Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Another Obama Appointee Goes Rogue Tries To Usurp Trump’s Power Through Judicial Activism

From Mark Sidney at Illicit Info OPINION Blog

(LewRockwell.com by Andrew Napolitano) …In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly authorized the president to suspend the immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons.

The courts have upheld this presidential power because under our system, immigration materially affects the nation’s foreign policy and foreign policy is constitutionally the domain of the president — with Congress’ role being limited to the senatorial confirmation of treaties and ambassadors and to authorization of money for the president to spend. Yet the courts have limited the president’s exercise of this power so that he cannot base it on First Amendment-protected liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, religion and association. So he cannot bar an immigrant because of the immigrant’s political views, religion or colleagues.

take our poll - story continues below

Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?(2)

  • Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Right Wing Tribune updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter exercised this presidential power to bar anyone from Iran from entering the country until the hostage crisis was resolved. In 2011, President Barack Obama used this presidential power to bar anyone from Iraq from entering the country for six months.

OPINION| Lawrence David| Enter President Trump…

And the age of Clinton/Obama appointed radical activist left wing judges.

President Trump’s administration has faced more than 50 nationwide injunctions since Trump took office in 2017, more than double the number of nationwide injunctions the previous administration had faced during its entire eight years.

Trending: Pelosi’s Son Now Involved In Ukraine Scandal- Democrat Party In Shambles

One of those judges is Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs.

On Thursday Biggs, issued a permanent nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration from clarifying and defining the start date of determining “unlawful presence,” that was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996.

Biggs issued the nationwide injunction in spite of a sharp critique for such actions by district courts by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch while rendering his opinion on another immigration.

Justice Gorsuch recognized the growing problem of activist district courts issuing nationwide injunctions as though these lower courts spoke for the entire country. Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the gov-ernment to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois. But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem. The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of “nationwide,” “universal,” or “cosmic” scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.

“Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III.”

At last count, President Trump had appointed 191 judges to the federal courts, including two Supreme Court justices. This is a record.

As we can see from the record number of injunctions being overturned by the Supreme Court, Democrats are losing their grip on the federal judiciary.

Remember, it is the Court, not the voters or Congress, that legalized abortion, Obamacare, and gay marriage. A completely unaccountable court of nine jurists.

As much as anything else, this is what is fueling Dems’ desperation to unseat President Trump.

This article originally appeared at Illicit Info OPINION Blog and was republished with permission.

*This article may not be reprinted without expressed permission from Illicit Info.

Scroll down to leave a comment!

Join us at SPREELY if you want REAL NEWS without the leftist censorship!

Also join us at MUMBLIT

Dean James at Right Wing Tribune

God Bless.

Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you, we appreciate it!

YOU MIGHT LIKE

Facebook Has Banned Us!

The leftists at Facebook decided they didn't like our message, so they removed our page and are censoring us. Help us fight back and subscribe to our newsletter so that you can stay up-to-date with everything Facebook doesn't want you to see!

0SHARES[mashshare]
Follow Me On Twitter!