The U.S. Constitution vests judicial power in a single Supreme Court, not in a federal judiciary except “in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
The federal courts have only that power which Congress has given them by statute – and no more, despite the contrary opinion of liberal activist judges who believe the law should say what they want it to say.
Not content to construe the meaning of laws based on the words held within the four corners of the page it is written on, these judges “discover” new rights where none previously existed – or were even intended by the Framers or by the legislative or executive branches in drafting statutes and orders.
And so it is now as federal judges in the most liberal district in the United States attack President Trump’s Executive Orders to impose a brief and temporary pause of only 90-days on travel from a handful of countries in the Middle East to allow U.S. security agencies time to review protocols for vetting entrants.
Trump, like presidents before him, including his immediate predecessor Barack Obama, relied on the statutory authority found in federal law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, in drafting both the first Executive Order and then the revised version after it was blocked by the Ninth Circuit.
The Act allows the chief executive to “restrict any class of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of the United States,” without needing legislation or congressional approval – or that of any one of the 856 federal judges currently sitting in 94 district courts and 13 circuit courts of appeal.
Now, as a federal judge in Hawaii – a personal friend, appointee and law school buddy of former President Obama – blocked the revised Order, Judge Jeanine Pirro added her opinion to that of more than a few Constitutional law experts who believe Judge Derrick Watson has overreached.
The retired Westchester County, New York District Attorney, prosecutor and judge, who hosts a weekly political commentary program on FOX News appeared on the cable network’s “Fox & Friends” giving her opinion of Watson’s ruling in her trademark sharp, “in your face” style, saying, “It’s the Ninth circus. It’s a joke.”
The Ninth Circuit encompasses a huge, disparate region in the Northwest, including California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona and Nevada, as well as distant Alaska and Hawaii, and is frequently referred to in that manner by conservative attorneys and legal commentators because of the federal court’s judicial activism.
The Ninth is also the court of appeals most often overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court – possibly for the same reason.
Pirro noted that while the state of Hawaii argued that the state would suffer economic harm if the EO was allowed to stand because students from the six Muslim-majority nations named in the Executive Order temporary travel ban would not be able to attend Hawaii’s universities.
“Hello! You don’t have anyone coming from these countries, anyway,” Pirro pointed out.
“Look, bottom line… you’ve got a judge here who hates Donald Trump,” and is assessing this Order based on things candidate Trump said on the campaign trail.
Pirro summed up, as if for the jury, by explaining the real meaning of Watson’s “logic.”
“As if the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment] affects someone who lives in Somalia, who is not a citizen, who has nothing to do with this country, no nexus, no connection, no family, nothing… this is absurd.”
Noting that Hawaii has not taken in a single refugee from any of the countries named in the EO, Pirro offered them some advice.