Yep, this is going to be a problem.
A total of 10 progressive judges all in Virginia went ahead and decided that Muslims should be able to ask judges to CHANGE the nation’s national security and immigration policies whenever they can be described as unfair to Muslims living in America.
“To the extent that our review chills campaign promises to condemn and exclude entire religious groups, we think that a welcome restraint,” boasted the majority opinion, which was approved by 10 judges on the Richmond-based Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and announced May 25. President
We know that President Trump’s Executive Order on Islamic migration ““speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” from the 2016 election campaign, the judges insisted.
BUT, now a dissent approved by three judges has pushed the political ambitions and further risks hiding behind the court’s declaration of support for all Islamic plaintiffs.
“The danger of the majority’s new rule is that it will enable any court to justify its decision to strike down any executive action with which it disagrees,” says three three-judge dissent, which concluded:
Unless corrected by the Supreme Court, the majority’s new approach, which is unsupported by any Supreme Court case, will become a sword for plaintiffs to challenge facially neutral government actions, particularly those affecting regions dominated by a single religion.
Government officials will avoid speaking about religion, even privately, lest a court discover statements that could be used to ascribe a religious motivation to their future actions.
And, in the more immediate future, our courts will be faced with the unworkable task of determining when this President’s supposed religious motive [in the 2016 election]has sufficiently dissipated so as to allow executive action toward these or other majority Muslim countries.
This lawsuit is brought by Muslim plaintiffs, and fully backed by a numerous array of establishment progressive corporate lawyers, all against President Trump’s Executive Order of course.
An Executive Order that simply ‘TEMPORARILY’ blocked or even just cured Muslim immigration from 6 of the 50 Muslim majority countries…but that wasn’t reasonable enough for them.
The temporary block is only meant to help officials institute new safeguards against Islamic-inspired attacks like the one we just saw in Manchester due to the growing inflow of Muslim immigrants, refugees, and their future American-born children causing an increasingly chaotic and divided nation.
One of the issues is that progressive Democrats and establishment Republicans and business leaders strongly favor continued inflow of cheap workers, extra consumers and it is believed that they are also setting up the way for likely future Democratic voters, regardless of economic and security issues that will have an impact on Americans.
In the dissent authored by Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer, the three moderate judges scoffed at the 10 judges for ignoring prior Supreme Court guidance. The logic of the 10 judges’ decision, says the dissent, is that any future court:
Need only find one [campaign]statement that contradicts the stated reasons for a subsequent executive action and thereby pronounce that reasons for the executive action are a pretext …
Moreover, the unbounded nature of the majority’s new rule will leave the President and his Administration in a clearly untenable position for future action. It is undeniable that President Trump will need to engage in foreign policy regarding majority-Muslim nations, including those designated by the Order.
And yet the majority now suggests that at least some of those future actions might also be subject to the same challenges upheld today. Presumably, the majority does not intend entirely to stop the President from creating policies that address these nations, but it gives the President no guidelines for “cleansing” himself of the “taint” they have purportedly identified…
Finally, the new rule would by itself chill political speech directed at voters seeking to make their election decision. It is hard to imagine a greater or more direct chill on campaign speech than the knowledge that any statement made may be used later to support the inference of some nefarious intent when official actions are inevitably subjected to legal challenges.
Indeed, the majority does not even deny that it employs an approach that will limit communication to voters. Instead, it simply opines remarkable that such chilling is “a welcome restraint.”
It is expected that the Supreme Court will cringe at the majority’s adoption of this new rule that has absolutely ZERO limits or bounds.
Unless this is correct by the Supreme Court, the majority’s new approach will then become sharp sword for plaintiffs to challenge facially neutral government actions, especially regions dominated by a single religion.
Government officials will avoid speaking about religion, even in private, our courts will then be facing the unworkable task of determining when this President’s supposed religious motive has been sufficiently dissipates to allow executive action toward these or other majority Muslim countries.
It’s way past time that our judicial system is brought to heel.
Rather than to do their actual job, many judges have decided to legislate morality by creating law as opposed to interpreting it.
If every act by POTUS can be delayed and mucked up by a run amok judge, we’ll never get anything accomplished.
We need to demand that judges stop overstepping their bounds and dictating their perverse conception of morality.
The only recourse at this point is appealing every one of these fascist rulings to the SCOTUS.
If that fails, we can’t keep waiting for Superman to show up, it time for every patriot in this nation to take their place and realize the real power is with us.
It’s really frustrating isn’t it? I mean, how many abuses of our civil liberties are we going to stand for?