Ninth Circus Court and Ridiculous Ruling

(pixabay.com)

What Are They Thinking?

The ninth circus court has done it again! An absurd ruling, based on extreme liberal bias and contrary to their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution and follow the law. Never fear, they will, once again, be overruled, assuming the Constitution eventually wins out, since it so clearly and unambiguously provides for the temporary travel ban that President Trump put in place.

Of course, there is always the fear, more and more so over the past eight years, that liberalism run amok could prevail, which would indeed be a tragedy and would only continue the downward spiral of our once glorious country. That is why this particular case carries so much weight. Not only because the original intent of the ban is being thwarted and our safety as a nation threatened, though that is a grave enough consequence, but because our very integrity and continued existence as a country is being threatened as well. 

There is no question that the President has the absolute right to do what he did. The ninth circus court's primary objection seems to be that he can't prove to them that there is a threat sufficient to require the ban. Well he doesn't have to do that! Nowhere does it say that he must justify his actions in this regard to anyone! The President has access to very sensitive and confidential intelligence that can't and should not be shared with any idiotic court! It is not their purpose to satisfy themselves that President Trump made a GOOD decision, only whether or not he has the RIGHT to make the decision, which he clearly does.

Not only that, but let's have a DUH moment here, shall we? Do the members of the court not believe that travel from countries like YEMEN and SOMALIA without any ability to know who is coming or why is NOT a threat to the United States' safety? REALLY???? Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that those countries as well as the other five in the ban certainly DO pose a threat to the United States. All together, now..... DUHHHH!

If this ridiculous ruling should prevail in the end, this would mean that - oh, let's say North Korea - suddenly begins to threaten the U.S. with the nuclear arsenal that it does possess, claiming that they will either launch them towards the West Coast or maybe they'll carry them in to the country in a briefcase and set them off in an American city. But these threats are only perceived by the intelligence community and are not generally known to the public. The President would not be allowed to ban travel from North Korea to the U.S. How insane is that?

And, as for the concern of the court that Trump's intention was to impose a "Muslim ban"... what possible difference does that make?? It would be one thing if he had intended a Muslim ban and then proceeded to impose travel bans on all countries with majority Muslim populations, but that's not the case! What his initial intention might have been is totally irrelevant. It is obviously NOT a Muslim ban, since most of the world's Muslim countries are not on the damn list! Another DUH! Since the court cannot read the man's mind, they must go on what is EVIDENT, and that is that certain countries who have a history of harboring, encouraging and exporting terror AND who are currently unable to provide citizens with reliable proof of identity were chosen for this temporary ban.

As usual, since the libs cannot win at the ballot box, they are attempting to create law and impose their will from the benches of our court system. Sadly, they have plenty of willing accomplices on those courts, due to Harry Reid's decimation of Senate procedural rules, allowing Obama to stuff the courts with liberals over the course of eight years.

(morguefile.com)

In my opinion, this Trump administration represents a tipping point. Either our country will continue to decline and eventually drown in a swamp of liberal debris, or we will turn the country around and begin to reclaim the nation that our founders left for us. With this in mind, I hope they invoke Reid's nuclear option and push Neil Gorsuch through so that there will begin to be some level of sanity restored to the Supreme Court. God willing, there will be more SCOTUS appointments in Trump's future.

We must focus on regaining the integrity, nobility, and spirit of the United States as it was founded and supported by the Constitution of the United States. If the Constitution is the deciding factor, as it should be, then President Trump's ban will eventually go back into effect. In the meantime, I would not want to be one of these foolish judges when, God forbid, someone from Somalia who enters the U.S. this weekend ends up shooting up a mall or blowing up a plane a few months from now. Would you?

Kat

Sanctuary Schmanctuary and "Muslim Bans"

Why Do Liberals Support Sanctuary Cities and Unfettered Immigration?

(pxhere.com)

So now we're listening to the left whine and CRY (Chuck Schumer.... really?) about what they purposely term a "Muslim ban", knowing well that it is a lie, in order to brainwash their ignorant constituents who can't be bothered to even wonder if what they're being fed by their leadership is even half true. I mean DUH! If it were a Muslim ban, we seem to be missing a few countries off that list of seven. Like maybe Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Indonesia, to mention a few. Obviously the ban (a temporary one)  is on travel to the United States from those countries who A) have been known, in recent years, to train, harbor, support and export terrorism and B) whose civil structures are in current turmoil such that proper vetting of people from these countries is difficult or impossible. As I said.... DUHHH!

This policy is smart, necessary and the obligation of the President of the United States whose primary responsibility is to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Anyone who disputes that doesn't know much about anything. In other words, they're stupid.

So! On to sanctuary cities! I can't wait to see what is going to happen with this one. Hopefully President Trump will cut off federal funds to these idiot mayors' cities and they will quickly be reminded that they are obligated to follow federal law, at least if they want any cooperation in terms of funding from the feds. 

(pixabay.com)

Why do liberals want sanctuary cities to remain in place, to remain hiding and harboring people who have purposely broken our laws and who, in many cases, continue to do so? Oh, that's an easy one! They know that most, more than 51 % (Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Households by Steven A Camarota, Sep 2015) of immigrant households access government welfare programs. Even though illegal immigrants are technically not eligible for many of these programs, they are once they have their anchor baby in place. So, they know they can count on these voters (legal or illegal ones) to vote for them. Who can compete with Santa Claus, right?

