Trey Gowdy Issues Statement Slamming The 9th Circuit Ruling Against Trump

Yesterday, President Trump’s perfectly reasonable executive order on immigration was struck down by the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Definitely a setback for Trump but if you look at things in perspective it is pretty clear that the court decision was purely political.

It doesn’t jive with the Constitution one bit.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from the one and only Trey Gowdy.

Here is the full statement from his website.

From Gowdy.House.Gov:

“No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today’s ruling. The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible. Unlike the district court order, there is at least a court opinion which can be evaluated.

Of particular interest is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ suggestion that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration. The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President’s national security conclusions.

Legal permanent residents, non-citizens with current valid visas, non-citizens with expired visas (which were once valid), aliens with no legal standing, aliens who have committed a crime but have not yet been deported and aliens who are not even present in the United States but seek to come are just a few of the categories the Supreme Court will need to determine what process is due, if any. It seems clear to most of us – not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – there is no right to come to this country for non-citizens of the United States. It also seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the Commander in Chief. There is a reason we elect the Commander in Chief and do not elect federal judges.

For those, like Alexander Hamilton, who once or now wondered if the Judicial Branch would be too weak. Wonder no more.”

Nailed it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano had a great take as well.

 

Bottom line?

This is judicial activism through and through.

The president has the right to make this national security determination and the court isn’t supposed to pass judgment on whether or not he needed to make this move or not.  They are supposed to go by the law and they simply didn’t.

Also, people outside of the US who are not citizens are not entitled to due process.  That’s a very basic idea that apparently this court was unable to grasp.

You probably haven’t heard the end of this one so stay tuned.

H/T The Daily Caller

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *