Surge Summary: The Supreme Court has upheld a Trump Administration’s immigration policy regarding those seeking refugee status in the U.S.
Fans of the notion of “judicial restraint” can rejoice. A U.S. Supreme Court decision has slapped down a federal judge who looks to be fighting the Trump administration’s immigration policies rather than doing what jurists are supposed to do: rule on their legality.
Chad Groening over at OneNewsNow reports:
The high court handed President Donald Trump another legal victory by allowing nationwide enforcement of a new rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States. By a 7-2 vote, the justices’ order temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border.
The president’s policy denies asylum to those passing through another country on their journey to the U.S. without seeking protection there. The argument is that if refugees are truly seeking safety and protection – as opposed to economic opportunities — they would look for help in the first stable country that would accept them, and not just view it as a way-station on their way to the United States.
The measure is calling the would-be immigrants bluff, so to speak.
Spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform Ira Mehlman affirms the court’s ruling. It was “absolutely correct” to side with President Trump. But Mehlman’s comments don’t stop there – he has some thoughts about U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who defied an appeals court ruling, reinstating a nationwide injunction over Trump’s asylum ban.
“You have a single unelected judge in California, one who has been used over and over again by the advocates for open borders,” Mehlman complains, “to render decisions that they like, basically making the policies of the United States.”
The appeals court narrowed the scope of Tigar’s ruling to include only California and Arizona but Tigar ruled in favor of the ACLU and ignored the ruling, Fox News reported in a September 9 story.
Some would identify that as legislation by court ruling. When a country is ruled by judges, it is called by some a “kritarchy”. That’s not what our Founders envisioned for America.
Thomas Jefferson sounded the alarm way back in 1820, when he wrote:
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Several months before that he’d cautioned about the Constitution becoming
a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.
Thankfully, on September 11 the nation’s highest court decided in favor of the Trump administration.
Groening, however, urges Constitutionalists, to stay alert:
Legal cases challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s order are still working their way through the courts and will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.
H/T: Chad Groening/OneNewsNow
Image by TPHeinz from Pixabay