Final justice


Just a few days ago, Judge James Louis Robart, a US federal judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, ruled blocking one presidential executive order that temporarily halted the flow of certain refugees from seven countries in the Middle East. The language of the presidential executive order is quite clear and can be read here in the White House official site.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano commented on the ruling of the Appellate Court saying:  “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”  Napolitano also said: “I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president.”

Some say the language of the executive order is almost inviting the judiciary to intervene. I don’t see anything of that sort in the document text, perhaps the presentation of the executive order was politically taunting. The truth of the matter is that one judge reacted and halted the execution of the order. Later a Court of Appeals unanimously allowed the judge’s measure to stay.

In the process of appealing, the lawyers working for the executive branch made several mistakes, like forgetting to bring documentation proving that refugees from the affected countries had committed acts of terrorism in the US contrary to the assertion of Judge Robarts, etc. I find that very hard to believe. There has to be a motive for that blatant sloppiness and I think I know why the lawyers acted that way. In my mind this is nothing less than political bait for the Liberal judiciary and they have swallowed it whole.

Allow me to explain: I think this is going to reach the Supreme Court and the offending executive order will be allowed to stand. To begin with, the executive order is almost inconsequential. President Trump could have achieved the same objectives without making any noise by simply implementing the long standing US immigration law. Even today he can simply hurry and implement a policy that will in effect be indistinguishable from the executive order or even harsher. The President can do that without interference from the courts. Why did he do this in the fist place? I believe he wanted the Liberal judiciary to take the bait.

Right now the travesty of lower court judges – making laws out of thin air – has reached the media forefront because they think they are winning. In reality it will be a moot victory that will be transformed in a resounding defeat once the matter reaches the Supreme Court.

They are going to lose because it is simply impossible for the Supreme Court to rule against the Constitution on something that explicitly concerning  only to the executive power. That would be the equivalent of the FBI arresting a Supreme Court Justice so he cannot render a ruling. It would be war between the constitutional powers and they know it. They are not Judge James Robart, they are walking the halls of History and they don’t want to be remembered like that Roger B. Taney that washed his hands on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, [60 U.S. 393 of 1857] thus facilitating the American Civil War.

Once the Supreme Court rules against Robart et al, Trump with Congress can then drop the other shoe: they will proceed to review all the nonsense that has been polluting US jurisprudence, like Roe v. Wade mainly, the Dakota Pipeline rulings, and many other judicial interventions like the infamous potty for perverts regulations that Obama was pushing last year.

In my opinion this is only a small skirmish designed to call the enemy’s attention towards one flank while attacking them from the other. Mark my words. Trump is too smart to make the “mistakes” he has done too far. This is political bait. If I am wrong President Trump can still use this opportunity to address the nuisance of judges legislating from the bench and put an end to it.

Post post: please read this excellent article by Patrick Buchanan.


12 thoughts on “Final justice

  1. That possibility crossed my mind as well, although I didn’t know about the lack of preparedness by the attorneys. I hope you’re right, but I think we have to sit tight on this.

    What seems clear is that the liberal judiciary will be held responsible if, God forbid, we are hit and that the EO has cemented the Administration’s support from the American people.The polls are very strong on this one, and the usurpation by rogue justices is pretty obvious.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Yes, Castelletto. If President Trump didn’t do it on purpose at least he has the opportunity to turn this liability into an asset if he acts intelligently and decisively. I quote here one reader’s insightful comment that I got via e-mail:

    “I was talking with a prominent pro-life leader last night who was worried about the judicial activism. I laughed and told him I think this was “rope-a-dope” on the part of Trump. (Rope-a-dope was the strategy Muhammad Ali used against George Foreman in 1974: he laid against the ropes, pretending to be vulnerable in order to goad Foreman into being over-aggressive, then knocked him out cold.) I agree completely that Trump’s people were WAY too sloppy and timid in this, completely out of character. And I have private personal knowledge that one of Trump’s priorities is to reign in the corrupt federal judiciary. This was rope-a-dope.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • Very encouraging. Now, what we need is something similar in the Church. What’s going on in the U.S. judiciary, at least as far as the attempted fragmentation and usurpation of power dove-tails with the rebellion among the Bishops in the slipstream of AL.

