10 Federal Judges
DEMAND Americans Surrender to Islam, What’s Your Response?
Federal judges invent a new legal standard where all legal precedent can be discarded to resist President Trump.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals invented a new legal standard granting Muslims unlimited power over national security in their decision to maintain the injunction against President Trump’s travel ban executive order (via Breitbart).
The 10 judges in the majority upheld the decision of district courts that the executive order violated the Fourth Amendment on the basis of campaign rhetoric, inventing a new legal standard.
The order, called Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry, “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” ruled the activist judges.
The court’s decision relies on a newly created legal standard that has no basis in previous Supreme Court decisions.
The new standard allows plaintiffs to block neutral government actions on the basis of campaign or private statements.
“In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith… the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited,” wrote Judge Niemeyer in the dissent.
“The majority, now for the first time, rejects these holdings in favor of its politically desired outcome,” continues Judge Niemeyer, who was joined by just two other judges.
However, in a 10-3 ruling the majority have their way, and the decision will surely be brought before the Supreme Court where the matter will be settled once and for all.
The activists’ decision is dangerous, not just for establishing a new legal standard that will have a chilling effect on speech, but the ruling will also allow Muslim plaintiffs to petition the courts to block just about any government action that predominantly affects Muslim-majority countries.
Further, the court creates a new standard, where the feelings of a plaintiff can grant standing before a court.
The Muslim plaintiff attempting to block the executive order was not affected by the travel ban directly, but claims the order increases hostilities towards Muslim-Americans.
Essentially, the progressive activist judges are creating a new legal standard where the president can be blocked from acting in the name of national security if a member of a minority group finds the action offensive.
If this decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will effectively block President Trump from taking any action against Muslim countries due to statements he made during the campaign offering unlimited protection to terrorist countries.