• Home
  • The Judiciary/Courts

No Judge Has Jurisdiction To Erase Our Border


By Daniel Horowitz
ConservativeReview.com

No court can ever force the president to allow any alien to enter the country. No such lawsuit could ever have legitimate standing, and no such decision could have any constitutional moorings. If we don’t understand that, we are no longer a sovereign Republic.

Monday night, Jon Tigar, an Obama-appointed judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a forum chosen by the ACLU, penned what is essentially an op-ed expressing his desire that Trump’s order on asylum be temporarily enjoined. His desire is just as binding as my desire to place an injunction on all liberals from running for office. He has no jurisdiction over immigration, has no jurisdiction over national security, has no jurisdiction over the border, violated endless settled law, violated Article II powers, violated.

Article I delegated authority, and broke every sane ruling on Article III standing that differentiates a court from a legislature.
 

This is not a legitimate court ruling or even court case.

President Trump issued a commonsense and quite modest order to direct all asylum claims to the points of entry rather than empowering the cartels to smuggle them in between the points of entry. Given that none of these people are legitimate asylees, he should have suspended all asylum claims at the border and required them to instead make claims in U.S. consulates in Mexico, the first safe third-party country, as designated by the U.N. Nonetheless, even this order was out of bounds, according to Tigar, who believes that asylum statute requires the president to afford everyone in the world, evidently even a belligerent mass migration, a chance to file an application.

Moreover, in what has become a favorite stalking horse of the judicial fascists, Tigar claimed that Trump didn’t properly promulgate this “regulation” under the rules of the Administrative Procedure Act. Yup, evidently, sensitive foreign affairs negotiations with Mexico and Central America and repelling an invasion are now classed with promulgating a new regulation on American farms. Will we subject a North Korean missile attack to the APA?

Let’s put aside the fact that asylum law was written clearly for individuals, not groups of tens and hundreds of thousands of people invading our country. It was written for people like Asia Bibi, the Christian who is being threatened with execution in Pakistan because of her faith. These people in the caravan are prima facie not eligible for asylum, and much like an invading army doesn’t need to be given papers and catch-and-release, these people don’t need to be let in.

Let’s also put aside the fact that asylum statute explicitly bars judicial review and private causes of action to sue for asylum status.
Let’s also put aside the fact that the ACLU cannot qualify as a legitimate party with standing to meet the standards of Article III cases and controversies. I kid you not, the ACLU actually said it has a personalized, cognizable harm because Trump’s policy causes the group “to divert significant resources to, among other things, understanding the new policy,” and “educating and advising its staff, clients, and prospective clients” on the order. I guess I can sue Pelosi’s House for any legislation I don’t like because it forces me to spread my resources thin in educating the public through my various platforms about the consequences.

Indeed, we have already established that this ruling is null and void from day one. But there is something more fundamental here.
The president has both delegated authority and inherent Article II powers over foreign commerce to prevent people from landing on our shores to begin with, and that is something that even Congress cannot take away. Thus, even if asylum statute in a vacuum forced the president to entertain any bogus claim, the president has inherent authority to exclude applicants from entering, and that power was reaffirmed by Congress in 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, which serves as a circuit breaker to all immigration categories, including asylum or any form of legal immigration. And for good reason.

As the Supreme Court said in Lichter v. United States (1948):

It is not necessary that Congress supply administrative officials with a specific formula for their guidance in a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the congressional policy to infinitely variable conditions constitute the essence of the program. . . . Standards prescribed by Congress are to be read in the light of the conditions to which they are to be applied. “They derive much meaningful content from the purpose of the Act, its factual background and the statutory context in which they appear.”

