Future generations will see 2017 as the year our sovereignty was stolen by the federal courts. This year, district judges decided that they can nullify commander-in-chief powers, national sovereignty, national security, and societal norms — and apply their edicts instantaneously nationwide. Indeed, this was the year when lower court judges were crowned supreme over all other branches of government.
To review this year’s stolen sovereignty and all-around insanity by the runaway judiciary, we recap the 12 most destructive and radical court decisions of the year.
1) A right to immigrate to the United States: The courts took all the radical jurisprudence they’ve concocted for protected classes of Americans and applied it to the 7.6 billion people of the world outside our borders. A number of extremist district judges, along with the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, created a First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment right to immigrate to the United States. Six of the nine SCOTUS judges weren’t much better, as they allowed the nationwide injunctions against Trump’s lawful immigration orders to remain in place, affording anyone with nebulous family ties or other relationships with people in America to assert a right to immigrate.
At one stroke, this nullified 200 years of settled case law, the Constitution, and numerous statutes giving the president authority to shut down immigration and set refugee caps. It opened the door for judges to take over foreign policy and national security the way they took over cultural issues. Perhaps the Fourth Circuit’s opinion on the first immigration pause was the most radical decision, because it gave standing to people who were not even rejected, simply because a foreign policy of the president might place a “stigma” on a particular class of people. Now courts can nullify diplomatic and strategic foreign policies based on feelings. Thus, the Article I powers of Congress on immigration and the Article II powers of the commander-in-chief have been erased in a bloodless coup.
For more reading on the “travel ban” cases:
- The appalling hypocrisy, ignorance of courts on immigration and states’ rights
- The full case for why courts have no jurisdiction over Trump’s immigration order
- Impeach Judge James Robart for violating sovereignty and Constitution
- How to tell the difference between Trump’s and Obama’s refugee EOs? Trump actually follows the law
- Rogue judges undermine our sovereignty. Here’s how Congress can stop them.
- These 16 quotes prove America can exclude or deport any immigrant … for any reason
- These 73 sitting Democrats voted to ban visas from some Muslim countries. That law still exists.
- Just how radical was the Ninth Circuit’s nullification of law?
- 7 statutes that CLEARLY support Trump’s immigration executive order
2) Amnesty is the law of the land: While the courts are preventing Trump from using his lawful authority to ratchet down immigration, they are beginning to mandate the continuation of Obama’s unlawful orders to bring in more immigrants and give amnesty to illegal aliens, against long-standing statutes. Courts in California and New York have indicated they are willing to mandate the continuation of DACA and, insanely, grant illegal aliens standing to sue. They took it a step further and demanded that Trump release all the documents and communications between his advisors in the lead-up to his decision to terminate the illegal amnesty. The Ninth Circuit agreed. This violated all legal norms and was slapped down by the Supreme Court.
3) Sanctuary cities are lawful; immigration enforcement is lawless: A number of liberal federal judges, from Chicago and San Francisco to Philadelphia, ruled that sanctuary cities are really following the law and the federal government is not. They blocked the federal government from enforcing immigration laws on the states, and one Texas judge even prevented the Lone Star State from enforcing immigration law on cities within its borders. Oh, and the Mexican government was allowed to file a brief against Texas for upholding federal law. Meanwhile, citizens of California can’t get standing to file suit against jurisdictions that violate federal law and suck taxpayers dry paying for endless services and free tuition for impoverished illegal aliens.
4) Deportation of violent criminals is immoral: In July, Judge Mark Goldsmith of Michigan waved his magic wand and halted the deportation of 1,400 Iraqi immigrants who had been convicted of criminal offenses, including some with convictions for rape and murder. What about the law? Goldsmith said he feared what would happen to them if they were deported so much so that he was willing to engage in civil disobedience and disregard statute.
5) Castration surgeries in the military: Indeed, the courts have taken over the president’s job as commander-in-chief. Not only is there a constitutional right to serve in the military, according to federal judges in D.C., Baltimore, and Seattle, there is a right for mentally ill masochists who cut of their private parts to serve in the military. Oh, and according to Judge Marvin Garbis of Baltimore, the Pentagon must pay for the “surgeries.”
6) Abortion chain migration is the wave of the future: We already know there is a constitutional right, according to the courts, to abortion on demand. And we have learned this year there is a right for immigration on demand from anywhere in the world. Well, the federal district and circuit courts in D.C. merged the two together and created a right for teenage girls who can’t obtain elective abortions in Mexico to come here illegally and demand that the government drive them directly to abortion clinics. Welcome to abortion chain migration. Foreign nationals now have the right to come here and either demand citizenship for their babies against the will of the nation or demand that we help kill the babies.
