Media duplicity, activist judges, and the attack on Trump’s immigration ban by Miguel A. Faria, MD

Journal/Website: 
Exclusive for HaciendaPublishing.com
Article Type: 
Article
Published Date: 
Sunday, February 12, 2017

The liberal media continue their hostile criticism of everything President Trump says and does. The latest brouhaha has been raised with the fake media outrage against Trump for his critical remarks of U.S. District Judge James Robart, the federal judge in Seattle who halted the President Donald J. Trump in East Room of White Houseenforcement of the executive order banning immigration from seven countries with terrorist ties. The judge’s freeze was implemented allegedly because of the violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Trump had picked these seven predominantly Muslim countries for his travel ban because they had been previously identified by the Obama administration as countries that could endanger the security of the United States. Be that as it may, the Ninth Circuit Court has today ruled against Trump. One wonders what would have happened if Trump had included pariah, atheist, communist North Korea in the ban?

The fact is we may have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide the issue, so I will not discuss constitutionality further. What seems to be lost in all this, though, is that Trump, as President of the United States, has the duty to protect the U.S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and protect our borders. But how can he fulfill this obligation as Commander-in-Chief if the courts tie his hands with their politics of judicial activism, backed by the political correctness and propaganda power of the progressive, opinion-molders of the media cartel? The power of the media and political correctness is such that it has even cowed Trump’s candidate for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who lamented to the press that Trump’s criticism of Judge Robart was “disheartening and demoralizing.” 

The media’s attack on Trump, acting as if they truly were lamenting the excoriation of the judge and offended at the erosion of the prestige of the courts, is hypocritical and ludicrous. The press has tried to elevate the incident, as they have attempted to with others affecting NBC NewsTrump, to an imminent constitutional crisis — as if Executive vs. Judiciary duels had never happened in American history, and as if American presidents have accepted judicial rulings without a fight and as sacrosanct verdicts. Listen to NBC News:

"President Donald Trump's personal attack on the federal judge who blocked his controversial travel executive order could undermine public confidence in an institution capable checking his power, say legal experts. The fallout from Trump's Twitter tirade against U.S. District Judge James Robart — in which he dismissed a respected jurist as a 'so-called judge' — continues to dog the new president."

And did we ever hear the media criticize Obama for anything? Did Obama ever say anything "controversial," fulminated any “tirades,” or did he ever "undermine public confidence"? Of course he did all of the above; but no, he was lionized and treated as an imperial royalty for everything he said or did! Roger Aronoff of Accuracy in Media (AIM) accurately asks, “Where was their criticism of Obama when he attacked and pressured the courts to rule in his favor, or condemned them after rulings went against him?” In 2010 after the Citizens United decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, Obama fulminated, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Where was the media outrage?

And again commenting in the Obamacare ruling King v. Burwell, Obama told Reuters, “In our view, [there was] not a plausible legal basis for striking [the IRS rule] down.” In this case, the media not only did not criticize Obama, but as AIM predicted, the media “marshaled their forces in defense of Obama and his signature legislation.” Obamacare passed, as Nancy Pelosi advised, before the legislators knew what was in it.

Thomas JeffersonBut let’s now briefly check our history to see if these Executive-Judiciary duels were unprecedented. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson (photo, right) not only criticized but even encouraged the House of Representatives to impeach Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Chase (1796-1811) when the judge expressed Federalist opinions in his rulings. The judge was acquitted.

Jefferson was even more critical of the Judiciary in general: The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

The Constitution, on this hypothesis [i.e., balance of power with three independent branches of government], is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)

And here is one of my favorite judicial quotations from Jefferson: The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)

Andrew JacksonAnd what was the attitude of the real founder of the Democrat Party, President Andrew Jackson, toward the Judiciary? He went further, and ignored court rulings — when he felt he could ruled on constitutionality better than the courts, or where like Jefferson, he opined the court interfered with Executive prerogatives. For example, Jackson was very displeased with John Marshall and the Supreme Court and in the ruling, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), where the Supreme Court ruled favorably towards protecting the Cherokee Indian’s land, Jackson was incensed. He railed against the legendary Chief Justice of the Court: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Without the president’s enforcement of the ruling, the judicial opinion became meaningless. The militia of Georgia encroached on the Cherokee lands and subsequently in 1835, the Cherokees were removed from Georgia and forcibly relocated in Oklahoma in the famous “Trail of Tears.”

