Congress can and must impeach the judicial tyrants

Recently, a series of loony left judges have taken it upon themselves to issue rulings against President Trump's legitimate executive orders to temporarily halt immigration from terrorist-sponsoring nations that were previously identified by President Obama. Such actions epitomize the use of judicial overreach to implement a partisan political agenda.

8 U.S.C. Section 1182(f) states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

In the March 16, 2017 Atlantic article, The Dangerous Precedent Set by Judicial Attacks on Trump's Travel Ban, David Frum writes:

Judge Derrick Watson’s imaginative reasoning asserts a new power to disregard formal law if the president’s words create a basis for mistrusting his motives...

The president of the United States has power to bar “any class of aliens” both as immigrants and as nonimmigrants and to impose on their ordinary comings and goings “any restrictions he may deem appropriate.”

That’s the language of the U.S. Code, the law of the land as enacted by Congress, under Congress’ own constitutional power over immigration and naturalization.

Presidential power is never absolute, of course. It’s always subject to the Constitution. Many have argued that Trump's ban is unconstitutional because—as the president himself has repeatedly said—it’s intended to ban Muslims, and should be regarded as prohibited religious discrimination.

But here’s the problem for those making the argument: It’s firmly established U.S. law that the rights of the Constitution belong only to Americans...

What it [Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling] does, in effect, is globalize the First Amendment (and possibly other amendments too) provided only that a fellow adherent of that religion live inside the United States.

This approach is so ambitious and so new that it renders incredible...

Watson’s imaginative reasoning in Hawaii v. Trump asserts a new judicial power to disregard formal law if the president’s personal words create a basis for mistrusting his motives...

John Derbyshire writes in his March 18, 2017 VDare article, Affirmative-Action Judges Watson And Chuang’s Anti-White Ideology Of “Hateism”:

... First, a District Court Judge in Hawaii, Obama appointee Derrick Kahala Watson issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the order. [Full Text] Secondly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc refused to consider the administration’s appeal of the earlier TRO sought by the State of Washington. This is a new low for the courts...

Who is Derrick Watson? Well, that Anglo name notwithstanding, Judge Watson is of native Hawaiian descent, middle name Kahala. He’s either fifty or fifty-one years old.

Judge Watson was appointed by Barack Obama five years ago. It was frankly and openly an Affirmative-Action appointment. Obama said at the time that his appointment would “ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves.” [From a Placid Judge, a Cutting Rejection of Trump’s Travel Ban,By Alexander Burns, New York Times, New York Times March 16, 2017]...

They don’t even bother to hide this stuff now....

the Plenary Power Doctrine has long held that “an unadmitted and nonresident alien” has “no constitutional right of entry,” as the Court put it in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972). So long as the government presents a facially “legitimate and bona fide reason for its action” to exclude an alien, courts cannot review the decision...

Regardless of the ultimate solution to deal with judicial imperialism—be it impeachment, legislatively restricting the judiciary, ending lifetime tenure, etc.—these ideas will remain nothing but conjectures until federal judges get knocked off their pedestal and the MSM loses its moral monopoly...

In his March 17, 2017 World Net Daily article, Impeach Obama's hack Hawaii judge!, Larry Klayman writes:

Thanks to yet another runaway hack federal judge, now all of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims have a constitutional right to enter the United States – unrestricted at any time...

But the federal courts have neither the competence nor jurisdiction to second-guess the president’s core constitutional responsibility and authority. When the commander in chief, armed with classified intelligence not routinely available to courts, determines that people from a terrorist hotbed present a danger, the courts have no place substituting their “infinite wisdom” for his...

But normal rules don’t apply for hack leftist judges like Watson, who are “results oriented” not “the law oriented.” For those who understand the Muslim theology of dhimmitude – the subjugation of non-Muslims to the caliphate – if our country had already surrendered to subjugation to the Muslim world, would our government be doing anything differently than what they have been doing under the former President Obama – himself of Muslim descent?...

