It’s time for Trump to ignore activist judges and implement executive rules necessary to protect our border

Once again, another judicial activist federal judge is pretending to have more authority than the head of the Executive Branch, President Donald Trump. 

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who was appointed to the libtard judicial capital of the country – the Ninth Circuit – by Barack “Spygate” Obama, blocked the Trump administration from implementing a new rule regarding bogus asylum claims.

In particular, as reported by Politico: 

In a 45-page order, Tigar found the rule ignored a pair of federal statutes that outline guidelines for barring asylum-seekers who transit through a designated “safe third country” or have permanently resettled in another country.

The new regulation, he wrote, “is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

Also, Tigar tried to claim that he’s a mind-reader as well by writing that he believes Trump’s decision to implement the rule was “arbitrary and capricious” because despite the fact that the rule contains protections for migrants, the ban may – may – expose them to dangers as they are forced to look for protections and/or asylum in other countries before applying for it in the United States. (Related: Activist judges are the new fascist dictators, obliterating the balance of power with “judicial supremacy” orders.)

Naturally, the far-Left ACLU, which has no love for our country and never met a case that had the potential of tearing down civil liberties and protections for actual Americans it didn’t like, claims that Tigar’s court “recognized, as it did with the first asylum ban, that the Trump administration was attempting an unlawful end run around asylum protections enacted by Congress,” according to attorney Lee Gelernt.

Meanwhile, Tigar’s ruling goes against a separate federal court’s ruling earlier in the day allowing the policy to stand as-is because the president – not federal judges – gets to decide immigration policy regarding things like asylum, provided they comport with established law (and his did). 

When will the president defend the Executive Branch against judicial tyranny?

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of the District of Columbia, who was appointed by President Trump, ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had no standing to block the policy, so he denied their motion to do so. He ruled that the plaintiffs hadn’t proven how they would actually be harmed by the asylum ban because they are service providers, not actual migrants. 

And while he did not rule on the case’s merits, he did say he would take into consideration the “severely strained” immigration system when doing so. And why shouldn’t he? It’s about time our federal courts did take into consideration what this crush of migrants, which is wholly supported by the Left-wing extremists in the Democrat Party, is doing not only to the safety and security of our country, but the integrity of our immigration and asylum laws.

Worse, Tigar’s nationwide injunction ruling somehow supersedes Kelly’s, though that’s not explained in the Politico story – nor by anyone else, ever, in the media. Why? What makes the latter ruling more important or have more weight than the former?

And does it really matter?

The Trump administration no doubt expected that the new order would be challenged and that a nationwide injunction was going to be issued. And as such, the Justice Department is very likely going to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, where the lower court ruling will be upheld – and then to the Supreme Court, where the administration will likely win.

But all of that takes time – precious time – and in the meantime, our social fabric continues to fray while American taxpayers and U.S. border integrity are subjected to abuse.

It has to stop.

At some point – perhaps now – the president will have to make a decision as to whether he wants to continue allowing federal judges in small district courts to run the country despite the fact that not a single American citizen voted for them.

Sources include:

Politico.com

TheNationalSentinel.com