7) World War I memorial unconstitutional: While Somali fundamentalist Muslims might have a “religious liberty” right to immigrate here, American Christians can’t honor their war dead with symbols that have been a part of the country’s landscape since the Founding. In Bladensburg, Maryland, a memorial for 49 local veterans who died in WWI has been standing for 91 years without bothering anyone, until the Fourth Circuit, which is rapidly becoming the new Ninth Circuit, deemed it unconstitutional!
8) County flag must erase its cross: Not to be outdone by the Fourth Circuit, Judge Edward Smith of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that, based on “precedent,” the Christian cross contained in the official flag and seal of Lehigh County violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. So how can atheist organizations get standing to sue against a long-standing county flag, which is an inanimate object and causes them no justiciable harm? Leave it to the judge-kings.
9) No prayers for you: As part of the Fourth Circuit’s relentless assault on North Carolina, it barred a county government from opening sessions with a prayer, similar to what our federal Congress does every day. What happened to Supreme Court precedent, which dictates that traditional prayers are permissible so long as non-adherents aren’t coerced? Precedent is a chain that binds only conservatives, of course. The Fourth Circuit rejected precedent because this prayer, in the court’s estimation, was tantamount to coercion because it makes non-religious attendees feel like “outsiders” and “the overall atmosphere was coercive, requiring them to participate so they ‘would not stand out.’”
10) Second Amendment doesn’t exist: The Fourth Circuit might believe there is a right to immigrate from Yemen and there is a right to sue against crosses and prayer, but you have no right to carry a firearm. You know, because what’s in the Constitution is out and what’s out is in. In February, the full panel of the Fourth Circuit actually used the dissent in the Heller case, rather than the majority opinion, as precedent to create entire categories of “military-style weapons” left outside of the Second Amendment, including some of the most commonly held semi-automatic rifles. SCOTUS precedent only matters to these people when it violates the Constitution. What’s worse? The Supreme Court allowed its own precedent to fall by refusing to grant an appeal to gun rights organizations.
11) All the woes of failing blue cities? It’s the fault of the banks: In what is perhaps the most consequential, yet overlooked, Supreme Court decision of 2017, the SCOTUS gave standing to the city of Miami to essentially blame all of its financial, economic, and security woes on banks for discriminating against Latinos and blacks … by offering them mortgage loans they can’t afford! This, despite the federal mandates on affordable lending practices.
In Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, with Chief Justice Roberts joining four other liberals, the high court ruled, without any evidence of discrimination, that banks are responsible for discriminatory lending practices, which led to defaulted loans, which led to foreclosures, which led to vacant houses, which led to increased criminal activity, which led to decreased property values, which led to reduced property taxes, which led to a strain on revenue and lack of funds to pay police and firefighters. With this decision as binding precedent (unlike Heller, evidently), every blue city will now be able to obtain standing to sue private businesses for every speculative chain reaction of problems they suffer from their socialist policies.
12) Blocking the firing of woman at the center of VA scandal: Remember Sharon Helman, the woman at the center of the VA scandal in Phoenix, Arizona? According to bipartisan investigations by Congress, she was found to be neglecting patients and posting phony wait-times in order to bolster employee performance bonuses. She was accused of retaliating against whistle-blowers and was also recently found guilty of accepting $50,000 in gifts from medical industry lobbyists in a pay-for-play scandal and was sentenced to probation. The Obama-led VA fired her in 2015. In addition, Congress passed a bipartisan law mandating the firing of such employees. But then, in comes the Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a court that was created by Congress — not in 1789 but in 1982 — and says that the bipartisan law violated the Constitution! After all, if courts can have the final say on marriage, abortion, immigration, sexuality, the military, public prayer, election law, and redistricting, what are a couple of corrupt VA figures in the scheme of their social transformation?
Headed into 2018, there will be copious pages of commentary focused on the upcoming midterm elections. But few, even among conservatives, recognize that elections have been rendered moot by the judicial coup that has gradually taken place over the past generation and has rapidly accelerated over the past few years. Unelected judges already hold the keys to our society, sovereignty, security, and Constitution.
No number of good judges Trump can appoint will prevent the Left from continuing to get the Ninth, Fourth, and D.C. Circuits to uphold radical nationwide injunctions against our sovereignty from extreme lower court judges. New rights will be created every day; existing ones will be extirpated from the Constitution, and more harmful precedents will grow and multiply like weeds. Absent wholesale judicial reform, the Left will win the war, regardless of who wins the midterm skirmish.
Author: Daniel Horowitz
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.