The left filed so many lawsuits; it is easy to lose track of them. I think, as a guideline, we should assume that if Trump did something, there’s a suit to stop it. Where they are on the judicial ladder depends on whether a district court judge issues a stay or injunction. The other matter is that Trump tends to win the majority of these, so the jubilant headlines waved about by the handmaiden media over the stay is rarely matched when that is overturned, usually because the Trump Administration is likely to win on merit.
- Lower courts continue to have their stays overturned.
- Mr. Trump can suspend the refugee resettlement program at will.
- Congress gave this power to the president – courts can’t take it away.
- A state and Local judge’s housecleaning is overdue.
- The cost of going to court vs. the potential price of injustice.
Saturday, I reported on a court stating that Trump can fire unionized federal workers. Unionization was enacted by executive order. Undoing it ought to be as simple, but the lower court judge was an ideologue or an idiot, so we had to wait a year, but that game is back on, the same week that another court read the law and ruled accordingly. Congress gave the president the power to start or stop refugee resettlement in the US at his pleasure.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, writing on Thursday for the 9th Circuit panel, said the court recognized the “enormous practical implications” of its decision to largely overturn rulings issued in the case by Whitehead.
“There are over one hundred thousand vetted and conditionally approved refugees, many of whom may have spent years completing the USRAP process in a third country only to be turned away on the tarmac,” Bybee wrote.
But Bybee, who like the other appellate judges was appointed by a Republican president, said the result was due to Congress granting the president sweeping powers to suspend entry to immigrants.
“Whether that consequence reflects prudent policy is not a question for this court,” Bybee wrote.
Holy separation of powers, Batman!
While District courts continue to ignore the US Supreme Court’s guidance on the matter of issuing nationwide injunctions, the Circuit Courts seem to have taken the advice more seriously, with a side of, we’re just going to get overturned at the top of the ladder, maybe we ought to just read the law and lean on the Constitution.
Has the golden age of judges ignoring the law and inventing meanings ended? hardly. I can’t speak to your state, but New Hampshire has more than its fair share of robed prophets crafting meaning out of thin air. No stone tablets, no burning bush, just opinion that stresses their credibility to the breaking point.
We’re having a constitutional crisis over education funding and voter integrity. Our proglodytes sue too and have a nauseating habit of finding a judge or a court to agree with them. The problem is solved by impeaching the judges. The Granite State has done that more than once and is threatening to do it again, but it is rarely the lower court judges, and many of them could use a good defrocking. Not that our Council or Governor will nominate replacements who are anything other than the next turn guy or gal in the five-families establishment queue.
And it isn’t about me approving of judges who give me my way. Law and Constitution are often so clear that the contradiction the courts imagine to excuse their decisions is almost painful. We are seeing it writ large with the District and Circuit Court injunctions that find themselves tossed out on the next rung of the judicial ladder, while the actual cases waste millions on both sides. Money that too often doesn’t belong to either and could do a lot more good directed to other purposes.
It makes you wonder. Should plaintiffs be held fiscally responsible for wasting taxpayer money when they lose? Would that deter frivolous suits or make justice more distant for many who have no expectation of winning, given that the judicial system is still packed with courts and judges who think themselves and their opinions above the law and the Constitution?
