A new voice in America’s battle against political corruption
Joe Angione is a former columnist for The Villages Daily Sun, and can be reached by email by clicking HERE
Joe Angione Live Interview on Freedom in America
Latest Edition 1/22/19
America’s 2nd Civil War
Democrats keep rejecting President Trump’s offers of compromise on the issue of border security and the need for a “wall.” Pelosi and Schumer keep the gridlock going with no end in sight for the federal government shutdown. This is a perfect example of how the war between political parties can block everything Americans need for their well-being and security. The possibility for pushing back the hands of the doomsday clock are slipping further and further away.
“Scumbaggery” in our federal courts
It’s a fact that scumbags are ruining the federal court system of the United States. They’re destroying the ability of these courts to render fair and just decisions for the American people. At the heart of this scumbaggery are activist federal court judges who decide to overturn executive orders and other decisions made by the president of the United States.
Precipitating this serious problem for the people is that, during the Obama eight-year administration, he was able to stack the courts in the nation’s 13 federal court circuits, or districts, with liberal, left-leaning judges who are now unlawfully engaged in stopping Trump’s policies across the entire nation.
Nine of these 13 federal court districts are dominated by liberal judges. Quora Inc. Mountainview CA, is staffed by “knowledge” experts many whose mission is to help people understand the “ins and outs” of our judicial system. One Quora spokesperson, Cliff Gilley, a Juris doctor cum laude from Seattle University, observes: “All courts have clearly-defined jurisdictions, which is the maximum breadth of their ability to hear cases and for their opinions to be binding.”
Essentially, the jurisdiction of the federal courts has been defined by the Constitution, congressional statutes, and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. From this broad legal base that defines jurisdiction Gilley implies that federal circuit court decisions were envisioned to be binding only on the courts structured beneath it, and consequently, would affect only the population residing within the court’s geographic jurisdiction. And so, such opinions or decisions of federal courts--according to the Constitution, statutes and the Supreme Court—should not be forced on any court in another federal jurisdiction, although their decisions can be “persuasive” or influential, but not mandatory in other jurisdictions.
Ninth Circuit’s decisions only apply within its geographic jurisdiction. Therefore, it would seem the Ninth Circuit’s decisions that have been forced on the rest of the country are unconstitutional. For example, the Ninth Circuit’s decisions to overturn Trumps’ orders impacting control of immigration at our southern border would be “null and void” because the Ninth’s geographic jurisdiction covers only the southern border states of California and Arizona, but not New Mexico and Texas which are within the jurisdiction of the 5th and the 10th federal circuit courts Obviously then, the Ninth might be able to reverse Trump’s immigration directives for only about 50 percent of the length of our border with Mexico.
Although the Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the 13 federal circuit courts, it only represents about 20 percent of the nation’s population. It is both unfair and prejudicial to have an opinion that binds just 20 percent of Americans forced upon the remaining 80 percent who’ve had no say in the matter.
More restrictions on federal circuit and appellate courts. These courts were established only to hear and rule on cases sent up to them from lower courts within their jurisdictions. In this sense, they have no original jurisdiction powers, but only secondary or appellate jurisdiction on matters that originated in a lower court in their respective circuits. And so, an appellate court such as in the Ninth Circuit could not have original authority on an issue that occurred outside its jurisdiction and that wasn’t heard first by a lower court within the Ninth’s jurisdiction.
It’s doubtful that legal objections to Donald Trump’s immigration orders actually ever originated in a Ninth Circuit lower court and then proceeded up through the hierarchy of Ninth Circuit courts to reach the circuit’s appellate court for review. Furthermore, it’s more than likely that activist judges in the Ninth, or in any other circuit, who object to a Trump presidential order are issuing their decision to block him entirely out of hand without due process in their courts. This is not the way the U.S. judicial system was meant to work.
Activists create unlawful “precedents” within our judicial system. Activist judges have illegally blocked presidential directives so often in recent years and have gone unchallenged, so that they’ve created precedents now accepted as law when they are actually violations of established law. As such, ignoring the law is now a precedent that takes on the weight of being a law in itself.
