9th Circut Panel Rules Against Trump Travel Ban

How clear does it have to be? Better question.  How devoid of politics does it have to be? Today the three judge panel of the 9^th circuit court of appeals ruled that concern for a few college kids and professors outweighed national security interests as expressed by President Trump.  The panel agreed that Washington State did have standing to show “irreparable harm” (really?) from Trump’s travel suspension and as a result, they have ruled to uphold a Seattle judge’s injunction on the so called “travel ban”.

Many court watchers said the administration’s attorney, August Flentje, presented a poor and unconvincing case.  Jeff Sessions is now the Attorney General and a different kind of effort might be expected going forward.  Will that be to a broader 10 member panel of the 9^th circuit or will it be expedited to the Supreme Court or will they let the 47 lower court cases be combined and prosecuted- who knows.  Given what the law says it is hard to imagine how it might go if the judges can ignore this:

Section 212(f) of the INA (immigration and nationality act)  "(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States 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 or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

What isn’t clear about that?  The judges don’t have the authority to second guess the president - but they did.  It shows you just how political the judiciary has become which is the last thing the founding fathers had in mind.  It will be interesting to read the opinions and see what happens next.

The President has tweeted – “see you in court.”   The security of the American people is too important in the President opinion to take this loss.  The judges don’t believe the President, but he has the authority to do it without explanation and if this isn’t overturned down the road, then what laws and rules will we be able to trust, what judges will we be able to trust to carry out the rule of law?  Stay Tuned.