The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to shut down President Trump’s first Executive Order on immigration. The move was supported by the Liberal mainstream media.
The mainstream media went to the extent of falsely accusing President Trump of being racist. The Ninth Circuit Court made the wrong move after taking the president’s Constitutional authority in its own hands. The court also failed to address that aspect in its writings.
President Trump did not give up after the Court shut down the Executive Order. His administration went back to drawing board. The result was a new Executive Order that addressed the controversial issues in the first one.
The move by President Trump’s administration changed the game. Some members of the Ninth Circuit Court has decided to take unusual steps.The members have filed an opposition expressing disagreement with their colleagues.
Jonathan Turley, who is a renowned Constitutional expert and law professor made a comment on the move which is very unusual. Turley said that it is surprising to see five judges filing a disagreement to the motion for rehearing. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is one of the five judges who filed the disagreement.
The disagreement shows that several Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court had a strong disagreement with the panel’s decision. It is based on the claim that the original executive order was legally unsustainable. The strong disagreement in a withdrawn appeal is extraordinary. It reveals that there is opposition to the panel’s decision among other judges.
The judges object that there is a duty to correct the manifest errors of the panel.
The disagreement called the errors important. It also questioned the way in which the panel reached its decision with an oral argument. It raised many issues people are concerned about.
The issues include the lack of consideration to opposing case law and failure to address the statutory authority that is given to the President. The extensive dismissal of executive authority was an obvious mistake.
The same problem have come up in the ruling that was made in Hawaii based on establishment and not due process grounds.
The disagreeing judges refers to the clear misstatement of law in the protection of the district court that it forced an opinion usually introduced by a case that is dismissed. The judges said that the panel put aside the case law of Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972).
President Trump has resolved to contain the number of immigrants coming into the United States.This is the best way to curb the security concerns that have troubled many families. It therefore goes without saying that his travel ban is constitutional.