For concise, informative and thought provoking analysis of the news.
The Independent Voice for Conservative Values!
Less Gov is the Best Gov, Because Less Government
is the Best Government!
© Scott Rohter - All rights reserved

A Travel Ban that Isn’t

Posted by Scott Rohter on Tuesday, December 5, 2017


Supreme Court Votes Again 7 to 2 to Uphold Executive Travel Ban

but the Legal Challenges Keep Coming

By Scott Michael Rohter, December 2017


Federal District Judge James Robart

A legal decision doesn’t have to be correct. It doesn’t even have to make sense. Sometimes it is just one man’s opinion, and there are just about as many different opinions out there as there are different people. If you file a lawsuit in a State where the majority of voters agree with you then you are probably going to end up with the legal opinion you want. That is precisely why Washington State’s Attorney General filed his objection to President Trump’s travel ban… because Washington is a State where the White House’s inevitable appeal will be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which is  THE MOST LIBERAL COURT IN THE COUNTRY.



Three judge panel on 9th Circuit Court: Richard Clifton, William Canby, and Michelle Friedland

Public Broadcasting notes that the Ninth Circuit Court is “perceived” as Left leaning. That is just about the most profound understatement I have ever heard. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is not “perceived” as being left leaning. IT IS LEFT LEANING. It is the most liberal court in America and everybody except the schlemiels over at National Public Radio knows that. Earlier this year a panel of three of these very liberal judges was unanimous in its decision to prevent President Trump’s travel ban from taking effect. They are trying to prevent him from fulfilling his primary duty under the United States Constitution to protect the American people.



Ruth Bader Ginsberg & Sonja Sotomayor


On December 4th 2017 the United States Supreme Court once again voted to allow the President’s executive travel ban to go into effect. It had already struck down an earlier Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision by a unanimous vote.. This current Supreme Court decision was by a 7 to 2 margin with only Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonya Sotomayor dissenting. Almost immediately liberals vowed to file even more challenges in federal district court to block the travel ban while other plaintiffs in currently pending cases vowed to keep on litigating. America is in a state of judicial anarchy when federal district courts don’t think they have to follow the decisions made by the Supreme Court of the land.  This is the second time that the Supreme Court has weighed in on this matter and it is the second time that they have upheld the travel ban. Nevertheless federal district courts in the most liberal States keep entertaining legal challenges to it.



There are differing views about what the President should do next in view of the fact that federal district courts keep trying to block his travel ban. He can thumb his nose at them like President Andrew Jackson did and tell them to enforce their own legal opinions while he proceeds to implement his travel ban… That would bring the inevitable impeachment charges against him brought by Democrats in Congress while the media cheers them on. Some observers think that is exactly what the Democrats secretly want while they pursue other baseless charges against the President such as collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice for his firing of FBI director James Comey. It should be noted however that during the previous administration President Obama listed most of the countries on Trump’s executive travel ban in his own executive order placing them on a watch list without raising a single objection from anyone in Congress.

Another viewpoint is that President Trump should just play along with all of the legal fineagling to stop his travel ban from going into effect until the Supreme Court can make a final ruling on the issue. The problem with this wait and see attitude is that they have already ruled twice and it has not put an end to all of the lower court challenges. The danger in continuing to wait and allowing this to play itself out in the courts is that there might be a terrorist attack. It limits the President’s powers to protect the country. and it establishes a dangerous precedent which limits future President’s from implementing national security measures to keep our country safe.

Categories: International, National Tags: ,

Responses are currently closed.