Judge in Hawaii Appoints Himself Dictator, Grantor Of Rights — In Essence, God

As crazy and unlikely as this sounds, that is exactly what Judge Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge in Hawaii, has done with his order preventing” the President of the united States, Donald J. Trump, for enforcing a presidential executive order protecting this republic from illegal alien invasion of “refugees” and invaders entering from terror-riddle, terrorist-protecting, terrorist-supporting countries.  If this isn’t totalitarian enough, this “judge” then prevented every other judge along with every other state from adhering to the president’s order.  In the words of Robert Barnes, the judge made “himself a one man Supreme Court and substitute president.”  Of course, Watson is an Obama appointed judge;  however, that should not preclude the man from following the law.

Barnes, writing for Breitbart, wrote:

The judge then held that American universities and immigrants living here can prohibit America from ever limiting immigration from Muslim-heavy countries, claiming the First Amendment gives Muslim-dominant nations a right of immigration to America.

Such arrogance and abuse of authority sound familiar? Such First Amendment favoritism toward Islam sound familiar? Well, Obama did appoint this judge, and a rule of thumb with federal judges is they tend to mirror the psychologies of the man who appointed them.

The judge’s ruling is completely lawless, mirroring Obama’s deep state allies in his shadow government’s attempt to sabotage the Trump presidency. There is no precedent for the court’s order. In fact, every precedent is against the court’s order; just read the detailed logic and scholastic citation of proper governing legal authorities from the decision of a moderately liberal Boston judge who upheld every part of Trump’s prior order.

This judge is granting “rights” to individuals to thwart the federal government when the Constitution, established by “We the People,” gave the authority to the Constitution established federal government over “immigration and rules of naturalization.” (Article I, Section 8).  God is the grantor of individual rights, not the government and certainly not this judge.  To even say an “individual” can prohibit the entire republic from any action authorized the government by the Constitution is utterly insane, as long as the government is not in violation of any individual God-given unalienable right.  To further declare the court in Hawaii as superior to all other states is, again, in violation of the Constitution since Article IV, Section 4 guarantees “every State in this union a Republican form of government.”  No State is subservient to another.  Each State is on equal footing.  If this judge’s ruling held any merit, any United States District Court judge could declare that no State had to honor an extradition request from the State of Hawaii against a felon fleeing to another State.

In another stellar display of attempting to rewrite the Constitution, this judge is essentially applying a non-existent First Amendment clause to immigration.  The First Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;  or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;  or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  Where in the name of Thomas Jefferson is the “right to immigrate” or the “right to bring in immigrants?”  It isn’t there.  Nor is that contained in any other amendments or even conceived to be part of the Ninth Amendment since these amendment are address the recognition of individual God-given unalienable rights prior to the establishment of government and a guarantee that government is not to violate those rights.  And as another point, the First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens or aliens — illegal or refugee.

Moreover, “We the People” authorized the federal government to develop and enforce immigration and naturalization laws.  Part of the immigration law contained in “8 US Code § 1182 (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President” allows the president to limit, restrict, prevent or ban entry of certain persons or groups of people based on the danger posed to the interests of the united States.  That section of the immigration law states:

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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

This judge has no jurisdiction whatsoever.   By even ruling as he did, Judge Derrick K. Watson has shown his incompetency to sit on the bench.  If not incompetency, either his clear lack of knowledge of the law or his intentional subversive insurrection against the federal government is enough to remove this joke of a judge.

If this is not enough to show that all of these “district judges” have zero base to even interject into either executive order of President Trump, as his orders are based in duly constitutionally authorized and passed immigration law, Barnes continues to make the case against Judge Derrick K. Watson.

To give you an idea of how lawless the decision is, just try to find the analogous case the Hawaii judge cites for his ruling; there is none, not one single prior example of another judge ever doing what this Judge did to the extent he did it.

To give you another example of how baseless the court’s ruling is, even liberal law professors and scribes criticized the more limited Ninth Circuit decision that this Hawaii judge goes far beyond. Liberal law professor Turley noted Trump should win a challenge against that ruling. Liberal democrat professor Alan Dershowitz noted the same. Liberal law scribe Jeffrey Toobin conceded the same.