But historic truth is no obstacle to the liberal media, and history, if inconvenient, is trampled or ignored. The press talks about “fake news” by others, those not anointed in the club of the progressive, opinion-molders of the media cartel; but claiming that Trump’s attitude to judges is unprecedented and “could undermine public confidence in an institution capable of checking his power” is artful and biased opinion — subjective reporting, considerably worse and more damaging to the public than outright “fake news” because they pass these biased opinions as objective reporting. Americans will take the media and journalism more seriously, if and when, the media regain the public trust with more truthful, balanced, and objective coverage. The almost farcical war on Trump’s every move proves that return to journalistic ethics is far from being the case, and that instead journalistic partisanship, like many other aspects of the zeitgeist of our time, is at a nadir in American contemporary culture.

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is an Associate Editor in Chief and a World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He is the Author of Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is www.haciendapub.com

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Media duplicity, activist judges, and the attack on Trump’s immigration ban. HaciendaPublishing.com, February 12, 2017. Available from: http://www.haciendapublishing.com/articles/media-duplicity-activist-judges-and-attack-trump%E2%80%99s-immigration-ban-miguel-faria-md

This article was also published in the Macon Telegraph on February 10, 2017 and in GOPUSA February 13, 2017.

Copyright ©2017 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (6 votes)
Comments on this post

Restrict the jurisdiction of the activist courts!

Don Horacio: to me the very heart of this whole episode is being missed by all commentators: That is, IF A DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT COURT CAN OVERTURN A PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER, THEN THAT SETS A LEGAL PRECEDENT THAT, IN EFFECT, UNDERMINES THE CONSTITUTION COMPLETELY, REVERSES THE PRESIDENT AND POSSIBLY CANNOT BE RECTIFIED— but, then, I am not a lawyer.

MAF: True, such rulings could make it burdensome, dilatory, and dangerous in having to make the Executive appeal to the Supreme Court in all theses; but this can only continue if Congress sits idly by. Congress has a powerful Constitutional weapon that has to my knowledge not been used since the Civil War and possibly never been used at all:

Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2of the Constitution that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so that it cannot rule in certain legislative or executive issues as dictated by Congress: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
———————
From The Telegraph:
William Tomlinson Jr.: Excellent Dr. Faria. IMO the most chilling consequence of the 9th Circuit ruling is the tacit encouragement of state attorney generals or any of the perpetually offended, to feel free to express their disgust with the duly elected president by making the use of the statutory charge of that office subject to judicial testing for political correctness. The precedent of making his unique and necessary powers subject to popular approval (the ability to act instantly and decisively) by not only this president, but all future presidents are neutered to the point of impotency. As your Jefferson quote on the judiciary reveals, our founders possessed the wisdom of the ages. We can only hope that this ideological ruling is allowed to be tried on the merits of the statute and laid to rest as settled law before this effort (wax in the hands of the court) by the court to usurp the decision of foreign policy without the personal responsibility establishes a foothold in suppressing our CINCs [Commander in Chief] actions to that of the deliberative progress of a committee.

Willy Bean: Trump is right; Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump: Our legal system is broken! "77% of refugees allowed into U.S. since travel reprieve hail from seven suspect countries."

Just arrest turncoat George Soros!

Selected from GOPUSA —

oleteabag (Feb 13, 2017): Fake outrage ginned up by purveyors of FAKE NEWS notwithstanding, what person of normal intelligence and even a SCINTILLA of common sense would NOT hold this IDIOT JUDGE in absolute CONTEMPT for IGNORING the Constitution and established law in his determination to PREVENT the President of the United States from LAWFULLY protecting US citizens against the HORDE of refu-jihadis flooding in–MANY of whom are doubtless TERRORISTS?

These leftist VERMIN are HELLBENT on destroying our country and erasing our borders, so that the GLOBALISTS can establish their one-world government, and they’re not about to let anything so trivial as the Constitution or the laws interfere with their destructive efforts.

The single most EFFECTIVE thing Trump can do to put a stop to this BS is to ARREST George Soros, charge him with sedition and TREASON, and SEIZE all his assets for financing domestic terrorism. Then put his wrinkled old behind in PRISON for the REST of his miserable, evil LIFE! HE is financing and driving most of this “resistance” BS, and if you take HIM and his damned money out of the picture, I think you’ll find that MOST of this BS will STOP. If he does not DO that, I’m afraid we’re not going to be a sovereign nation much longer, much less “great again,” because that EVIL old spider is HELLBENT on regaining the globalist ground he LOST when his puppet, Shrillary lost the election, and apparently willing to spend ALL his billions to make it happen!