President Trump needs to immediately send legislation to our spineless Congress to take away jurisdiction of our federal courts to second-guess the national defense or national security decisions of the commander in chief. Most people do not realize that Congress can regulate what cases the federal courts are allowed to consider. Federal judges serve “during good behavior” – not “for life” – under the Constitution. But Congress has sat by and allowed leftist faculty lounge activists to run our country in black robes...

In the February 4, 2017 press release, Klayman Says Seattle Judge's Restraining Order on Trump Temporary Hold on Visas From 7 Middle Eastern Countries Just the Latest Judicial Tyranny - Underscores Need for Honest and Depoliticized Lower Court Federal Judges, the Judicial Selection Strike Force Coalition concludes that Judge Robart should be impeached for placing a temporary restraining order on President Trump's executive order to temporarily ban travel from terrorist-sponsoring countries.

What Congress must do

In the excellent and well-researched book, Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America, WND Books (July, 2016), Daniel Horowitz points out that:

… [federal] courts were never vested with the power to decide broadly consequential societal and political questions not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, such as gay marriage, abortion, and immigration policy. They were primarily created for the purpose of interpreting and plying the meaning of statutes, mediating disputes between individuals and between states, deciding complex separation of powers disputes between the legislature and executive, and several esoteric jurisdictions for which the Constitution granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction…

Stolen Sovereignty is an important, readable, and well-researched book. It's an engaging read which includes a moderate discussion of relevant case law, oriented toward the lay reader. Horowitz emphasizes that with the election of conservatives to Congress and the Presidency, it is imperative to address judicial overreach before it is too late.

The courts have claimed absolute power under the 14th Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall professed that the Fourteenth Amendment completely rewrote the Constitution, maintaining that it is a “living and breathing document.”As a consequence of this theory, the concept of stare decisis – that is, legal precedent – is one-directional, leading to inevitable judicial tyranny. Horowitz clarifies:

There is no greater tyranny than the retroactive creation of an ever-elastic set of laws that is anchored to nothing more than the political judgment of unelected judges at the time they woke up that day.

Horowitz asks: why are judges who have invested themselves with the power to concoct law and change the Constitution not elected? After all, their power now exceeds the power of the entire legislature.

The courts were never intended to have jurisdiction over sovereignty or political questions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 did not grant the Supreme and inferior courts appellate jurisdiction on important issues. It wasn't until 1875 that Congress transferred that authority from state courts. Then in 1914, Congress granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases heard by state supreme courts. Note that Congress has the authority to grant judicial purview, as well as negate it.

As Horowitz notes, we have been brainwashed into thinking the courts are the last word on legislative issues.

Yet Congress ultimately does have the final say. Congress has complete power to regulate district and appellate courts. Congress could indeed regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts and clarify that they have no authority over immigration law enforcement.

Indeed, the Constitution in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 specifically grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, stating:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

However, to take the requisite action, spineless public servants in Congress will first be required to grow a backbone. America is waiting.




'You’re Fired, Judge': Sanctioning Federal Judges for Bad Behavior, by Robert Barnes, American Thinker, March 22, 2017.

Why Trump’s Immigration Order Is Legal and Constitutional - An explanation from five good federal judges, National Review, March 20, 2017.

Hawaiian Judge Who Block Trump Was Obama’s Classmate; Obama Visited Hawaii At Same Time, The Conservative Papers, March 18, 2017.

Hawaii judge thumbs nose at AG Sessions: yes, my order applies to refugee ceiling/moratorium, Refugee Resettlemtn Watch, March 20, 2017:

... It appears that Judge Derrick Watson believes he has the authority to set the ceiling for refugee admissions each year.

He emphatically does not have that authority. He can’t make the Dept. of State resume overseas processing of refugees. He can’t make the Administration and Congress spend money on refugees.

The President has the explicit power in the Refugee Act of 1980 to set the CEILING (as we said here). In most years the President (Bush and Obama) has been well under the CEILING!

As I have said recently, the big mistake the Trump team made was putting the refugee pause in to an Executive Order.

They have the power to slow the flow and stay under a proposed CEILING without an explicit order...


CAIRCO Research

Islamic terrorism and ISIS

Refugee resettlement racket

Syrian refugees and national security