Here are a few reasons why:

First, nationwide injunctions for non-party plaintiffs are not supposed to happen. A district judge presides over his district, not the nation. He should not overrule other judges, nor dictate his opinions on the whole nation. The law does not make him a single judge Supreme Court. The Supreme Court itself warned against issuing any relief not individually and specifically necessary to the plaintiffs before the court. Noting that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs,” the Supreme Court warned against extending its reach beyond “the particular federal plaintiffs” in the case.

The Ninth Circuit itself even admits this. The “principles of comity” compel that a court should not grant national relief when doing so would “create tensions” with courts in other circuits and “would encourage forum shopping.” The Ninth Circuit further reinforced that: “A federal court…may not attempt to determine the rights of parties not before the court.” What kind of case was that the Ninth Circuit saying not to extend your ruling beyond the plaintiffs in front of you? An immigration case (Nat’l Cir. for Immigration Rights v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984). The Ninth Circuit repeated this principle again and again. That is why the Supreme Court reversed a California judge’s order just like this Hawaii judge’s order — imposing a national ban beyond his limited district jurisdiction of the parties before him.

Second, there is no constitutional right to a visa or a right of immigration or emigration. A quick recap of key Supreme Court decisions explains why. Aliens “outside the country receive no constitutional protection.” The Supreme Court repeatedly held an alien seeking initial admission to the United States “requests a privilege, and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.” Thus, the President “may shut out aliens” whenever the President determine such “entry would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.”

Congress expressly authorized this Presidential action in the one statute the Ninth Circuit tried to hid in its prior decision, cited above at 8 U.S.C. 1182. The actions of the President in respect of enforcing this law “are largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” This is because the Constitution entrusts “the power regulate immigration” exclusively “to the political branches of the Federal Government.” As the Supreme Court recently reiterated during Clinton’s presidency: judicial “deference to the Executive Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context” given the “sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations.”

Admission into America is a privilege, not a right. Congress gave the President broad statutory authority to exclude any aliens he saw fit to.

The law is clear in the power it gives the President, in the statute cited above — 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). Like the Ninth Circuit decision before, the Hawaii judge goes out of his way to pretend this statute does not exist. Indeed, it is never addressed in any real way in the court’s entire opinion (much of which appeared pre-written prior to the oral argument).

Barnes then goes on to use the analogy that this writer has so often used when it comes to immigration.

Just as we have a right to decide which strangers enter our home and who sleeps next to our daughters’ bedroom or eats our family’s food, we as a country enjoy the democratic right to decide who enters our country, who lives next to us as a neighbor, and who enjoys the fruits of our ancestral inheritance.

Our ancestral inheritance is freedom, liberty and limited government intrusion into our daily lives.  As has been seen with many individuals entering this republic from Muslim dominated government countries, as well as other countries whose governments are steeped in corruption and crime, these individuals do not want to assimilate and seek to carve out sections of our “home” in order to proliferate “their law,” which is anathema to our Constitution, to govern over “their” population while using our Constitution to try to justify it.

Barnes also indicated that much of the “court’s entire opinion” appeared to be “pre-written prior to the oral arguments.  How’s that for justice?  This judge already had a predetermined opinion and stance on ruling before any arguments were brought before his court.  That should be grounds for a removal from the bench or another reason to toss his “ruling” into the garbage bin.

Like Barnes, it would have to be agreed that this judge didn’t just trash the Constitution;  he rewrote it.  This writer would have to say Judge Derrick K. Watson rewrote the Constitution to suit the ideology of the left, the wishes of one individual, and his own political beliefs in order to commit insurrection against the federal government.  Judge Watson is more than welcome to challenge this accusation as long as he can prove, using the law, that his “ruling” is within established law.  Granted, he cannot do that as Robert Barnes so eloquently has proven.  In fact, all law is against this judge’s opinion of one ruling.  Technically, it can’t even be called a ruling.

This judge legislated from the bench, declared himself god in determining rights, and declared himself dictator of law to the rest of the republic.  This judge needs psychiatric help for his delusions of grandeur.  It’s either he’s delusional or an arrogant a**hat.  Maybe he’s both.  But, in this case, President Trump should tell Judge Derrick K. Watson to “pound feces.”  Obama, as president, basically gave the middle finger to the Supreme Court by continuing to violate their constitutional ruling, which he was wrong for doing.  In this case, Judge Derrick K. Watson is wrongfully and unlawfully issuing an unconstitutional “ruling” which should be given its just due — ignore it.




About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in Constitution, General, Tyranny, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.