Paul Sutliff cites from Judge Watson’s TRO to demonstrate
the injunction does not even come close to Constitutional mustard and thus
should be disqualified immediately by SCOTUS. Sutliff goes further and demands
that Judge Watson’s blatant politicization above the Constitution is grounds
for impeachment from his Judiciary Office. For that matter, it should be
grounds for impeachment of any Judge or Justice that cites non-constitutional
circumstances above the U.S. Constitution.
JRH 3/17/17
******************
Judge Watson's TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and
PREJUDGEMENT!
By Paul Sutliff
March 16, 2017 3:38 PM
As I read the Order Granting the Temporary Retraining
Order (TRO) in STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH vs. Donald J. Trump, et. al.,
I began to wonder how this document was written with any assemblance of juris
prudence professionalism. I say this knowing it is practically impossible for a
judge to write a 42 page document excluding the title page which makes 43 in a
matter of two hours. I took an extra step to verify this by talking to lawyers
who had seen judges using their clerk’s assistance to complete maybe 12 pages
in two hours due to needed discussion and citation verification not to mention
proof reading.
I suggest every American read
this ruling to discover what I did. Namely, that US District Court Judge
Derrick Watson who awarded the TRO had the majority of the decision pre-written
prior to entering the court! This TRO then becomes an example of unethical
conduct of a judge.
The State of Hawaii presented
a case claiming economic hardship should these six countries be banned. Among
the claims of economic hardship was a statement that tourism declined by 100
persons from the Middle East. Notably absent is whether there was an increase
or decrease in tourism for the month in question as compared to last year.
Yet, even Judge Derrick
Watson admits in a FOOTNOTE:
Footnote
8: This data relates to the prior Executive Order No. 13,769. At this
preliminary stage, the Court looks to the earlier order’s effect on tourism in order
to gauge the economic impact of the new Executive Order, while understanding
that the provisions of the two differ. Because the new Executive Order has
yet to take effect, its precise economic impact cannot presently be
determined." (pgs. 20-21)
The State of Hawaii made the
outlandish claim that the University of Hawai’i would suffer economical
hardship. Absent is a statement of how many students from these six countries
currently are enrolled and how many are generally recruited a year. Somewhat
humorously, the state claimed:
… that any prospective
recruits who are without visas as of March 16, 2017 will not be able to travel
to Hawaii to attend the University. As a result, the University will not be
able to collect the tuition that those students would have paid.
Oh, the insanity! The college
can NOT collect from students who can NOT legally enter the United States is a
hardship??? Well just how many students are we talking about? Better yet, are
these foreign students being given state or federal grants that enable them to
attend the University of Hawai'i?
The State of Hawaii went on
and stated that if the ban goes into effect it will likely cause the closing of
the Persian Language and Culture program. Oh the insanity in
deleting a program that requires TWO instructors!!! Below is a screenshot pulled
from their site listing their academic instructors! ALL TWO OF THEM!!!
Dr. Ismail Elshikh is listed
as the co-litigant. Interestingly this name is misspelled possibly purposefully
because his name is listed in news articles as "Ismail El Sheikh." While
it is not uncommon for Arabs to use various transliterations of English for
their name, it is not acceptable for someone who has lived in America for some time
to do this. I want to have this issue resolved and to understand the meaning
behind the misspelling.
Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh claims that
his children are suffering hardship because his mother-in-law is not able to
come to America, though it was established that she is in the process of being
able to come due to family being here.
Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh is
quoted in the TRO as having stated:
o
… that the effects of the Executive Order are “devastating
to me, my wife and children.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 66-1.
o
“deeply saddened by the
message that [both Executive Orders] convey—that a broad travel-ban is ‘needed’
to prevent people from certain Muslim countries from entering the United
States.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 1
o
“Because of my allegiance
to America, and my deep belief in the American ideals of democracy and
equality, I am deeply saddened by the passage of the Executive Order barring
nationals from now-six Muslim majority countries from entering the United
States.”; id. ¶ 3
o
[“My children] are deeply
affected by the knowledge that the United States—their own country—would
discriminate against individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them,
including members of their own family, and who 25 hold the same religious beliefs.
They do not fully understand why this is happening, but they feel hurt,
confused, and sad.”
I am further at a loss when I read on page 23-24:
Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487
F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The concept of a ‘concrete’ injury is
particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause
context.”). “The standing question, in plain English,
is whether adherents to a religion have standing to challenge an official
condemnation by their government of their religious views[.] Their ‘personal
stake’ assures the ‘concrete adverseness’ 24 required.” Catholic League, 624
F.3d at 1048–49.
The TRO was awarded with the claim that it violates Dr.
Ismail El-Sheikh’s First Amendment rights! Yet his rights have never been in
violation! At no time, and in no place in the TRO does it state that his rights
were in question!! Rather the statement is that NON-Citizens First Amendment
rights are being violated!!!
The bill makes no illusions to religion at all. Even though
they do quote an adviser to the president they do not provide proof that there
is a ban on a religion. Which of course can be easily disproved by naming off
Muslim countries that have no ban!
On Page 27 the ruling states:
(“Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is not
based on speculation about a particular future prosecution or the defeat of a
particular ballot question. . . . Here, the issue presented requires no further
factual development, is largely a legal question, and chills allegedly
protected First Amendment expression.”); see also
Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v.
Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the threatened
enforcement effort implicates First Amendment [free speech] rights, the
inquiry tilts dramatically toward a finding of standing.”). The Court turns to
the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO.
The mentioning of freedom of speech makes no sense here! Is
this evidence that Judge Derrick Watson could not find judicial reasoning to
support his conclusion?? Can anyone see logic in this ruling?
The TRO decision states:
“Indeed, the Government defends the
Executive Order principally because of its religiously neutral text —“[i]t
applies to six countries that Congress and the prior Administration determined
posed special risks of terrorism. [The Executive Order] applies to all
individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion.” Gov’t. Mem. in
Opp’n 40. The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the Executive
Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six countries
represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and
are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population . . . [T]he suspension
covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim
individuals[.]” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 42.
The illogic of the Government’s contentions
is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of
people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court
declines to relegate its Establishment 31 Clause analysis to a purely
mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument
that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus because [Executive Order No.
13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,” because “the
Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a
mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter
how inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally flawed is the
notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because
it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is
undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies,
that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that
range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic
leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam.
Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that
it does not. (p. 30-31)
Interestingly, this statement quotes the last judge who ruled
against President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration restrictions but tries
to hide doing so in not revealing the citation:
the Supreme Court has never reduced
its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a
discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution.
Worse still is the lack in understanding that they are using
math to justify their reasoning while stating that math should not be used for
this purpose. This also demonstrates that the judgement was given prejudicially
be not applying statistical analysis in math to examine why those six countries
were deemed to be terrorist supporter countries. This provides a one-sided
view. Something judges are not supposed to do.
CONCLUSION:
This TRO’s standing is based on a belief that people who are
not American citizens are under the US Constitution! This is highly misleading,
unethical and teem of nothing but judicial activism!
Where is the outrage? Why are the major media outlets not
asking these questions? Because it would not fit their narrative? If
Judge Derrick Watson is not removed for unethical and unConstitutional
activism, all of America will suffer! Call your Senator ask for Judge Derrick
Watson to be impeached today! The evidence is all in the TRO.
__________________
Edited by John R. Houk
About Paul Sutliff
I am writer and a teacher.
Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the
truth about Civilization Jiihad!
No comments:
Post a Comment