Advertisements

Trump’s Judicial Appointees are Winning for the American People

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Tired of all this WINNING yet? – In case you missed it, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed back above 27,000 on Wednesday, and is just a little more than 200 points off of its all-time highest close. Recession? What recession?

Tired of all this WINNING yet? Part II. – In advance of the resumption of U.S./China trade talks in early October, the Chinese government announced it would rescind existing tariffs on a raft of U.S. imports, including lubricants, anti-cancer drugs and some farm goods. In return, President Donald Trump announced a two-week delay in the implementation of new tariffs on about $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, scheduled to take effect on October 1. This move by China is largely seen as an indication that the government of Xi Jinping is anxious to reach a new trade agreement as China’s economy continues to suffer great damage from U.S. tariffs, while the U.S. economy just keeps steaming along.

Tired of all this WINNING yet? Part III. – In a historic milestone, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday confirmed President Trump’s 150th judicial nominee, as six district court nominees won confirmation. Mr. Trump has now appointed 2 supreme court justices, 43 appellate court judges and 105 judges to the district courts. This laser focus on appointing and confirming judges by the President and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have positive ramifications on this society for decades to come.

Tired of all this WINNING yet? Part IV. – Nowhere are those positive impacts already being felt more directly now than in the previously out-of-control 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Long dominated by leftist nitwits who took pride in having their decisions constantly overturned by the Supreme Court, the six new judges who Trump and McConnell have succeeded in confirming to that 29-judge body have resulted in a sudden return of occasional constitutional jurisprudence to its decision-making.

That rebalancing of the 9th Circuit bore fruit on Monday when a panel of 3 of its judges rejected the overreach of yet another Obama-appointed district court judge, Jon Tigar.

When the Trump Administration announced in July it would resume enforcing the longstanding principle that no migrant from another country can apply for asylum in the U.S. if they had failed to do so in the first safe country they entered, leftist lawyers immediately filed suit in Tigar’s court to challenge the “new” policy, which was “new” only in the sense that it reversed the Obama Administration’s refusal to enforce that piece of the law.

Tigar naturally issued a nationwide injunction designed to prevent the Trump Administration from enforcing the new policy, a tactic that has worked time and time again to delay all efforts to gain some control over our southern border.  And always in the past, the 9th Circuit had been just a rubber stamp for such heinous judicial oversteps.

Not this time. This time, the three-judge panel ruled that Tigar’s order exceeded his court’s authority, and limited his injunction to apply only to Arizona and California, which lay in the purview of the 9th Circuit. That decision came down on Tuesday, and the left went berserk, with its Lawfare lawyers requesting an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court.

Thanks largely to President Trump’s two confirmed justices, the Supremes were having none of Tigar’s BS either, and on Wednesday they ruled, in a 7-2 decision, in favor of the 9th Circuit. Thus, the Trump Administration will now be able to enforce its new policy in New Mexico and Texas, where the vast majority of Central American caravans have been arriving since late last year. Pretty much all of these Central American migrants apply for asylum in the U.S. after refusing to do so in Mexico, and pretty much none of them qualify for that privilege.

[CORRECTION: The SC decision is even better than that. I had misread two different articles on this subject. The SC actually ruled that the Administration can enforce this policy IN FULL, without restrictions, and remanded the case back to Tigar’s court, where it will be be decided on the actual merits without any injunction being in effect.]

Thus we see the main reason for electing Donald Trump in 2016 bearing major fruit. Had Hillary Clinton won that election – as all the fake conservative Never Trump nitwits wanted her to do – there would be literally zero control over that border whatsoever, and no hope of achieving any ever again.

So, if you’ve been wondering why the Democrats and their fake media toadies have focused so much time and energy on demonizing Mitch McConnell in recent months, well, wonder no more. This is what happens to anyone who helps President Trump keep on WINNING for the American people, and Mitch has been WINNING, bigly.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Trump’s Judicial Appointees are Winning for the American People

  1. Reply
    Gregg - September 12, 2019

    Dave,

    Can you show or tell us where to find a concise source on how many actual federal judges and courts are in session?

    While Trump’s 150 judicial confirmations are impressive; context would be nice. Six of twenty nine (in the ninth circuit) is great, but nationally is it 150 of 500, or 1,000, or 5,000?

    1. Reply
      David Blackmon - September 12, 2019

      Gregg: You don’t have access to Google? 🙂

    2. Reply
      David Blackmon - September 12, 2019

      Google “how many federal judges are there?” and this is the answer: “There are currently 870 authorized Article III judgeships: nine on the Supreme Court, 179 on the courts of appeals, 673 for the district courts and nine on the Court of International Trade. The total number of active federal judges is constantly in flux, for two reasons.”

      By contrast, at this point in his presidency, Barack Obama had added just 84 appointees to the federal courts.

  2. Reply
    Dave Hunter - September 12, 2019

    I do not see the president delaying tariff increases at the request of China as winning, in fact I believe China will see the delay as weakness on the part of the president. Further, China has no intention of cutting a trade deal until after the 2020 election, if at all.

  3. Reply
    Jimmy MacAfee - September 12, 2019

    One of the things that the judges will remedy is if a red flag law is passed: it’s going to be considered “unconstitutionally vague,” because it will allow people to be red-flagged for virtually any reason.

    For example: the intent to use the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump because they consider him “unstable.” Meaning, they don’t consider him well enough to be President. That’s the political part. Who will be able to own a gun if the Left are the people making the decisions? Aunty Fay? (ANTIFA)

    The other part of the same thread is in the obvious instability of Joe Biden, who is basically non compos mentis. Should he have a gun? I would argue “yes,” because he hasn’t been convicted of any crime – and while he has odd quirks (keep your wife and daughter out of reach, folks!) – this doesn’t take away his Constitutional rights.

    But judges! Even if Trump suicidally signs a red flag law, the courts are bound to overturn it. The only problem is: he won’t be President for a second term. That would be bad.

    1. Reply
      Gregg - September 12, 2019

      Jimmy,

      We all thought that the Supremes would find the McCain/(Feingold I believe) campaign finance law that Bush the second (truly a #2) signed unconstitutional and overturn it. Didn’t happen. Then Roberts (another Bushie) rewrote Obamacare to pound that square peg into a round hole.

      I love what Trump has done and what he is trying to accomplish, but judging from some of his mediocre cabinet selections, I fear that at least some of his judicial appointments will be more like Souter/Kennedy than Thomas/Scalia. I hope I’m wrong in this, but Trump needs to be able to replace both of the Clinton Hacks to get the court to a nominal 7 – 2 conservative majority. That would nullify Roberts and protect against on of Trump’s four appointments being a dud. Let the two Obama bimbos remain, but the Clintonites need to go.

      1. Reply
        Jimmy MacAfee - September 13, 2019

        Right. Can’t count on these particular chickens.
        Roberts may not be around much longer, if the blackmail rumors begin to take root, and because he has obviously done such a piss-poor job with respect to FISA. Incompetent is the word.

        1. Reply
          Jimmy MacAfee - September 13, 2019

          Want to know how much danger we’re in? FISA courts should be removed from existence, because Chief Justice Roberts has shown how easily he could politicize it.

          https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/what_about_your_fisa_judges_justice_roberts.html

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: