Coequal in Tyranny: The Ninth Circuit’s Rules for Radicals

Ilana Mercer
|
Posted: Feb 13, 2017 12:01 AM
Coequal in Tyranny: The Ninth Circuit’s Rules for Radicals

Read the judicial rules for radicals issued by the United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in affirmation of the ban on The Ban.

It follows the Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, with the imprimatur of 62 million voters, to protect the nation from foreign terrorists entering into the United States. Two states objected to the president's undeniably badly written Order, which, while upholding negative rights—and neither denying natural rights nor minting positive ones—was nevertheless replete with administrative errors.

Acting as coequal partners in the administrative tyranny the president is trying to break, the two states issued a temporary restraining order against “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” (I can already hear the election midterm ads.)

In the corner for the Deplorables was a government lawyer. August Flentje Esq. had “argued” (if you can call it that) for an emergency stay of the Washington State district court’s temporary restraining order against the president. The three Ninth Circuit jurists who heard the case said no.

CAREER GOVERNMENT LAWYERS

If you’re good at what you do, you look to make it in the private sector (as our president did, before he did us a favor). If not, you seek sheltered employment (as President Trump’s predecessor did). Clearly, clerking for the Supreme Court, as August Flentje had done, doesn’t mean a whole lot.

In presenting the oral arguments for the president and the people, Flentje evinced a level of incompetence that spurred the Bench to the heights of usurpation. For example, when The Court caviled about an alleged lack of evidence for the necessity of the “travel ban,” not only did Flentje fail to provide it, but he failed to question the need for this evidence, based on the scope of the president’s constitutional, executive power in matters of national security.

Mr. President: You promised to hire the best. Alan Dershowitz is champing at the bit. Kris Kobach would kill it in any court. (Jonathan Turley is soft. Don’t touch Fox News’ tele-judges.)

Helped by the poor job stumblebum Flentje did in arguing the president’s prerogative and position, the Ninth Circuit judges usurped President Trump’s constitutional authority, substituting their own judgment for his. The three refused to lift the ban on the ban and reinstate an Executive Order that was never meant to be subjected to judicial review, in the first place.

GEORGE W. BUSH’S LAWYER

Those on the Right who opposed George Bush during his presidency (check) were vindicated yet again. In the nooks-and-crannies of our command-and-control judiciary, Bush had squirreled away a jurist as bad as John G. Roberts Jr.

Recall, Roberts, chief of the country's legal politburo of proctologists, rewrote Obama's Affordable Care Act. He then proceeded to provide the fifth vote to uphold the individual mandate undergirding the law, thereby undeniably and obscenely extending Congress's taxing power. (Lazy government worker Paul Ryan still hasn’t come up with an alternative to ObamaCare, one that’ll prevent the Left from torching the country. Patience. It’s only been eight years.)

The unelected Bush appointee under discussion is from my State of Washington. District Judge James L. Robart, like Bush, would wrestle a crocodile for an illegal immigrant, or for potential immigrants, preferably from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan.

Having been granted standing by the Ninth Circuit to appeal President Trump’s Executive Order, Robart, as explained by a Daily Caller contributor, “hinged his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, a term meaning ‘a doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.’” It’s “ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated.”

Was parens patriae invoked to stop the state-sanctioned starving of Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo? Terri was an American adult suspended in a vegetative state, whose husband wanted her dead. She was fatally denied due process by the appellate courts, state and federal.

Robart’s mission of mercy was to rescue “two visiting scholars who had planned to spend time at Washington State University” and “were not permitted to enter the United States. One was informed he would be unable to obtain a visa.” As “helpless” were “three prospective employees from countries covered by the Executive Order,” which “the University of Washington was in the process of sponsoring.” Protected, too, from “irreparable harm” were a couple of interns. Likewise, they were sponsored by WSU, a university which receives money from American taxpayers, but brags of serving “citizens … worldwide.”

This university’s mission of “global engagement” received Court sanctioned parent-like protections. In logic, this constitutes a mistake of category. I’ve never heard of a vulnerable “mission” that requires parental protection. People, not things, require protection against harm. Don’t judges—even if Sharia-compliant—follow logic?

Universities funded by American taxpayers might try doing some local engagement. You don’t need a visa to visit Washington State from West Virginia.

IRAQI, SYRIAN, YEMENI, LIBYAN, SOMALI AND SUDANESE TALENT

Despite the disconcerting push by neoconservatives in the Trump administration to conflate the Iranian people with their government, and to lump them with the rest in the Ban—you should know the following: Iranians are well-represented in our state’s high-tech industry as top talent (PhD's galore).

I’ve yet to hear of a single coveted Syrian, Yemeni, Somali or Sudanese whom we absolutely must have here, for his unique contributions. The same applies to the poor Iraqis. Perhaps Bush killed most of them.

And if Libya had top technical or scientific talent, Hillary Clinton killed their prospects. (And with a good deal of hilarity; that broad is a natural-born killer.)

Yes, Bill O’Reilly, President Trump was correct when he asserted that, “We have a lot of killers.” Our country’s politicians have left lands not their own slick with blood. But this doesn’t mean the American people deserve to be killed stateside, which is what President Trump’s Executive Order was meant to prevent.