The “Muslim Ban”
It’s funny, in a “knowledgeable observer” sort of way, to see the headlines today on the New York Times. News writers aghast that the Supreme Court would do the unthinkable and uphold the “Muslim Ban.” Of course, the ban isn’t really a muslim ban. It’s an exercise of the President’s lawful authority under the Constitution as Commander in Chief and his legislatively-enacted ability to restrict entry to the country. But, of course, to the leftist-gun-grabbing-sky-is-falling news writers, it’s the apocalypse.
From the first opinion written by the first judge presented with the ban (liberal judges, in liberal states, like California and Hawaii) it was clear the injunctions would never hold up and that the judges were legislating from the bench in their quest to undermine the President. Make no mistake, there was never any legitimate legal reason that the President could not do what he did. The judges knew that, but they wrote their opinions for the newspapers, not for the Supreme Court.
Then the Ninth Circuit weighed in. The Ninth, where serial sexual harassers go to exercise judicial power, is the most reversed circuit in the country. The bench is overpopulated with die hard liberals from the Berkeley campus. Again, their opinions, championed by newspapers everywhere as evidence that Mr. Trump had lost his mind, were written for public consumption, not to withstand review by the Supreme Court. In the initial opinions they did not even cite to the relevant statutes that permitted the President to do what he did. Instead, they filled it with a lot of liberal angst about how awful we were treating a class of invaders who want nothing more than to kill us where we live, sleep, and worship. But little by little the walls erected by these inferior courts (inferior in the truest sense here) have been disassembled by the Supreme Court which allowed large parts of the travel restrictions to go into force when they overturned the temporary injunctions. Now the wall will crumble completely. Look for the opinion to be written by Gorsuch or Thomas, and look for it to excoriate the lower courts for their arrogation of judicial power – power that truly does not exist under case law.
Death for DACA
The next major test will be the DACA injunctions put in place by the same malignantly liberal judiciary. I can’t wait to see how that gets argued at the Supreme Court. “Let me see if I understand this right: you believe that what Mr. Obama did, which he admitted he had no power to do, and which he did unlawfully, cannot be lawfully undone by the President? You would have us continue the unlawful program because it comports with your views?” Oh, yes, the tickets for that oral argument will sell out in a day, I can assure you. I wonder if you can get them on StubHub?
Gun Bans Will Fail
And the next major challenges will be to the bans enacted in Vermont, Illinois, Florida and elsewhere over the Parkland Shooting. Another example of “feelgood lawmaking” gone bad, the bans will fail because they go against the settled law announced by the Supreme Court. Whether this will happen at the district court level or the appeals court level remains to be seen, but look for the Supreme Court to need to review that issue too. Here’s what will happen.
In Illinois the corrupt federal system will ensure that the challenge to the Illinois statute goes to a hand-picked liberal federal district court judge who will take a minimum of six months to issue an opinion. They know they’re wrong, and they will be hoping for a sea change at the Supreme Court before the issue gets there.
The Seventh Circuit will then take up the challenge after the liberals uphold the statute. Although it could go favorably to the Second Amendment there, I predict that the statute will be upheld in spite of Heller and its progeny. That will set up an appeal to the Supreme Court where that ban, along with all the bans related to specific types of “assault weapons” (that are not actually assault weapons) will fail. Again, the left will push to repeal the Second Amendment, and the sane people of the United States will properly say “Uh, no thanks!”
What Needs to Happen
But, here’s what I would really like to see out of the Supreme Court. I would like to see the Supreme Court personally rebuke the judges who issued the bad opinions in the earlier cases. I want to see them called out and put on notice that if they continue to play politics with the law the Supreme Court will recommend their removal from office. If you want the courts to work right, the Supreme Court needs to be able to police the lower courts and impose sanctions with teeth. I would suggest restricting the offending judges to criminal matters and restricting their ability to act on requests for injunctive relief for a period of four years while the judges read case law and learn what the law is, instead of what they would like it to be. It will never happen, I realize, but that’s what I’d like to see. And, if you’re going to dream, dream big.