The SECOND most effective thing he can do is to root out and FIRE all of OBAMA’S holdovers and plants in the State Dept., Justice Dept., and everywhere ELSE they are ACTIVELY working to sabotage our new President and leak information to the LYING MEDIA. It is OUTRAGEOUS that they are EAVESDROPPING and leaking details of his phone conversations with other world leaders. HOW is that NOT ESPIONAGE and worthy of IMMEDIATE discharge and arrest?


Ituser: Re. “The single most EFFECTIVE thing Trump can do to put a stop to this BS is to ARREST George Soros, charge him with sedition and TREASON, and SEIZE all his assets for financing domestic terrorism. Then put his wrinkled old behind in PRISON for the REST of his miserable, evil LIFE! HE is financing and driving most of this “resistance” BS, and if you take HIM and his damned money out of the picture, I think you’ll find that MOST of this BS will STOP.”

I would much prefer he just disappear into a deep dark hole and have the location thrown away. BUT what ever gets done to him, it MUST also include locking his damn finances away so his KIDS cannot continue funding these activist groups in his stead...

Dido: Right on target — great posts!

Leftist Threat More Dangerous Now Than Russian Threat!

Hmmmm. So the Ninth “Circus” ruling takes the power for determining who comes into this country from the president and bestows it upon a Seattle judge, since some financial rewards may be not forthcoming by certain universities.

The authority to regulate immigration lies with the congress, who has ceded this power to the president in 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. The courts have upheld this authority. The last six presidents have used this authority as needed, including Obama six times. The Ninth Circuit 3 judge panel remarkably ignored this law completely, which may explain why they have an 80% reversal at the US Supreme Court.

These same countries were deemed a threat under President Obama. In 2011 Al-Qaeda terrorists were discovered living as refugees in Kentucky. President Obama then stopped Iraqi immigration for 6 months. There were no riots, demonstrations, nor even objections from the left; after all, this is their Obama. When President Trump puts a 90 day hold on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, the media pushes the fake news story that Trump has instituted a Muslim ban.

These 7 countries were a target of President Obama, who placed restrictive travel Visas, as they were a terrorist concern. President Trump agreed, and further restricted travel when he imposed the temporary halt from these countries to America. Additionally, the Center for Immigration Studies found that information from a Senate committee in 2016 showed 72 people from these same seven countries under President Trump's executive order were convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks.

Nor does an American President have to wait until after an attack to act, although in this case there have been attacks from citizens of some of these countries. It is the president’s job to protect Americans from foreign threats, not the courts. President Trump has critical intelligence provided to him that aids him in this decision that no Seattle judge has been cleared for, much less access to.

Clearly President Trump has the authority, the responsibility, and protecting Americans from foreign threats is the duty of the elected president, not an appointed judge. ISIS has stated that they will send their agents to murder us, just as they did in San Bernardino, CA. Moreover, that the potential financial loss of foreign students to certain universities or even companies would outweigh the protection of American citizens from these countries that harbor Muslim terrorists has no bearing in the US Constitution.

That the courts have such judges so willing to act arbitrary to the US Constitution bespeaks to the activist and destructive nature of such judges and the obvious fact that many on the left have still not accepted the election loss and will do anything within their power to undermine this president and the American system. Such people are more my enemy than any communist in China or Russian, as they can do more damage to America than the latter two foreign enemies.

Dr. Faria replies:: Exactly Koba, exactly. Moreover the Constitution does not give little "so called judges" the power to tie the hands of the Executive to protect non-citizens, dangerous aliens from non-friendly countries. Instead, it clearly extends to the President the responsibility for protecting and defending the nation from potentially foreign and domestic enemies. Article II, parts of Sections 1 & 2 read:

"Section 1: ...Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he [The President] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:---, 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'

"Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

And according to the justice Department, Office of legal Counsel, September 25, 2001:

"THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

"The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

"The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

"The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

But you are correct, Koba the leftist diversion and obstructionism of the Quinta Columna activities via judicial activism, media propaganda, leftist academic Marxism, all working in tandem, are a greater threat to this nation than Russia or perhaps even Islamic terrorism.--- MAF