As reported at The Hill.com:
“Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) blasted Attorney General Jeff Sessions as “a racist and a liar” on Sunday, after Sessions’s comments about a federal judge in Hawaii.
Earlier this week, Sessions said he was “amazed” that a judge “sitting on an island in the Pacific” could halt President Trump’s travel ban on people from six predominantly Muslim countries entering the U.S.
“We’ve got cases moving in the very, very liberal 9th Circuit, who — they’ve been hostile to the order,” Sessions said in comments that drew considerable backlash.
But Sessions dismissed criticism of his comments on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, saying, “Nobody has a sense of humor anymore.”
Lieu fired back at Sessions on Twitter, calling him “a racist and a liar.”
“Actually, just joking. Oh wait, your record shows you are a racist and a liar,” Lieu tweeted.
I initially wanted to address the disrespect shown toward the AG
But I decided that I’m not even going to dignify the idea that Jeff Sessions is a racist. If you believe that nonsense, stop reading right now, because I can’t help you. No one can. You can’t fix stupid. Please go to your safe space until the adults are done talking.
Everyone with a functioning mind understood that A.G. Sessions was succinctly, and with a much more subtle wit, making the same general point that I am about to expound upon:
There’s a bigger issue involved here, and that’s Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law.
National defense is indisputably within the constitutional purview of the President. The President’s statutory authority regarding immigration is also crystal clear. At no point did The President exceed his constitutional and statutory authority when issuing his Travel Restriction Order. Therefore, the court’s opinion is a stunning, politically-motivated, judicial over-reach, that is in blatant violation of the Constitution.
No court has the ability to over-rule the President when he is acting within his constitutional and statutory authority. That is the entire point of giving him the authority in the first place. A president is empowered and entrusted to act, with sovereignty, within legally defined parameters. The Constitution defines those parameters, and The People, through their elected representatives in Congress, refine those parameters through legislation.
If the President exceeds his authority, Congress has the delegated power to impeach and remove him. But, so long as he obeys the law, Congress and the courts have neither constitutional nor statutory authority to interfere with the President’s exercise of his legal authority. Immigration, which, especially now, overlaps national defense, is the within the President’s “fief”, not that of the courts.
Can someone please remind me when President Trump last donned a black robe and issued legal opinions in the 9th Circuit?
I didn’t think so.
So long as the President stays in his legal pasture, he’s free to do his job as he sees fit. The laws dictate to him what he can and cannot do, not the courts. And we trust him to obey those laws, subject to the authority of the Supreme Law of the Land, until he doesn’t. That is the meaning of the Rule of Law, and respect for the Rule of law is part of the glue that binds a free society. The court should know that.
(Incidentally, that is exactly why we Conservatives insist upon having leaders who are men and women of character. If they cannot be trusted to obey the intangible, but eternal, Moral and Natural laws, how can they possibly be trusted to obey the written, but transient Constitution, which derives its authority from them?)
The Supreme Court’s “fief” is constitutional matters.
Don’t misunderstand; all the courts ought to be guided by the Constitution when ruling. But since presidential authority is derived directly from the Constitution rather than lower law, the Supreme Court can “walk the fence-line”, so to speak, to see if the President actually is trespassing. If a lower court complains that a President is out of line, and the Supreme Court sides with the lower court, that can serve as a call to action for Congress, which actually has the power to check the President through legislation or impeachment, to remedy the problem.
At least, that’s how it works in a healthy constitutional republic.
In any case, the Supreme Court has looked at this already and opined that, indeed, the President has wide latitude to act on immigration, particularly as regards national security. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 reinforced that fact. The 9th circuit, can complain, but that’s about all it can legally do.
So, I’m somewhat amazed that “45” complied with the stay. Why not simply ignore the unconstitutional injunction and move ahead with implementing the restriction? In fact, why not even expand the restriction to cover a few other countries, just to be as safe as possible (and to drive the point home)?
Judge Watson had no constitutional power to stop the President in this regard, and neither did the other yahoos who were allowed to block the first restriction. Surely Donald Trump, of all people, has lawyers around him who would know these things.
One other thing: like all other, lower federal courts, the 9th Circuit is a creation of Congress. The current President’s party controls Congress. If they really wanted to, the Republicans could simply make the 9th Circuit cease to be – forever.
Yes, the Media – Democrat Complex would go into paroxysms of hyperbolic outrage, but when don’t they? Mr. Trump has his Twitter account – a more effective tool than any Fireside Chat, I might add, for demonstrating the media’s irrelevance – and the more the Left demonstrates its true insanity, the more support Mr. Trump gains. Perhaps, in this instance, the President should ask himself, “What would Andrew Jackson do?”