The ninth circuit Court of Appeals is proving that it's political rather than judicial. The "Nutty Ninth" is known for making various wacky court rulings and is also known for being the most overturned court in the country. But regarding President Donald Trump's travel ban, it just rocketed itself to planet Left Wing.
After much of the nation had waited with baited breath to hear the ruling, the Ninth Circuit made the non-surprising decision to uphold the block on Trump's travel ban on people coming to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries.
You'll never believe some of the rationales behind this ruling.
It's dangerous for people to act like experts in an area where they are not experts.
In a unanimous opinion, the Ninth Circuit said they didn't believe the administration's argument that keeping people out if they're coming in from countries that have been deemed a threat to the United States is important to national security. They also said they needed to serve as a check on the power of the president.
They did not appear to provide any intelligence-gathering information that any national security agency gave to them concluding that the seven Muslim-majority nations posed absolutely no threat to the United States. How exactly would they know there was no national security rationale behind the ban?
It's not about national security; it's a 'Muslim ban.'
To be fair, the Ninth Circuit was careful to point out that they weren't calling the travel restrictions a flat-out ban on Muslims. There have been plenty of people on the opposite side of the administration in this situation who have taken issue with the idea of this being such a ban, which is most likely where much of the hysteria comes from.
Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell has pointed to public statements such as Trump promising during the presidential campaign last year to put a ban on all Muslims coming to the United States and statements made by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani about discussions on making a 'Muslim ban' legal.
News Flash: there is no 'right to immigrate' in the Constitution
Bad news for the people making a big deal about the alleged 'Muslim ban': aliens outside of the United States are not subject to our laws. One point-five-billion Muslims outside of the United States aren't guaranteed a right to immigrate as they please.
Liberals like to cite freedom of religion and the 14th Amendment as their support for a president not being able to enact such a ban, but there's a little problem: both of those only apply to people within U.S. jurisdiction. Banning Muslims living outside of the United States from coming to the country does not violate the rights of Muslims within the country to worship freely or to be treated equally.
This was backed up by the Supreme Court in 1982 in Landon v. Plasencia.
In any case, this isn't a Muslim ban; it's something the Supreme Court has already granted to the president.
There is Supreme Court precedent to support Trump having the authority to enact the travel ban. In 1950, the Supreme Court held in Knauff v. Shaughnessy that excluding foreign people is a fundamental act of sovereignty "inherent to the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." It also ruled in Knauff that "it is not within the province of any court unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude any given alien."
What can America do?
President Trump rightfully tweeted today that the court's decision puts the country's national security at risk.
Decisions coming from judges who have a political grudge that takes precedent over established legal decisions or the country's security are dangerous to the people of our nation. The DOJ is reviewing options. There is the possibility the Supreme Court could take up the issue. Or you never know. California could get the chance to vote on seceding from the country in 2018.
