9th Circuit Court: Where Constitutional Ignorance and Fantasy reign Supreme

Author’s Note: If you’ve been following the news regarding the political system recently, you might have heard about the unsurprising development of a court battle between the Trump administration and the members of Crybaby America (Minnesota and Washington, specifically) regarding his Executive Order pertaining to a temporary ban of immigrants coming from 7 Middle Eastern countries. In this most recent round, the idiot jerkoffs in the 9th circuit court issued their ruling from what appears to be random shit pulled out of their ass, instead of anything resembling legitimate Reasoning (of which, I’m a huge fan), anything directly related to legislative interpretation, or applicable judicial precedents. Since I decided to waste 30 minutes of my life by reading the entirety of the 29 page ruling by the court, I figured that I should pick this moose turd apart for being the fraudulent pile of crap that it is. (Author’s warning: if you don’t like reading voluminous posts that mock and destroy idiocy while using the occasional naughty word, here’s your chance to bail.)

To expedite this discussion, I figure that I’ll just quote their text (which is available here) and point out the serious flaws in the ‘logic’ of the court’s arguments.

First off, the court explains the arguments that Minnesota and Washington make regarding the ‘legality and unconstitutionality of the Executive Order’:

“Washington alleged that the Executive Order unconstitutionally and illegally stranded its residents abroad, split their families, restricted their travel, and damaged the State’s economy and public universities in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the INA, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington also alleged that the Executive Order was not truly meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a “Muslim ban” as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.”

It goes on to say:

“The States argue that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities, which the parties do not dispute are branches of the States under state law.”

The only problem with this, is that their case should be thrown out on the existence of the Immigration and Nationalization Act (INA) of 1952, which they claimed was ‘violated’. This is absolutely absurd, once you look at the text of the law in question. In the INA, it is directly stated:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

This should have been enough to throw out the case. They didn’t prove that this was a ‘Muslim ban’ (because when 42 other Muslim majority countries weren’t banned, it kind of defeats the argument) and the President has the authority to suspend immigration on whatever grounds he deems necessary to protect the United States. But to list the violation of the First and Fifth Amendments seems even more blatantly ridiculous.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” while the Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

For one, President Trump is not Congress. It should’ve been obvious in his title. He issued an Executive Order dealing with immigration, which is his responsibility, as President, under the INA. Second, contrary to popular and stupid belief, he’s not making a law that is directed at a religion. A) As president, he can’t make laws. Read the Constitution, assholes. (And no, there isn’t a stick figure drawing version available, so you will have to develop reading comprehension skills.) And 2) the bans are blanket in nature and they affect EVERYONE coming from those 7 countries, regardless of religion. The order also requires any exemptions to the Order be individually vetted by the Department of State.

There are 7 countries that were targeted by the Executive Order and they were targeted because of lapses in each countries’ government emigration procedures and security who were identified by Obama’s administration as ‘countries of concern’. There are 49 majority Muslim nations and if the ban is aimed exclusively at Muslims, Trump seems to have missed quite a few of the relevant countries and 82% of the Muslim population. So the First Amendment doesn’t apply.

Secondly, immigrants and refugees aren’t being punished by a court system or any other U.S. agent. They aren’t being imprisoned, fined, or tortured by the U.S. government. And it’s not even a total and eternal ban on entry! They are simply being denied entry to the United States until the vetting procedures for immigrants and refugees from those countries are reviewed to identify potential procedural security flaws that might allow dangerous individuals in. Which means the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply.

And probably more concerning, for the rest of the world, is this notion that those idiots in Washington, Minnesota, and the 9th circuit court seem to believe that the U.S. Constitution has legal authority over the residents of EVERY nation and it takes precedence over that nation’s OWN laws and statutes as to what rights are granted to their citizens. And, even more bizarre, that all it takes is for anyone, anywhere in the world, to simply want to go to America for those Rights and Protections to be immediately granted! Talk about power-hungry imperialist dickweeds!

As for the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that the Washington and Minnesota Attorneys General claim were ‘violated’ by the Executive Order, this is where it becomes even easier to just toss the case since it’s clearly a waste of the Court’s time.

I mean, come on! Everyone knows that the FARRA “Bars the use of funds for the involuntary return by the United States of a person to a country in which the person has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, except on grounds recognized as precluding protection as a refugee”. This would require proof of said circumstance by each Immigrant/Refugee. Which means vetting those individuals, the very process that Trump wants to verify as being appropriate and conducive to National Security.

And since everyone has clearly been informed that the RFRA states that the Government shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion by Law (so we’re talking about Congress here because Congress makes Laws, not the Executive branch) unless that burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest” and so long as the rule is the “least restrictive way in which to further the government interest”. There is nothing in the Executive Order that mentions or restricts the practice of Islam within this country, so the RFRA, again, doesn’t apply.

