Sunday, July 16, 2017 by JD Heyes
Last week one of the same Left-wing activist Obama-appointed federal judges who claimed to have more authority than the president of the United States to make national security policy put the kibosh (again) on President Donald J. Trump’s travel ban, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the administration could move ahead with it.
In its ruling, SCOTUS said the White House could not enforce the ban against people with bona fide relationships to people or organizations in the U.S.; the administration adopted a very narrow view of what those relationships are, excluding grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and cousins.
But as The National Sentinel reported, Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson once again moved to block it, ruling the administration could not adopt such a narrow view. “Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” he wrote in issuing his injunction. “Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members.”
In fact, grandparents have no automatic familial rights in many U.S. states.
Nevertheless, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, no doubt frustrated by the Judicial Branch he oversees, as it continues to try thwarting the Executive Branch’s lawful and constitutional right to determine migration and immigration policies as they pertain to national security, is bypassing the normal federal appeals process and has instead gone directly to SCOTUS for clarification of the high court’s earlier ruling, Breitbart News reports.
In addition, Sessions is seeking an immediate stay of Watson’s July 13 ruling, which modified his original injunction that “was largely overturned by the [Supreme] Court’s June 26 decision,” the news site noted.
Late Friday afternoon, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Ken Wall filed a motion at SCOTUS seeking clarification from the justices as to who does and does not qualify as a close family member — a ruling that does seem open to administration interpretation, especially since the high court said in its late June ruling that “the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”
“The district court’s interpretation of this Court’s June 26, 2017, stay ruling distorts this Court’s decision and upends the equitable balance this Court struck,” the Justice Department said in its motion, calling into question two errors in Watson’s decision.
For one, “The district court’s categorical holding that the Order may not be applied to any refugee applicant as to whom the Department of State has obtained a contractual commitment from a resettlement agency — which includes every refugee permitted to enter the United States — effectively eviscerates this Court’s ruling partially staying the injunction as to Sections 6(a) and 6(b),” said DoJ.
Also, “the district court’s sweeping interpretation of ‘close familial relationship’ to encompass a wide range of distant relatives — including cousins, uncles, and siblings-in-law — effectively eliminates the ‘close’ requirement and has no basis in this Court’s ruling or the INA,” the Justice Department said. (RELATED: Supreme Court Backs TRUMP Over Travel Ban, Slapping Down Lower Federal Courts And Dishonest Media That Claimed He Didn’t Have The Authority)
The motion also noted that the Justice Department did in fact file an appeal to Watson’s injunction.
“Out of an abundance of caution, to ensure that there is no impediment to this Court’s prompt resolution of this issue, the government has also filed today a notice of appeal of the district court’s decision modifying its injunction,” the motion stated.
In going directly to SCOTUS, Sessions has effectively neutered Watson and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, under whom Watson serves, after it gave Watson a “roadmap” for his July 13 induction after ruling earlier this month against his previous decision requesting clarification from the Supreme Court. Now, Sessions is asking for that same clarification.
The move surprised a number of legal observers, Breitbart News reported, because they expected Sessions to first appeal the decision in the Ninth Circuit — which was likely to affirm Watson as it has before.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.