A perfect example of unlawful precedents masquerading as true law is the abandonment in recent years of enforcing our immigration law as it exists through established legislation. This has occurred when presidents and congress have ignored the Immigration and Nationality Ac t (INA) of 1952, the McCarran-Walter Act. The INA of 1952 remains the basic immigration law of the United States. Even though U.S. immigration law has been amended 14 times since then, the essential rules determining who should be admitted into this country for asylum or to proceed on to citizenship have not been altered or changed. These rules say: "The president may, by proclamation and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens as he may deem to be appropriate."
Furthermore, the INA of 1952 specifically cites those who are deemed ineligible for entry into the United States. They include: diseased individuals, criminals, conspirators, drug and human traffickers, prostitutes, saboteurs, spies, terrorists, assassins, kidnappers and those who refuse to accept the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. (Incidentally, this might exclude most, if not all, foreign-born, Sharia-compliant Muslims who seek to immigrate here. Those who uphold Sharia law are prohibited by the Qur’an from accepting the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution.) How many of these undesirables get through our unsecured borders today? Hundreds of thousands annually.
An additional restriction on people who want to immigrate here is that under no circumstances is immigration permitted unless the applicant for residency first has a firm offer of employment or financial support from someone or some charitable organization. How many immigrants who enter the U.S. have an employment offer or one for financial support? Hardly any from anywhere. How many end up on our welfare rolls as burdens to our taxpayers? Nearly all of them.
How is it possible that hundreds of thousands enter our country annually in direct violation of our immigration law? Two main reasons: The desires of greedy employers looking for cheap labor; and liberal Democrats who want to expand their voter base with immigrants beholding to them. And “oh yes;” these non-citizens often get to vote illegally with the help of unscrupulous Democrats.
Where “scumbaggery” in federal courts is most dangerous. There is a rather sleazy legal maneuver in our courts that helps to ensure that a plaintiff secures a favorable decision against a defendant or, sometimes conversely that a defendant can unfairly win a case against a plaintiff. It’s called “judge shopping” and sometimes “jurisdiction shopping,” and has been employed many times by Democrats looking to overturn an order issued by President Trump.
For instance, when Democrats sought to stop Trump from denying federal funds to cities and other geographic entities that operated as sanctuaries for illegal aliens, they went to the Ninth Circuit and found a liberal judge in San Francisco who declared Trump’s order against these sanctuaries unconstitutional, thereby preventing Trump from punishing them for disobeying federal immigration law. frighteningly, the corrupt activities of the Ninth Circuit are getting worse: It has now decided to allow Mexican citizens to sue the American Border Patrol and its agents. Why is the Ninth attempting to create legal problems for those who protect our borders, our safety and our sovereignty? Leftist scumbaggery in the courts is the only answer.
Judge or jurisdiction shopping is political scumbaggery that has long been recognized as an abuse of the judicial process because it gives a biased advantage in a court case. And it should be treated as brazen corruption of our legal system. This is happening so frequently in leftist resistance to President Trump’s executive actions that it seems he no longer has the power to function as our chief executive and affectively govern the nation.
Abuse of the “separation of powers” doctrine. Court actions, such as those occurring in the Ninth Circuit, are an attack against the “separation of powers” doctrine of the Constitution that is designed to check the power of each of the three branches of our federal government. This doctrine stipulates that no branch should be allowed to encroach upon the others, and each has enumerated responsibilities that the others can’t take away.
Separation of powers also means that only branches of the federal government at the same level can intervene to control a runaway exercise of power by another. And so, a lower court such as the Ninth Circuit which exists under the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court, cannot challenge the authority of the president, the nation’s chief executive, when he issues orders regarding how the nation is governed. Only the Supreme Court, which is at the same level as the chief executive, has the power to do that.
Using the same logic, a state court cannot overturn a decision of the Supreme Court or any higher court in its geographic jurisdiction. Likewise, no state legislature has the authority to rescind a law passed by Congress. That’s the way the separation of powers works to both support the authority of each branch of government, and, at the same time, keep each branch from overreaching its authority.
Unfortunately, political scumbaggery has so infected the courts that illegal precedents have arisen to allow circuit courts to do things never intended for them to do. This is such a regular occurrence that the meaning and purpose of separation of powers is being blurred to the point of making it almost useless as a protection against the misuse of government power and authority.