The APA doesn’t apply to the Executive Order either, as the APA has to do with the way administrative agencies may propose and establish regulations. Immigration? That’s not really a regulation created by an administrative agency as  much as it is a responsibility of the executive branch as enumerated by Law. That was codified in the INA and passed by Congress, which grants the President the authority to cut off immigration by any group, for any reason, for any length of time that he deems to be in the Nation’s best interest, but I repeat myself.


So now that we’ve successfully destroyed the entire justification for the lawsuit, it’s probably time to switch from mocking the blatant ignorance displayed by the Attorneys General for the states of Minnesota and Washington in regards to immigration law and The Constitution and start mocking the 9th circuit court. Because, if you are a rational, reasonable, and sexy individual like myself what the court issued as their ‘rationale’ for their decision will similarly blow you away with just how full of bullshit these judicial activists can be.

After they list the hokey and blatantly erroneous links to laws and Constitutional Amendments that don’t really apply to the Executive Order, the court excessively defends the legitimacy of the states’ case, specifically how the states ‘suffer’. In typical idiot fashion, they start vaguely citing some portion of Some Important Document (in this case, the Constitution, specifically Article III where the court is granted jurisdiction to hear ‘cases and controversies’), pretend that the rest of the Document doesn’t exist, and then they start their little journey into Fantasyland. This is presumably because they believe that once they, as ‘Highly ‘Intelligent’ and Smug A-holes’, cite some small fragment of Some Important Document, it’s probably safe to bet that others will probably not read the rest of said Document when they start making up all manner of douchebaggery nonsense that is clearly not within the language or intention of said Document, and then they’re fully justified in ‘letting their creative impulses fly’. So, let’s see what else the ol’ Constitution might say on this matter, shall we?

Article 2, section 3: the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Trump is obliged to faithfully execute the Laws of this country. The INA is such a Law.

Article 3, section 2: (what they referred to….partially) “to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…. and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

This directly states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on this matter and it requires that States prove that they are directly impacted by a particular legal event. Revisionist interpretations aimed at expanding the Federal Court system or redefining the definition of ‘directly impacted’ aren’t really required as the text is quite explicit.

Article 4, section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

As the justification for the Executive Order has a basis in National Security by protecting every State against domestic violence caused by Foreign Agents, this should be a slam dunk.

Article 6:2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Which, judging from the way it’s phrased, means that the Articles of the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land, with the following Amendments and future Laws taking a role of lesser importance and can be struck down if they violate the initial Articles. Which makes perfect logical and legal sense. Passing a Law or an Amendment that negates or infringes on the initial Articles of the Constitution would be a disaster for this country. This also states that judges in every state are bound to this hierarchy of legal operations. This includes the East and West coasts. (Sorry, not sorry!) By this logic, courts are required to consider safety concerns to the nation and rely on the President’s execution of Laws that were passed by Congress that are aimed at providing that safety before any other legal concern. If a National system of governance run by a free populace is compromised by those seeking to supplant that form of governance with a form that seeks to enslave the populace, it’s probably in the nation’s best interest to ensure that doesn’t happen. (Whoops! Are we too late?)

See what I mean about selectively picking out special passages while conveniently ignoring others in Some Important Document? Quoting these little passages might make you look smart, initially, until someone who’s read the full text explains how you’re full of shit and are taking quotes out of context.

After the 9th circuit court bastardized and took the Constitution out of context (or just blatantly ignored large sections of it), they proceeded to argue that the states face ‘concrete damages’ due to Trump’s Executive Order. Except they don’t offer any legitimate Proof that the damages are actually concrete and that the damages can be directly attributed to the state’s ‘suffering’. They claim that individuals and families would be ‘hurt’ and that because some individuals might potentially be ‘hurt’, that it is incumbent upon the state to take up said grievance and are within their rights to assume the mantle of ‘suffering’.

Ignoring the fact that States can’t vicariously take on the perceived ‘suffering’ of people within their borders and internationally, the imagined ‘suffering’ consideration doesn’t supersede the requirement for the President to ensure that National Security isn’t compromised. His job is to execute the laws on the books.

They then claim that the academic and research rigor of academic institutions would be ‘hurt’, which is a load of crap for three reasons.

1) This will sound xenophobic (and I don’t really care), but it’s been proven in the literature that the academic progress of U.S. students and those taking courses in English as a second language, tends to lag when the instructor is not a native English speaker. (The same thing happens abroad, it’s not just an English language issue.) While I could blame it on thick accents (which is partially true due to different inflections and pronunciations coming from speakers of different nationalities), it has more to do with the cultural differences in how they prioritize educating their students versus personal achievement (research and career development) as well as the attitudes that some cultures have regarding Westerners and those of different cultures.

