The 9th Circuit does it again, and no one seems to take notice
The 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals has done it again by its reaffirmation of a decision by District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii striking down the president’s temporary travel restriction on those nationals who aspire to enter the United States from high-risk nations.
Media pundits don’t talk about it. Various prestigious law school graduates haven’t an answer.
{mosads}Yet, the salient question looms: From what constitutional, statutory, or common-law source does a federal District Court judge retain jurisdictional authority to issue a nationwide restraining order or injunction against a presidential executive order?
These judges administer their trial and original jurisdiction courts at the district level.
There are 94 districts in the federal court system incorporated as a part of 11 Circuit Courts of Appeals. Each District Court issues injunctions, hears and decides federal civil and criminal cases and controversies in law and equity specifically to that district and circuit respectively.
In essence, both district and appeals courts’ renderings apply only to within, and not beyond, the territorial borders of a specific federal Circuit Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction.
In this context, these judicial orders striking down the president’s travel restrictions should apply only to, and within, those states comprised of the 4th and 9th Circuits, and not nationally. Sadly, no one is standing to challenge these unconstitutional nationwide mandates.
From Earl Beal, Terre Haute, Ind.
Comey testimony looks bad for all
The James Comey testimony was vivid, the facts bald and bad for both President Trump and former FBI Director Comey. Mr. Trump comes to Washington from another world, as far from politics and the Beltway as possible; he was revealed as uninformed about the propriety of Oval Office relations with the Justice Department and the FBI. Mr. Trump does not care about chain of command or the appearance of impropriety. He should, although nothing revealed by Mr. Comey suggests that the president committed a crime.
Mr. Comey exposed himself as a coward, afraid to speak truth to power, whether the power was Loretta Lynch, the Obama attorney general who politicized the Justice Department by directing him to describe a national security investigation of Hillary Clinton as a “matter” and not a full investigation so as to make the then presidential candidate’s troubles seem less important than they were, or the president of the United States, who should have been told in no uncertain terms that his requests to let the Michael Flynn investigation slide, although not illegal, were completely inappropriate. Instead, Mr. Comey sought anonymity in leaking the whole mess to the press.
From Paul Bloustein, Cincinnati, Ohio
Paris climate change agreement withdrawal is no loss for US
The Paris climate accord is nonbinding, commits signatories to emission standards they get to set, and has no meaningful enforcement mechanism (other than, I suppose, global elitists talking offending nations to death) to ensure compliance.
Weight Watchers holds its members more accountable than this.
And here’s the real kicker: According to an NPR guest I heard, it took 10 years to negotiate this claptrap, and now four years to get out of it. Out of what, I ask?
This isn’t an accord… it’s the Hotel California!
From Jim Eschrich, Lenexa, Kan.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Log Reg
