Stare Decisis Woes: Ninth Circuit Faces Legal Precedents to Hurdle

ELDER PATRIOT – The problem facing liberal judges who make the law up as they go along is that they eventually find it necessary to turn their arguments in knots to try to square them with prior fabricated decisions made by other liberal judges.

This is the dilemma facing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as it searches for some way to uphold the groundless ruling by Judge James Robart who somehow managed to claim his authority to determine U.S. foreign policy supersedes that of the president.

The three-judge panel trying to find a way to uphold the politics of Robart’s ruling finds itself looking for a way to craft Robart’s ruling and the federal appellate court that ruled on Elian Gonzalez’s asylum application.

Elian Gonzalez was a six-year old boy who the Clinton administration sent back to Cuba’s communist dictatorship after his mother died bringing him here.

In that case the court ruled that, “It is the duty of the Congress and of the executive branch to exercise political will…in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs.”  That included immigration. 

In fact, another liberal court found that Arizona (or any other state) was powerless to enforce federal immigration laws even when the Obama administration refused to do so.  In other words, the president’s authority over immigration is absolute and exclusive, as part of his authority over foreign policy. 

In light of these previous rulings the Ninth Circuit’s panel faces a daunting task to tie all these knots into a pretty bow that will make Judge Robart’s decision to assert his district court’s claim over federal immigration powers consistent with those earlier court rulings.

It should be interesting to see how they try to pull this off.

Read more here.