Judge Napolitano speaks powerfully on 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.
The 9th Courts fantasy theory of legal standing, “injuries” to public universities that result from foreign students and teachers not being able to enter the country give the states standing to sue.
So, the rights of foreigners who are NOT Americans supersede the rights of American citizens to be safe in their own country.
Moreover, the court held that foreigners with visas have due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even though the precedent it cited applied to people already in the United States.
So, again the 9th Circuit willfully misapplied the law to fit their own narrative.
The Those due process rights could also be asserted by states on behalf of people in the U.S. illegally or “who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or … institution,” the court held in its ruling.
Let's APPLY that slight of hand logic to actual terrorists...
Hani Hasan Hanjour was one of the four pilots in the September 11, 2001 attack. He flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing over 3000 plus AMERICANS, including everyone on the flight.
He was in the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission report. Using the liberal left reasoning of the Ninth Circuit, Hanjour, an actual terrorists who MURDERED thousands of AMERICANS would have due process rights to challenge his exclusion from the United States once he had been granted a student visa.
His relationship with a U.S. “institution” in this case, an English as a Second Language school in Oakland, California would have been enough to grant him entry into the United States so that he could commit mass murder, which, he did!
So, the 9th Circuit Court would rather allow a mass murder of innocent Americans entry into the United States, then to allow President Trump the ability to keep Americans safe in their own country.
Some info re-posted from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/10/ninth-circuit-and//www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/napolitano-9th-circuit-ruling
“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.
The 9th Courts fantasy theory of legal standing, “injuries” to public universities that result from foreign students and teachers not being able to enter the country give the states standing to sue.
So, the rights of foreigners who are NOT Americans supersede the rights of American citizens to be safe in their own country.
Moreover, the court held that foreigners with visas have due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even though the precedent it cited applied to people already in the United States.
So, again the 9th Circuit willfully misapplied the law to fit their own narrative.
The Those due process rights could also be asserted by states on behalf of people in the U.S. illegally or “who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or … institution,” the court held in its ruling.
Let's APPLY that slight of hand logic to actual terrorists...
Hani Hasan Hanjour was one of the four pilots in the September 11, 2001 attack. He flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing over 3000 plus AMERICANS, including everyone on the flight.
He was in the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission report. Using the liberal left reasoning of the Ninth Circuit, Hanjour, an actual terrorists who MURDERED thousands of AMERICANS would have due process rights to challenge his exclusion from the United States once he had been granted a student visa.
His relationship with a U.S. “institution” in this case, an English as a Second Language school in Oakland, California would have been enough to grant him entry into the United States so that he could commit mass murder, which, he did!
So, the 9th Circuit Court would rather allow a mass murder of innocent Americans entry into the United States, then to allow President Trump the ability to keep Americans safe in their own country.
Some info re-posted from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/10/ninth-circuit-and//www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/napolitano-9th-circuit-ruling
