Sunday, February 5, 2017

As GOP Seeks To Break Up 9th Circuit Court,The 'Liberal' Court Upholds Travel Ban Suspension. Coincidence?

"Post-Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc," translated from Latin means "After this, therefore, because of this" and is the slippery slope of a logical fallacy that has lead many analysts astray for centuries. However, seldom do events in American politics line up as blatantly and ominously as within the first few days of February 2017. It was early Sunday when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, under threat of dissolution by the GOP-led Congress, surreptitiously ruled against a long held precedent over President Trump's politically charged Executive Order on strictly partisan lines. In a situation like this, the definition of "coincidence" is strained, to say the least, and the neutrality of American jurisprudence is called into serious question. Here are the facts:
-According to The Hill on January 22nd, 2017: Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) stated his intention to introduce legislation that would break up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which serves the nine Western-most states of the U.S, plus the Pacific territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Hill went on to describe that:
"Conservatives have long bandied about the idea of breaking up the court.They say the Ninth Circuit’s decisions are often radical, pointing to a 2002 ruling where the court ruled that having the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court later overturned that ruling.
But lawmakers who support splitting up the court say it’s the 9th Circuit’s caseload, and not its liberal bent, that needs to be addressed."
- From on January 27th, 2017: President Donald Trump signs into effect his Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." The summary of which began:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered"
- On Friday, February 3rd, 2017: Fox News reported that U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart, a Seattle native who is an appointee of President George W. Bush, brought the Trump administration’s executive order on immigration to a halt nationwide, issuing a temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court until further hearings could be held.
Fox News further explained:
"The hearing came about after the Attorneys General of Washington and Minnesota filed a lawsuit seeking to halt President Donald Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order restricting immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. It also placed restrictions on refugees entering the country."
-Saturday, February 4th, 2017: The Blaze's Chris Enloe wrote that:
"The Department of Justice formally filed an appeal late Saturday asking that a federal judge’s ruling on President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on immigration and refugees be set aside.
The federal government’s request for an emergency stay was filed Saturday night with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The filing asks the court to lift an order from a day earlier from a federal district court judge in Washington state."
-Which brings us to today's bombshell, on Sunday, February 5th, 2017,  The Washington Post's Matt Zapotosky and Robert Barnes reported that the 9th Circuit Court declined to reinstate travel ban by lifting Judge Robart's ruling. The Washington Post further said:
"The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit preserves a lower judge’s order to temporarily halt the ban — and based on a schedule the court outlined, the stop will remain in place at least until sometime on Monday. The Justice Department said it would not elevate the dispute to the Supreme Court before that."
Those are the facts as they stand in the dwindling hours of Sunday, February 5th. The nation is sated and happy watching the largest sporting event our nation has to offer, while an executive order, supported by law and reinforced by multiple Supreme Court rulings over the years is quashed. These rulings were outlined as Chae Chan Ping v. United States in 1889 and Galvan v. Press in 1954, among others, according to Forbes' Daniel Fisher who reported on President Obama's Constitutional Authority over Immigration in his 2014 article, "The President Has As Much Immigration Authority As Congress Gives Him." Fisher tells us definitively citing a 1949 ruling that:
"... the court rejected a German war bride’s challenge to her expulsion, saying for the first time the president had the power to deport non-citizens.
“The right to [exclude aliens],” the Court wrote, “stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”"
Is it a coincidence that only days after a direct GOP attack upon its existence the 9th Circuit Court in the persons of Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Carter appointee, and Michelle Taryn Friedland, appointed by President Obama, denied the Justice Department request to uphold one of the signature Executive Orders of the most controversial Republican President since Nixon? That is for you to decide. However, I will leave you with my own Latin: "quae ad se in veritate." The truth points to itself.

Also published on Here

Video Source: The Washington Post
Photo Credit By Fibonacci Blue from Minnesota, USA (Protest march against Donald Trump) [CC BY 2.0 (], via Wikimedia Commons


  1. The Courts function under constitutional law. The purpose of the courts are to uphold the US Constitution. Politics do not belong in the Court System.

  2. Trumps mistake was not stopping ALL immigration from ALL countries. No visa, no entry until thorough vetting procedures are established.
    Why pick on foreigners who we know too little nor can confirm even their actual identity or that their documents aren't fake.
    Since when do non-citizens have any rights under our Constitution?