top of page

Our National Sovereignty

Take the time to read this and contemplate the radical implications of the courts aiding the transformation of America by making it impossible to stop the invasion of illegal migrants. I am so disappointed that the Chief Justice did not take a stand against nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts in a regional circuit that are being used to tie the hands of the Executive branch that is trying to protect our national sovereignty… Ellen

the four conservatives in summarily staying the injunction….

What is the purpose of the Supreme Court if it only encroaches on the powers of the other branches but won’t police its own inferior courts when they violate all legal norms? Let’s review the unprecedented insanity of this case:

1) Four left-wing advocacy groups were given standing to sue on behalf of caravans that are literally not even in our country simply because they asserted that their institutions must expend more resources educating their clients on the new policy. It would be equivalent to Conservative Review obtaining standing because we have to expend more resources explaining the new policies we don’t like to our readers. This is perhaps the most absurd violation of Article III standing in recent memory, yet Roberts allows it to continue. Putting immigration aside, the precedent this will set on the parameters of standing will ensure that almost any political group can sue any abstract policy without any valid personal injury.

2) This was the first time a court blatantly limited the president’s power to exclude aliens, even after Roberts himself said in Trump v. Hawaii that the power was very broad.

3) The court, for the first time, is signaling that asylum is somehow a mandatory policy.

4) The court, for the first time, is interfering with sensitive ongoing diplomatic negotiations with the government of Mexico.

5) This was yet another illegal nationwide injunction that has already caused immeasurable damage to our entire sovereignty and security. To allow this injunction to stand means Roberts agrees with universal injunctions, agrees with the merits of the case, or has no problem allowing such national security harm even when he knows the ruling is wrong.

If you put all the recent court decisions on immigration together, it’s now clear why we have an invasion. One district judge said that children must be released. Then another one said parents must be released with the children. Then a district judge in D.C. said the definition of asylum must be expanded to Obama’s policy, beyond an individual fear of persecution. Now a district judge is being allowed to sustain a ruling that Trump can’t even request that they come to the points of entry.

© 2017 Men and Women for a Representative Democracy in America


​Democracy - Republic

bottom of page