of terrorism to us. Instead of using fear to divide people, you know, maybe we could discuss the issue rationally.

My fear of being killed by a foreign terrorist is about on par with my fear of drowning in my soup. Yeah, it could happen, I suppose, but no one is going to craft national policy around it. (i hope)