2) There are PLENTY of highly qualified instructors in EVERY academic discipline from around the world. Hell, some of them might even be American PhD holders! To claim that ‘professorial and research quality will ‘suffer’’ is being excessively melodramatic. A loss of Middle Eastern professors from those 7 countries can just as easily be countered with Middle Eastern professors from the other 42 predominantly Muslim countries that are not affected by the ban.

And C) academic institutions temporarily not having some students and professors from some Middle Eastern countries is neither a large enough nor concrete enough ‘damage’ to the states to offset National Security considerations. They simply do not equate.

So, at this point, from a Reasoned perspective (as opposed to their ‘Logical’ justification composed entirely of vague assertions, some nebulous definition of suffering, some pulling of heart strings, and extremely faulty lines of logic), Minnesota and Washington haven’t really proven the necessary ‘concrete and particularized injury’ that is required to establish Article III standing to necessitate a SUPREME COURT (not a district or a circuit court) decision. Which means the case should have been tossed. Again.

No worries, it gets worse.

“The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.”

Which, again, is horseshit. Statements without concrete proof of attendant action are generally known as hearsay. Donald Trump toyed with all manner of ideas on the campaign trail. So many, in fact, that it was getting hard to tell when he was being serious and when he was just Trolling the World. And technically, it wasn’t President Trump who said those things, that was Republican Candidate Trump. This seems like splitting hairs, but from most legal definitions, they are two separate entities.

In other words, the fact that Trump mentioned putting a full Muslim ban into effect on the campaign trail has nothing to do with the substance of the Executive Order he signed as President, as the ban, again, only affected 7 of the 49 Muslim majority countries of the world. Making his pre-elected comments a major point of consideration in this legal proceeding should have been objected to on the grounds of being both Inflammatory and Immaterial to the underlying purpose and rationale of the Executive Order. This should have been appropriately addressed and dismissed as the initial 7 country list was originally compiled, researched, and approved by the Obama Administration for an Immigration ban. Trump was merely following through on the recommendations of the previous administration.

The 9th circuit goes on to cite some more unrelated cases that they’re ‘confident’ apply to the current situation, when, in reality, the rulings they cite are only tangentially related to some bogus point that would help further distance themselves from the INA. They’re trying to offer such an overly broad interpretation of Rights and Privileges afforded to those who aren’t even in the country that don’t pass the muster even from a judicial precedent perspective, that the entirety of the 9th circuit court should be fired for incompetence and dereliction of duty.

So, to sum it all up, the 9th circuit court showed the world just how phony, obscure, and unconcerned they were with the Separation of Powers as enumerated in the Constitution. They allowed nebulous notions of imagined ‘injury’ and phony claims of ‘religious persecution’ to trump (see what I did there?) the security of the ENTIRE United States of America. They argued, unconvincingly, that the U.S. Bill of Rights and Law applies to everyone in the world, regardless of their location or nationality, even when doing so violates the sovereignty of foreign governments, the powers and responsibilities of the Executive branch of this country, and National Security considerations.

Instead of addressing the claims being made by Minnesota and Washington’s publicity-hungry attention whores known as ‘Attorneys General’ and making them prove their case, the 9th circuit went off the rails and made up their own boneheaded case that, A) didn’t apply to the arguments made by Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, B) didn’t apply to the underlying justification for the executive order, C) had no Constitutional support or backing, and 4) completely ignores current immigration law and legal precedents. Their decision was derived from one overarching theme, and you might’ve heard it from the peeps in the streets who didn’t like the outcome of the Presidential election:

“Trump is an arrogant asshole who probably hates immigrants and minorities and we’re still butthurt about the election, so fuck that guy and fuck the United States of America. We’d rather watch it all burn than do our god-damned jobs with any sort of intelligence, competence, or integrity.”

Voila! Liberal activist judges at ‘work’!


Psst! Hey, Justice Department! How the hell do you dumbasses not win against the diaper-stains that are the Attorneys General from Washington and Minnesota? They literally had nothing to go on. You aren’t exactly showing the world that you’re competent enough to win a slam-dunk case. If I can crush their arguments in about 2 hours worth of online research (with plenty of Candy Crush action mixed in) when I’m not a lawyer (I’ve got way too much spine and integrity for that), then maybe you should think about making me your boss….or quitting your current job so you can obtain employment better suited to your intellectual faculties….like maybe snow cone creator? Cotton candy manufacturer? I’m running out of ideas here since it’s clear that you shouldn’t be allowed to work anywhere that may come into contact with machinery, public health, or anything requiring independent thought. Maybe think about becoming one of those sign holders who stand on street corners? You probably can’t hurt yourself or others with that kind of a career and you’ll be doing what you’re best at…. taking up space. Idiots.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s