Retired INS & ICE Official Pens Open Letter to Ninth Circuit: What Could You Possibly Be Thinking?
Yesterday, February 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the government’s appeal to overturn a decision by a U.S. District Court judge in Washington State to impose a “temporary” restraining order on the executive order putting a 90-day timeout on visas for aliens from certain designated high-risk nations.
Unusually, the entire hearing was live-streamed. According to the Daily Caller, the government’s attorney, August Flentje, “argued that, absent the order, the U.S. was at risk of terrorist attack. [Circuit Court Judges] Friedland and Clifton appeared skeptical of that position, asserting the risk was too abstract.”
Dear Judges Friedland and Clifton,
Respectfully speaking, what can you possibly be thinking?
When the Bataclan Theater was attacked in Paris, I doubt that anyone in the theater believed an attack was imminent. Likewise, when the Brussels and Istanbul international airports were attacked, I’m sure no one saw that coming. The same with the truck murders in Nice, France, during Bastille Day celebrations.
If, on September 10, 2001 you had asked anyone in America, government officials included, whether an attack was imminent, they would have looked at you as if you were mad, and I’m sure the same blank response would have pertained on December 6, 1941.
The entire aim of terrorists is to strike fear into the hearts of their victims by attacking when and where least expected.
By your line of questioning, you have unwittingly put your fingers on precisely the reason that matters of national security, defense, foreign policy, and homeland security are matters for the political branches of government; most emphatically not for the judiciary.
Dan Cadman is a retired INS / ICE official with thirty years of government experience. Mr. Cadman served as a senior supervisor and manager at headquarters, as well as at field offices both domestically and abroad.
Judge Who Will Rule on Trump Travel Order Won ACLU ‘LGBT Award’
Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who is on the three-judge panel that will rule on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at stopping terrorists from traveling to the United States, won the ACLU of Southern California’s LGBT Award in 2009, according to the Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
“She received the President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 2013 from the State Bar of California and the LGBT Award from the American Civil Liberties Union of South California in 2009,” Leahy said in the U.S. Senate on April 10, 2014, stating his approval of Friedland’s confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The Los Angeles Times reported on Friedland’s award in an August 1, 2013 story on President Barack Obama nominating her and one of her law partners to serve as judges on the 9th Circuit.
“Friedland won the State Bar of California’s 2013 President’s Pro Bono Service Award, and the 2009 ACLU of Southern California’s LGBT Award,” reported the Times. “The ACLU honored her for her representation of a gay-rights group in a state challenge of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.”
When Obama nominated Friedland to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the liberal Alliance for Justice posted a background report on her noting her dedication to advancing the cause of same-sex marriage.
“Much of Ms. Friedland’s practice at Munger Tolles has been devoted to representing those working for gay rights,” said the ALJ backgrounder.
“In Strauss v. Horton, she represented several same-sex couples and nonprofit organization Equality California in challenging enforcement of Proposition 8, the amendment to the California Constitution that banned gay marriage,” said the backgrounder.
“Ms. Friedland also represented Equality California in Pickup v. Brown, successfully defending a California law that bans state-licensed mental health professionals from using ‘gay conversion’ therapy (or ‘sexual orientation change efforts’) on minors,” said the backgrounder.
“In 2009,” said the background report, “the ACLU of Southern California awarded Ms. Friedland with the LGBT Award for her work to challenge Proposition 8 in Strauss.”
The ALJ describes itself as “representing a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society.”
Trump’s Message to the Courts: Even ‘A Bad High School Student’ Would Understand the Law in Question
(CNSNews.com) – President Donald Trump said he watched “in amazement” last night as attorneys presented oral arguments for and against Trump’s executive order pausing immigration from seven chaotic countries where the vetting cannot be verified.
Trump said the language at the heart of the case is so simple and beautifully written, even “a bad high school student” would understand it.
“Because you could be a lawyer, or you don’t have to be a lawyer; if you were a good student in high school or a bad student in high school, you could understand this. And it’s really incredible to me that we have a court case that’s going on so long.”
Trump said the lawyers who presented oral arguments to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by telephone Tuesday night “were talking about things that had just nothing to do with it.”
Trump began his speech to law enforcement officers on Monday morning by reading the simple provision that gives him the authority to do what he did. He interrupted himself frequently to explain the meaning of the plain words he was reading. Trump, in effect, was presenting his own oral argument:
“I’m going to read what’s in dispute, what’s in question,” Trump said, quoting chapter and verse of the federal code titled, “Suspension of Entry or Imposition of Restrictions by the President.”
Trump said the statute applies to all presidents and “it was done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens…and it couldn’t have been written any more precisely. It’s not like, oh, gee, we wish it were written better. It’s written beautifully,” he said.
He proceeded to read and interpret:
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens; ok, the entry, the entry of any aliens — or of any class of aliens; so, any aliens, any class of aliens into the United States; so, the entry of people into the United States, let’s say, just to be precise, of aliens into the United States.
So any — whenever the president finds that the entry of any alien or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States — right? So if I find as president that a person or a group of people would be detrimental to the interests of the United States — and certainly there’s lots of examples that we have…he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary–
Trump interrupted himself: “Now, the only the mistake is, they should have said ‘he’ or ‘she,’ but hopefully it won’t be a she for at least another seven years…See, I just noticed that, actually. Just noticed it — I’m saying whoa, this is not politically correct.”
He then resumed his interpretation:
He may by proclamation and for such period as shall deem necessary — so here it is, people coming in — suspend the entry of all aliens.”
Right? That’s what it says. It’s not like, again, a bad high school student would understand this. Anybody would understand this — suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens–say you can suspend the aliens, right? Suspend the aliens, very strong — or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Okay, so you can suspend, you can put restrictions, you can do whatever you want, and this is for the security of the country.
Trump said if judges want to boost respect for the courts, “they’d do what they should be doing.”
“When you read something so simple and so beautifully written and so perfectly written…but when you read something so perfectly written and so clear to anybody, then you have lawyers — and I watched last night in amazement and I heard things that I couldn’t believe — things that really had nothing to do with what I just read.
“And I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased. And we haven’t had a decision yet. But the courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read the statement and do what’s right, and that has to do with the security of our country, which is so important.”
Right now – with the ban on hold as the federal appeals court reviewed it — “we are at risk because of what happened,” Trump said.
Trump Lashes Out at Liberal Renegade Judges for Blocking Executive Order on Travel Restrictions
Related previous post on this blog