BloggeRhythms

Today’s another where Democrats grasp at political straws, while the new administration continues to focus on fulfillment of campaign promises desired by those who put them in office. And thereby, significantly improving the state of the nation.

Compounding the Democrats woes is that their anti-Trump stance not only puts them on the wrong side of almost all issues, but in the case of demanding unrestricted open-door immigration they're putting the nation at very great risk.

Pat Buchanan summarized the situation this way today: “Whether the roll-out of the president’s temporary travel ban was ill-prepared or not, and whether one agrees or not about which nations or people should be subjected to extreme vetting, the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.

“That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.” 

Suggesting that the judges involving themselves in the politics of the matter are seizing powers they do not have, Buchanan believes “they should be called out for what they are – usurpers and petty tyrants. And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.” 

Buchanan further believes that “one of the mightiest forces that has birthed the new populism that imperils the establishment is that unelected justices like Warren and Brennan, and their progeny on the bench, have remade our country without the consent of the governed – and with never having been smacked down by Congress or the president.” 

And, as a result, there’s an opportunity for Trump’s White House to use ”the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution”
That would restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and reclaim its stolen powers because: “A clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.” 

Reader, ajudicator1776, summarized the situation in a well-written comment, stating: “Excellent article by Buchanan. The federal district judge out of western Washington is a disgrace and an idiot! His decision to grant a TRO against President's Trump's executive order is without logic, legal reasoning, or supportive precedent. Indeed, the case law and the U.S. Code clearly support President Trump's order as within his discretion to conduct foreign policy for the welfare and benefit of the American people. 

“And the Ninth Circuit has long been the laughing stock of the rest of the nation, as the appellate "judges" unethically insert their personal left wing politics for the facts and law and routinely get reversed by the SCOTUS. 

“When a judge goes off the rails and his/her opinion is so lacking in legal reasoning and case law precedent that his/her decision is absurd and unethical (i.e., personal bias), the judge should be impeached.” 

Jim Hoft provided additional background on the court’s record @thegatewaypundit.com: “The Ninth Circuit is the most liberal court in the country — and is the most reversed court in the country 

“The 9th Circuit Court has been overturned 80% of the time.”

Mr. Hoft’s observation was expanded upon by National Review which reported: “[I]n 2010, perhaps seeking to reclaim its position at the top of the heap, the Ninth Circuit was reversed a startling 19 times (79 percent), three times as many reversals as most circuits had cases before the Supreme Court. The same pattern continued in the 2011 (71 percent) and 2012 terms (86 percent), when the Ninth Circuit was reversed more than twice as many times as most circuits had cases before the Court.

Further research revealed that Article II, Section1 of the Constitution states: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” 

The depth of the power was explained by Thomas Jefferson in 1790: “The Constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, lodging each with a distinct magistracy. The Legislative it has given completely to the Senate and House of representatives: it has declared that ‘the Executive powers shall be vested in the President,’ submitting only special articles of it to a negative by the Senate; and it has vested the Judiciary power in the courts of justice, with certain exceptions also in favor of the Senate.”

Jefferson thought it of great importance to add: “The transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly. The Constitution itself indeed has taken care to circumscribe this one within very strict limits: for it gives the nomination of the foreign Agent to the President, the appointment to him and the Senate jointly, the commissioning to the President.” 

Which means, in Jefferson’s learned opinion, all courts are excluded from interference in matters of “business” with foreign nations which would certainly include illegal immigrants. 

The subject also apparently woke up Bill Clinton’s wife who tweeted Thursday night to Trump “3-0,” after the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco all sided against the immigration order. 

Not to be outdone Kelly Conway responded to the tweet, “PA, WI, MI” -- an obvious dig at Bill's wife for losing those must-win states during the election.  

The matter was put into clearer perspective in respect to Democrats in general by Liz Peek @FoxNews.com this morning, as follows: 

“Democrats are overjoyed that the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against President Trump’s immigration order. That figures; never mind the legal issues or the possible impact on the White House’s ability to enact measures aimed at keeping the country safe. Most important: it was a blow to Trump, and Democrats couldn’t be happier. It’s gotten personal. 

“The decision will doubtless pump up House Democrats who are meeting in Maryland, presumably exploring a path back to relevance. Given their strident denunciations of President Trump, working with Republicans to move the country forward does not appear to be an option. As Nancy Pelosi said, "As long as the president continues down this path, there is nothing Democrats can work with him on." 

However, as usual Pelosi presents an argument that has no real substance because Democrats have no issues of their own at the moment, and haven’t for quite some time now. Their entire stock and trade has been to present stymies and roadblocks to Trump with nothing to offer anyone on their own behalf. 

Ms Peek questions Pelosi by asking: “Which path would that be? Maybe Trump’s immigration order, which, notwithstanding the ruling of a notably liberal court, gets approval from 55% of the country, versus 38% that disapproves? Or his proposal to revoke federal funds from sanctuary cities, a policy supported by 55% of registered voters and opposed by only 33%, according to the same new Morning Consult/Politico poll? 

“Meanwhile, where is the vision that will lead Democrats out of their self- inflicted political exile? Where are their policies that will boost incomes and win back the hearts of traditional blue collar Democrats? 

“They have none. They attack all and every Republican idea, but propose nothing.” 

All of which reinforces Democrat leadership’s rationale for attacking Trump policy through a like-minded court, hoping the damage done will boost their image within their frustrated constituency. However, one of these days it will be realized that domestic terrorist threats aren’t political issues, but involve citizens safety and lives. Thus, should any kind of attack occur, the Democrats are going to lose substantially more than just the votes they seek. 
    
And then, here’s one I’ve not seen before, posted by a Facebook friend: “I like the idea that was floated around before: make all senators and congress members wear uniforms with their sponsors emblazoned all over, just like NASCAR drivers.”

As of this writing the posting had received 2,671 “Likes.”

That’s it for today folks.

Adios