      There is a good discussion of this over at Catholic Thing today, as it relates to subjectivism and as it can be expected to unfold going forward.The article is by a Fr. Vaverek and is very incisive. It brings to mind Our Lady of Akita’s church-approved prophecy from 1973.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. You’re right about President Trump’s reasons for doing things the way he is doing them! He’s successfully “drawing the enemy out into the open” & exposing them for what they are–traitors to the nation. Every poll you see shows a large majority of Americans are deeply concerned about the Islamic terrorism threat in the US & they want it destroyed. Trump promised to do just that. The Islamists have been using the court system to further their cause & protect them. Those days will soon be over.

    Of course, the root problem will remain. The majority of Americans have turned against God too. And, until that is changed, the US will continue to sink & rightfully so.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Pat Buchanan has posted a very interesting article on this subject, which is readable in ‘Takimag’.

    This is apparently about much more than the protection of the United States from terrorism, not to downgrade that very important issue. It is about determining who has the power in the US-the people or the Ivy League legal elites.

    You may well have struck the nail right on the head, Carlos.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Good article by Pat Buchanan, as usual.

    President Trump has announced something big regarding National Security a few minutes ago. He is the one that can move Congress to terminate the decades of judicial legislation that have caused so much harm. Abortion, for example, needs to be taken before the whole Congress and those elected officials have to sign if we are or not a Nation Under God with life justice and liberty for all. Not much justice or liberty for those killed in the womb who have no “choice” but to be assassinated legally. Oh, well.

    That new Justice was a jewel also, he did not wait to be confirmed to back stab Trump. He’s no Scalia.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Indeed, one of the mightiest forces that has birthed the new populism that imperils the establishment is that unelected justices like Warren and Brennan, and their progeny on the bench, have remade our country without the consent of the governed—and with never having been smacked down by Congress or the president.

    Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.

    Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable. As rightly they should.

    Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution—to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.

    A clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Off topic, but Pope Francis may have done it again. I hesitate to be specific because the article was in Breitbart and not a reliable Catholic source. Still, it is disconcerting that he would say things that can even be interpreted as along the lines of there being no such thing as Muslim terrorism and the expressing more concern about the supposed impending environmental catastrophe.

    Is this another “lost in translation” event or evidence that the Pope a) is either such an ideologue that it obscures his thinking about his role and the nature of reality, b)is actually losing it, or c) is being managed by evil in such a way that his awareness and perspectives are distorted.

    I wonder if you can shed any light upon this, Carlos. We needn’t get into AL, although that mess also makes me wonder if something is happening to him cognitively or, perhaps, is under the influence of those around him.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Castelletto, you know I have defended Pope Francis when his words were intentionally distorted by bad translations but lately he has said so many things that can be easily misleading… Popes, US Presidents have to think carefully before talking. We should all do in light of Jesus’ words “But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.” Matthew 12:36. And think of the words of St Paul in Romans 12:16 “Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.” Those words echo the Psalm 131:1 by David: “I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me.”

      The Pope is doing strange things. His words about Luther are questionable to say the least, and that statue of Luther in the Vatican gardens speaks volumes about the sad state of affairs in the Church. When things like that happen, I go back to the essentials: God is good, He is a benefactor, everything He gives –even those things that are bad in appearance — will ultimately work for the good of our souls. We admit that much every Easter when we recite the O felix culpa …

      It is easy to trust in God when we have a great Pope and things are going well. In times of darkness we tend to act like the disciples during the Passion. We run and hide. These are times of darkness, I take comfort in reading the words of the saints of ages past. This too shall pass, including Francis and the hour of darkness. I have faith that many will come to the Church in a New Pentecost and we should prepare ourselves to teach them the eternal truths. Thursday night Peter denied the Lord in front of the people… but only five weeks later Peter’s words drew hundreds into the Church at Pentecost.

      All I can say is: be patient, be loyal to the Chair of Peter and do not be afraid if the one sitting there behaves in an unworthy manner. Popes come and go, Christ and His Church remain. Evil will not prevail.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.