Somehow, because this is in their minds, they find it acceptable to openly and purposefully defy federal laws which are clear and unambiguous. It is, frankly, outrageous. With regard to people who breach our borders to the south or those who wish to fly here from seven troubled countries abroad, NO ONE has a RIGHT to enter our country except for natural-born or naturalized citizens or legal residents (and legal residency can be revoked). It's called having a SOVEREIGN NATION. We have the right, as a country, to decide who comes in to our country, how many come and from where.

So what about whiny liberals who insist that we are "mean-spirited" because we won't allow unfettered access by the entire world to enter our country? First, there are much better ways to treat desperate people with kindness and compassion than granting them legal immigrant status. Most people from these seven temporarily banned countries, for example, would much rather remain in their own home countries, if it were possible, with regard to their safety and their ability to maintain their families. 

I believe that it is a much better idea to create safe zones and temporary refugee areas in or near these home countries, eventually leading to these families being able to resume normal lives in their homelands, than having them feel forced to flee to a strange country and have to adjust to a totally different culture and lifestyle in order to survive. I, for one, would be much more willing to accept federal spending to this end than I am to spend untold billions of tax payer dollars to support people who have purposely broken our laws to come here.

Not only that, but where is all the "compassion" for the millions of people, world-wide, who are waiting and hoping and waiting some more to gain LEGAL entry to the United States? People who have applied the RIGHT WAY and have to watch as millions of others simply sneak across the border or overstay their visas and get in ahead of them. How fair and "compassionate" is that?

(morguefile.com)

The United States has the most generous immigration policy in the world, by far. We accept over one million LEGAL immigrants to our country EVERY YEAR. Is the system perfect? No, it can always be improved upon and that is something that definitely needs to be looked at. But our nation does NOT have to, nor should it, accept the lawlessness of sanctuary cities. Our country does NOT have to risk the safety of its citizens by allowing people from dangerous countries with no verifiable records available to simply come here and settle among us.

So stop whining, lefties! I guarantee you that if immigrant votes went primarily Republican, you wouldn't be so quick to welcome illegals to our shores. We know your game, and it's pathetic. Grow up, get real, and start actually caring more about human beings than your next election.

Kat

Supremely Obligated

What is the true responsibility of the Supreme Court?

(wikimedia commons)

With today's nomination of Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court justice, why not take a look at the Supreme Court, its role and responsibilities, what it is, and what it is not. I do not know much about Gorsuch as of yet, just what I've read in the past few days. But I'll tell you this much: the founders would have loved him. The same cannot be said for all the current justices on the Court!

Personally, I will find it fascinating to watch the fight that the democrats have promised over this nomination. Why? Well, because they don't have a leg to stand on. Not when you consider what the founders actually intended as the role of the Supreme Court. Liberals want nothing to do with applying constitutional law to cases brought before the Court. They want Supreme Court justices to bend that silly Constitution to their will, not even to the will of the people, necessarily, but to theirs.

The democrats keep saying that any justice nominee who is not "in the main stream" will not be considered. In the main stream? What the hell is that supposed to mean? It sure sounds as though it refers to public opinion. Which has NOTHING to do with the obligation and responsibility of the Supreme Court.

Hillary Clinton said, while on the campaign trail this past fall, (paraphrasing here) that a new president should be someone who would nominate a justice who would (quoting here) "represent all the people". WHAT?? The Supreme Court is not supposed to represent anyone! That is the job of the legislature, not the Court. The Court represents the CONSTITUTION, and nothing else.

The obligation of the Supreme Court is to listen to cases brought before it and decide on its merits or lack thereof based on the Constitution of the United States and the laws legitimately enacted within its parameters and passed by the legislature. As Alexander Hamilton so beautifully said of the Supreme Court in Federalist #78: "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." (my emphasis)

Judge Neil Gorsuch (wikimedia.com)

This shows that the founders meant the justices to make judgments on the cases brought before them based on the Constitution and the Law created under it. They were not to be influenced by the purview of either of the other two branches of government, which serve to legislate and to enforce the laws, but ONLY to make a judgment as to the constitutionality of that law.

So what happens when a Supreme Court decision has a result that is not favored by the majority of the people? Well, first of all, the result of a decision should not be a consideration of the justices at all. It's not their job to contrive a decision that will either avoid or create any given outcome, no matter how onerous that outcome may be.

A good example of the spurning of this principle was the ruling on the Affordable Care Act (better termed the UNaffordable Care Act), when Judge John Roberts based his decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Act, in part, on the upheaval that would ensue if it were overturned. SO WHAT? Roberts had no right to take the result of his ruling into consideration. His JOB was to judge the case on its merits based on the Constitution of the United States and its laws. Period. It certainly was not the court's job to fill in for the errors made by the framers of the Act, which is exactly what they did.

The answer to the question above was ingeniously written into the Constitution itself. If the people object to the outcome of a decision based on their Constitution, they have the right to introduce an amendment to that Constitution. THAT is how a changing society and evolving understanding of justice is accommodated. NOT by using the bench of the Court to push decisions in one direction or another to please the people.

(wikimedia)

So, democrats, BRING IT ON! If nominating someone who is "in the main stream" is your test, you are sadly not aware of the true purpose and responsibility of a Supreme Court justice. Theoretically, it should not matter what the personal beliefs and political leanings of a justice even are. Because he or she should not allow those to influence his or her decisions. Instead, every Supreme Court decision should be made with those blinders of Lady Justice firmly in place.... and eyes focused only on the remarkable and lasting document that our founders created for us and the thoughts and words of those founders concerning it.

Theirs are the only opinions that matter.

Kat