Judicial Activism Reigns

May 26, 2017

The Fourth Circuit Federal Appeals Court has upheld 10-3 a lower court ban on President Trump’s stay on immigration from six nations that were identified by the Obama Administration as hotbeds of anti-American terrorism where refugees could not be vetted (despite what critics claim, it's not a “Muslim ban” – it doesn’t affect dozens of other majority Muslim nations, including several that have even larger Muslim populations.)

Again, they based the decision on year-old campaign rhetoric and not the specific language of the law, an unprecedented act of judicial activism and an outrageous intrusion into the President’s clearly-enumerated Constitutional power to act quickly to protect national security and keep Americans safe -- the importance of which you’d think they might finally have grasped in light of recent deadly terrorist attacks involving refugees and children of refugees in Europe. If previous courts had used such a ridiculous standard, they would have thrown out Obamacare as unconstitutional because Obama plainly lied in saying, “If you like your doctor/plan, you can keep them,” instead of deliberately overlooking all the reasons that it actually was unconstitutional.


Commentary continues below advertisement


This will end up in the Supreme Court (we still have to wait for the Ninth Circuit Court to issue its inevitable incorrect ruling agreeing with the Fourth Circuit). Let us hope it gets there ASAP and that that’s the point at which common sense and the Constitution will finally prevail.

PLEASE LEAVE ME A COMMENT BELOW.  I READ THEM!

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 1-3 of 3

  • Richard John Roetling

    05/29/2017 07:47 AM

    10-3? That is shocking. To think judges have sold out to politics so completely! Clearly, they simply ignore it if they don't like it when it comes to arguments about the Constitution. Impeachment is absolutely warranted but absolutely impossible with the large minority in Congress who also do not honor the oath of office. If the SCOTUS upholds this it will be necessary for the executive to reassert its rightful place by refusing to follow the ruling.

  • Jim Whitman

    05/26/2017 10:41 AM

    Sadly the 2/3 Senate requirement would be prohibitive of the impeachment and removal of the judges who clearly have a political rather than judicial agenda. Still, even if they were not removed, perhaps the process by the House would call attention to their political agenda overshadowing their judicial requirements. And yes, I think these judges should be removed from their position.

  • Dolores Varley

    05/26/2017 09:18 AM

    Thank you Mr. Huckabee for providing this very important information about immigration. We need to enforce our borders to protect American citizens and visitors. This is not personal it's strictly business. People will want to flock to our country because they know we have strong, protected borders which provides peace and safety. Unfortunately, we will also have people with terrible intent who want access to our country. For the sake of peace and safety we need a strong border protected by a well equipped Border Patrol and a "beautiful wall" (per President Trump). Controlling immigration is common sense.