We need extreme vetting in the judicial system, too
Feb 7, 2017 by Todd Starnes
The federal court judge who blocked President Trump’s temporary travel ban is the poster child for everything that’s wrong with America’s legal system.
U.S. District Judge James Robart is the man who blocked President Trump’s temporary immigration ban. The president’s decision to stop refugees from seven countries that are known breeding grounds for jihadists was prudent.
In my estimation, we do not have a moral or constitutional obligation to let people into the country who want to blow us up or chop off our heads.
Judge Robart’s restraining order puts Americans in harm’s way and, as the Associated Press reports, contained erroneous information.
The judge said not a single person from any of the seven banned countries has been arrested for extremism. It turns out that was not true.
The Associated Press reports that an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State. And in November, a Somali refugee used a car and knife to wage an attack at Ohio State University.
So President Trump was absolutely within his rights to call out Judge Robart’s actions.
Folks, our federal court houses are infested with judicial activists. And the only way to root out the infestation is for President Trump to name conservative judges to the appellate courts.
But Republican presidents have had a bad habit of putting closet liberals on the bench. Democrats nominate liberals who stay liberal. But once GOP nominees get confirmed, their gavels go wobbly.
Judge Robart, for example, was appointed by President George W. Bush.
So not only do we need extreme vetting at the border, we also need extreme vetting in the court house.
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again.” Follow Todd on Twitter @ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.
Sean Hannity: Alt-left judges, lawmakers play games with President Trump’s travel ban
Feb 7, 2017 by Sean Hannity
A fierce legal battle is brewing over President Donald Trump’s extreme vetting executive order as the radical alt-left continues its willingness to gamble with the lives of Americans.
The legal back and forth is complete nonsense, and here’s why. It is a classic example of activist judges ruling based on their own personal opinions and not on what the law actually says.
“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. 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, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,” reads the relevant federal law.
President Trump’s executive order imposes a 120-day moratorium on immigration from six countries that have shown little ability to control terrorism, and an indefinite pause on immigration from Syria, which is ISIS’ headquarters, has no functioning government and is mired in a grinding, five-year civil war. President Trump believes the order is necessary to ensure we don’t bring in any terrorists masquerading as refugees.
Trump is acting to protect Americans, but judges seem to believe they can impose their will over his.
In an article entitled “Rogue judges undermining our sovereignty, and here’s how Congress can stop them,” David Horowitz of Conservative Review argued that the judicial branch of our government, especially on the lower levels, has been utterly polluted by progressive judges whose decisions are based on personal or political opinions, not on the law.
In other words, plaintiffs can “shop” for a liberal judge and obtain a favorable – and overreaching – ruling that can have a national impact. Horowitz wants Congress to take power back from these activist courts in order to the American people, our sovereignty and the rule of law.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where this legal battle is now playing out, is known by all to be the most liberal federal appeals court in the country. That three-judge panel is set to review a ruling by Seattle-based federal District Judge James Robart, who put a temporary halt to the president’s extreme vetting executive order on Friday.
Robart himself has shown his liberal leanings from the bench, declaring last year during a hearing on police reform that “Black lives matter.” A fair-minded, even-handed judge might believe, as I do, that all lives matter.
It isn’t just judges. The out-of-control hypocrisy of lawmakers is on full display, too. For example, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is crying foul over the president’s executive order, but what the senator is not telling you is that back in 2015, he actually said a pause on admitting refugees into the country could be necessary.
And take a guess who said this:
“We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”
That was President Clinton, in his 1995 State of the Union address.
Doesn’t that sound a lot like President Trump now? Yet, back when President Clinton said it, there was no outrage from the left.
Nor was there any outrage three years ago when President Obama said this:
“Today, our immigration system is broken and everybody knows it,” Obama said. “Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable.”
There you have it. The only reason liberals are resisting President Trump’s action on extreme vetting is that they’re trying to score cheap political points. It doesn’t matter that President Obama and Congress were the ones that came up the list of seven countries that President Trump referred to in his executive order, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Amid the legal confusion, visa holders from these seven terror-plagued countries are now rushing into the U.S. country while they can, according to the New York Post.
President Trump’s policy is very straightforward. Instead of twisting and misrepresenting it, the radical alt-left should listen very closely to the president’s words.
“We need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in, not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country,” Trump said.
If those on the left want to keep playing games, it should bear in mind that If one American loses his or her life as a result of letting dangerous, unvetted people into this country, they will have blood on their hands. And they will have a tough time explaining to the American people why they put politics ahead of our safety.
Adapted from Sean Hannity’s monologue on “Hannity,” Feb. 6, 2017
Sean Hannity currently serves as host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Hannity (weekdays 10-11PM/ET). He joined the network in 1996 and is based in New York. Click here for more information on Sean Hannity.