'Courts are not infallible’: Rep. Ron DeSantis grills 9th Circuit judge over immigration order

[libertybele]

'Courts are not infallible’: Rep. Ron DeSantis grills 9th Circuit judge over immigration order

What checks do U.S. citizens have on the judicial branch when the judicial courts get it wrong?

That was the simple question Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., asked Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski at Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing. Kozinski’s answer was that the Supreme Court has no checks on bad decisions, as such.

“What are the checks on the courts as you understand the Constitution?” DeSantis asked the jurist. “[If] you guys get it wrong, district [court] gets it wrong, Supreme Court gets it grievously wrong, how do the American people check bad court decisions?”

“Well,” Kozinski replied, “when the Supreme Court speaks, by definition it gets it right. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. That's the way … that's what the Constitution says. That's the way our system works.”

DeSantis was less than pleased with the answer...

...In light of the recent, deeply flawed rulings from the Ninth Circuit on President Trump’s travel moratorium, Congressman DeSantis argued that Judge Kozinski’s outlook could create some dangerous precedent for the federal order.

“My concern,” DeSantis concluded, “is that when that's being done and you're invoking [Trump’s] campaign statements, I don't see a principled way where that's going to end up making sense over the long term.”

“And I understand there's antipathy in a country that's reflected on your courts or the current president. But that is not enough of a reason to wade into some of these sensitive matters of national security. And so, I think the courts […] I think they may in the long run end up undermining their proper role.”

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/courts-are-not-infallible-rep-ron-desantis-grills-9th-circuit-judge-over-immigration-order#sthash.HN6FR1Up.dpuf

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What checks do U.S. citizens have on the judicial branch when the judicial courts get it wrong?

Appeal or Constitutional amendment.

Did you flunk civics?

[libertybele]

Appeal or Constitutional amendment.

Did you flunk civics?

Did you flunk English? (Appeal 'or' Constitutional amendment). I did very well in civics, American Government and American History as well as English! This has to do with rights under the Constitution.  Last time I checked non-citizens do NOT have rights under our Constitution as they aren't citizens! 

The gist of the commentary and as pointed out by Levin yesterday was that we have judges in the lower courts ruling over the President's authority.  He has 100% authority over immigration and has the responsibility of our national security. The Constitution vests the President of the United States with the full “executive power” of the federal government. He is named the “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States. (Article II, Section2 of our Constitution).

By the way there are plenty of liberal forums that you may considering joining.  Here I'll help:

http://liberalforum.net/

http://www.democratichub.com/forums

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

http://leftwinglock.com/forum/index.php

http://uspoliticsguide.com/American_Political_Directory/Liberal_Politics_Forums.php

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Sen Mike Lee says he's read a lot of Trump SCOTUS nominee Gorsuch decisions.

And that Gorsuch has a problem with Chevron deference.

This is HUGE, if we can pack SCOTUS with like minded judges we may eventually get this nation straightened out.

https://lawblog.justia.com/2012/05/21/chevron-deference-your-guide-to-understanding-two-of-todays-scotus-decisions/

Chevron Deference Explained

Chevron deference is a principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable. The principle is named for the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which involved a dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Under Chevron, even if a court finds that another interpretation is reasonable, or even better than the agency’s interpretation, it must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.

Reasonableness in part turns on whether the statute unambiguously addresses the issue. If it does, then the unambiguous meaning controls. If the statute is ambiguous, then the court asks whether the agency’s interpretation of the ambiguous provision is based on a permissible construction of the statute. A permissible construction is one that is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” In other words, it is a very low threshold of deference.

As for Constitutional Rights meaning any more than the paper they're written on:

It's not just Non-Citzens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance

Citizens themselves do not Have Rights anymore.

The Courts quest for the expedient of not angering the political power brokers who appointed them have turned Constitutional Rights into Privileges, revocable at any time without even needing any reason.


And my Viking Trilogy is free again this weekend at Amazon.
http://wulfanson.blogspot.com/2017/03/get-our-viking-trilogy-free-at-amazon.html