There are no greater infinitely variable conditions than dealing with the emergency of the drug cartels and mass migration mixing together at our border. In fact, there are fewer groups in the world more brutal than the drug cartels. That alone would meet the definition of the president’s solemn requirement to repel an invasion under Art. IV Sec.4. There is no way anyone can read asylum law as negating the explicit and unambiguous powers to exclude aliens.
 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Grassley Goes After Democrats On Senate Floor — Gives Full Picture


Chuck Grassley, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, went before the Senate Floor this morning to explain exactly what happened with Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by Democrats who were set out to destroy him, even calling what they did to him ‘monstrous’.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Mark Levin Spots 3 Remarkable Similarities Among the Kavanaugh Allegations


Three question marks
 
Mark Levin addresses the latest sexual assault allegations raised against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and pointed out a pattern.  “No witnesses, no corroboration, no evidence. That’s the pattern,” Levin said.
 

 
 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Kavanaugh Allegation Process Is A Miscarriage Of Justice For Everyone


A Senate star chamber full of grandstanding senators on both sides will not elucidate what happened four decades ago, when all people involved were minors, and the accuser is unclear on the details.

By Mollie Hemingway
TheFederalist.com

After the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh concluded last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., revealed that for six weeks she’d hidden a claim he’d sexually assaulted someone. Christine Blasey Ford then told the Washington Post that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers.

Although she said she doesn’t remember where or when the alleged event occurred, she said she believes it may have been in the summer of 1982 and that Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge was present for the assault. Notes from a couples therapy session in 2012 show that she spoke of an assault involving four boys, not two, from an elitist DC boys’ school. Kavanaugh isn’t mentioned in the notes, but Ford’s husband says she told him the name at that time and said she was worried he might be a Supreme Court nominee in the future.

Kavanaugh categorically denies the allegations. Judge says he doesn’t recall any such event and that Kavanaugh didn’t behave that way. Another alleged party attendee named by Ford says he doesn’t recall such a party and that Kavanaugh didn’t behave that way.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has delayed the vote on whether to confirm Kavanaugh, reopened the hearings, and invited both Kavanaugh and Ford to speak to the matter. Kavanaugh has agreed but Ford says she won’t testify until and unless the FBI investigates her claim. Democrats, who previously asked for the hearing, now suggest that the vote to confirm Kavanaugh should be delayed for as long as it takes for an investigation to take place.

Senate Republicans are less enchanted by the demand that they indefinitely delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote so unverifiable claims might be investigated. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said, “Immediately after learning of Dr. Ford’s identity from news reports Sunday, committee staff started working to gather facts related to her claims. We’ve offered Dr. Ford the opportunity to share her story with the committee, as her attorney said yesterday she was willing to do. We offered her a public or a private hearing as well as staff-led interviews, whichever makes her most comfortable. The invitation for Monday still stands.” The committee explained that the FBI “considers the matter closed” and doesn’t make credibility determinations.

Much of the media coverage has focused on how this is good for or Democrats and bad for Republicans. While that’s interesting, if debateable, it’s far more important to discuss whether this is good for the republic itself.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

FINALLY: House Judiciary Committee Seeks To Limit Judiciary Power


By Daniel Horowitz
ConservativeReview.com

Yes, one House committee is finally stepping onto the field in the one-sided battle against judicial tyranny. After years of endless legislative fiat from single district and circuit judges, the House Judiciary Committee is voting this week on a bill that clarifies once and for all that courts do not have the power to issue injunctions against abstract policies and statutes outside the parties before that particular court. Now the only question is whether the Republicans will unite behind a cogent message of keeping legislation within the legislature and place this provision in the budget bill or at least bring it to a vote before the full House and Senate.

The president’s first year and a half in office has been marred by the erroneous belief within the political system that the ACLU can shop for a judge who agrees with it on policy and use a straw-man plaintiff to veto abstract policies. That single judge, typically shopped around to a circuit where the plaintiff will automatically win the appeal, ensures that commonsense policies well within the purview of the political branches are shut down indefinitely at the flick of the wrist from one judge until the Supreme Court is willing to take the appeal, which could take months or years. Even if the other side secures a victory at the Supreme Court, the Left continues to shop around to the same district judges a new case with a slight nuance and starts the cycle all over again.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)