{"id":29478,"date":"2019-09-18T06:01:25","date_gmt":"2019-09-18T10:01:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=29478"},"modified":"2019-09-18T06:01:25","modified_gmt":"2019-09-18T10:01:25","slug":"ussc-hands-president-trump-yet-another-win","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=29478","title":{"rendered":"USSC hands President Trump yet another win"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. Once again, the United States Supreme Court, with 2 obvious exceptions, has read the Constitution and the laws regarding Immigration and sided with President Trump. And once again, the 9th<\/sup> Circus Court of Appeals has been slapped down.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In this case, it was the 9th<\/sup> Circus\u2019s ruling regarding illegal aliens who claim asylum. President Trump had put in place a rule that, as usual, followed the law. In this case, it was illegal aliens who came through Mexico and claimed asylum here rather than in Mexico. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

In a major win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court<\/a> issued an order late Wednesday ending all injunctions that had blocked the White House’s ban on asylum<\/a> for anyone trying to enter the U.S. by traveling through a third country, such as Mexico, without seeking protection there. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Basically, if someone is running and actually needs asylum, they are supposed to apply at the first country they arrived at. What has been happening for the last few years, (Actually a lot longer), is that illegals from other countries have been transiting through Mexico, jumping the border into the United States, and when caught, claiming political asylum. They would be given a hearing date and then released. Usually, they were never seen again unless they were picked up by ICE.<\/p>\n

President Trump ordered that anyone who came in from Mexico or Canada who had not applied for asylum there, be deported. This set off the open borders scum who were the ones to come up with the idea to use our asylum laws against Americans. They challenged President Trump\u2019s rule and as is usually the case, an Obama judge assumed authority he didn\u2019t have and stopped the policy.<\/p>\n

Th<\/b>e 9th Circuit Court of Appeals \u2013 long a liberal bastion that has been aggressively reshaped<\/a> into a more moderate court by the Trump administration \u2013 handed the White House a partial victory<\/a> in the case on Monday by ending the nationwide injunction against the asylum policy. However, the 9th Circuit kept the injunction alive within the territorial boundaries of the circuit, which encompasses California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon and Washington<\/b>.<\/p>\n

The partial victory was more of a housekeeping thing more than anything else. Since President Trump took office, Obama judges have been issuing rulings and ordering them enforced throughout the United States. They were usurping authority they didn\u2019t have. The 9th<\/sup> put a stop to that, stating that any rulings were only valid in the districts they were issued. Only the United States Supreme Court may issue a ruling that affects the entire country.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court’s order<\/a> was not a final ruling on the policy’s merits but does allow the policy to take effect nationwide, including in the 9th Circuit, while the case makes its way through the lower courts. <\/b><\/p>\n

I am no expert on this case law, however, I believe that bypassing the first country you arrive in and jumping the border is against United States laws and international agreements, however I will bow to those with far more knowledge in that area.<\/p>\n

President Trump tweeted that the ruling was a “BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” The administration had argued in a brief to the Supreme Court<\/a> that unless the injunctions were totally lifted everywhere, it \u201cwould severely disrupt the orderly administration of an already overburdened asylum system.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In a not unexpected development, this was not a unanimous decision. There were two dissenting justices. You won\u2019t be surprosed who they were either.<\/p>\n

Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor and Ginsburg wrote. <\/b><\/p>\n

And Once again, Sotomayor has once again shown that she was put in place for the sole purposes of prtecting the Obama legacy and the Deep State. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg has a long history of contempt for the Constitution. As for the phrase \u201cLong standing practices\u201d, who cares? What is the actual law in this matter? Obviously, these two flat out ignored it, as they usually do.<\/p>\n

They added that they were disappointed the majority failed to exercise “restraint,” and instead intervened in the lower-court matter before it was fully resolved. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

These two, along with all the Obama judges, had better count their blessings that President Trump believes in the Rule of law, even if they don\u2019t. If he didn\u2019t, President Trump would simply ignore the courts all together, and probably have a few judges criminally charged.<\/p>\n

The DOJ also said the ruling would “bring order to the crisis at the southern border, close loopholes in our immigration system, and discourage frivolous claims.” <\/b><\/p>\n

Easily 90% of the asylum claims, if not more, are frivolous if not flat out fraudulent. Under the Obama regime, people who really were deserving of asylum were routinely denied it, and many of these people were killed. Oh, they also happened to be Christians being killed for their religious beliefs by Muslims. Of course, the Democrats have a long history of not protecting those in danger due to their religious beliefs<\/a>. Of course, the Democrats never see it that way.<\/p>\n

In a joint statement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship Chair Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said they were “gravely disappointed.” <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cLives will be lost,” Nadler and Lofgren said. “This rule will result in those fleeing fear and persecution to be turned away at our doorstep and will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the [Central American] region. The United States can and must do better.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n