However, it’s been argued, and rightly so, that the Supreme Court can only hear about 70 to 80 cases each year…and that leaves decisions on hundreds of other important cases in the hands of the federal circuit courts that are riddled with activist judges who, pressured by politics, misuse their authority. This obstacle to proper due process on the nation’s most vital legal issues might be relieved if priority is given on the Supreme Court’s docket to cases involving separation of powers. Certainly, there are some cases scheduled for hearing by the Court dealing with matters of relatively less consequence that could be pushed back to a later time.
We cannot continue to exist as a viable nation faithful to, and operating under, the “rule of law” if we permit political scumbaggery to undermine our courts and sabotage the intent of the United States Constitution.
Build the Wall:
The best argument you will ever hear CLICK HERE
I’m not sure who this speaker is. But his argument for the wall is totally irrefutable. Click on the link and pass this video on to everyone you know. No honest, intelligent human being who sees this could ever think there is no crisis at our southern border.
Proof that walls keep us safe
This article appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal, written by Wayne Allyn Root, that explains walls in the most understanding way:
“Please ignore the advertising slogan, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.” It’s not true. Las Vegas is the crossroads of America. What happens here is happening everywhere.
“And I’ve uncovered the biggest liberal scam in America going on right here in Vegas. It revolves around my home community in Henderson. I live in Anthem Country Club.
“There are about 1500 beautiful homes behind the gates at Anthem. What’s the appeal of Anthem Country Club? It’s got a big beautiful wall around it. And thick iron gates in front, protected by armed guards.
“There is virtually no crime inside walled, gated, armed Anthem. I’ve lived here for almost 17 years. My kids grew up here. They played outside every day from morning till night and I never worried for one moment. Because of the wall, the gates and the armed guards, my kids were as safe as if they lived in “Mayberry R.F.D.” Life is good behind the gates of Anthem.
“In the rest of Las Vegas …not so much. In the rest of Vegas, lots of crime and fear. This proves walls, gates and armed guards are good if you want your family to be safe.
“But wait. Anthem recently added a new feature to keep our residents safe. Drivers entering our gates must show a government-issued photo ID. Anyone entering our community — guests, gardeners, maids, nannies, pool cleaners, handymen, plumbers, electricians, delivery personnel — must provide state or federal government issued photo ID or, they will be denied entry. Every single one of them.
“There are many lessons we can learn from studying Anthem. If you want your family and children to be safe, build a wall. Preferably a wall that is also surrounded by armed guards.
“The Vatican understands this lesson. Mexico understands — it has a wall on its southern border. (Not too good as shown recently being broached by the caravaners.) Many rich Liberals in America who live in gated communities — or gated private estates or buildings with doormen — understand this lesson, too. They just don’t want you to have a wall. They think their children are more important than yours.
“They clearly think you are stupid, as they argue walls and guns are not necessary. Liberal Democrats are hypocrites in this and many other ways!
Senator Harry Reid lives inside the walls of Anthem Country Club
“You know, former U.S. Senator and majority leader in the Senate. The former water carrier for President Obama, who spent his entire Senate career fighting viciously against a wall. Harry argued walls were terrible and unnecessary. Harry could have retired anywhere in Vegas — or anywhere in America, for that matter. But he chose to live behind the walls — and gates — and armed guards of Anthem Country Club.
“Harry is my neighbor. Welcome to the neighborhood. But, Harry, don’t Liberals hate walls and gates and armed guards and photo ID? Don’t Liberals call those racist?
“Yet here sits Harry Reid and the entire Reid clan, interesting! The argument against voter ID is a scam. How do all those gardeners and maids and pool cleaners and handymen drive through the gates of Anthem every day? The answer: They already have government-issued photo IDs. So I guess it’s a lie when Liberal politicians claim minorities don’t have photo IDs, or they’re too difficult for them to get or it’s “racist” to ask them for it.
“I guess we just proved the Liberal argument is a scam. Voter ID is an issue because Liberals want election fraud They can’t win without it. They want illegals to be able to vote by the millions for the Democrat folks. We are being scammed. Anthem Country Club is the proof. What happens here is happening everywhere.”