Here's the link.
In case Fox still blocks this audience: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/09/andrew-napolitano-what-every-american-wants-to-know-about-federal-judges.html
Here is the back story.
A 1952 federal statute permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security. Trump exercised that authority in accordance with the 1952 law when he signed his Jan. 27 order banning all immigration from the seven named countries.
When the president exercises powers granted to him by the Constitution or federal statues or when Congress passes bills, one cannot simply sue the government in federal court because one does not like what has been done. That is so because the Constitution has preconditions for a lawsuit in federal court. One of those preconditions is what lawyers and judges call “standing.” Standing means that the plaintiff has alleged and can most likely show that the defendant has caused the plaintiff an injury in fact, distinct from all others not in the case.
Hence, it is curious that the plaintiffs in the Seattle case were not people whose entry had been barred by Trump’s order but rather the governments of two states, each claiming to sue in behalf of people and entities resident or about to be resident in them. The court should have dismissed the case as soon as it was filed because of long-standing Supreme Court policy that bars federal litigation alleging harm to another and permits it only for the actual injury or immediate likelihood of injury to the litigant.
Nevertheless, the Seattle federal judge heard oral argument on the two states’ emergency application for a temporary restraining order against the president. During that oral argument, the judge asked a lawyer for the Department of Justice how many arrests of foreign nationals from the seven countries singled out by the president for immigration suspension there have been in the United States since 9/11. When the DOJ lawyer said she did not know, the judge answered his own question by saying, “None.”
He was wrong.
Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..
They're filing suit based upon alleged "intent" without demonstrable injury, which the court has *always* denied standing to.
ReplyDeleteEven alleged "intent" where there is a demonstrable injury has a hard time obtaining standing in most jurisdictions, unless and until there is a demonstration of prima fascie cause and effect between such alleged intend and the real injury in question before the court.
And, even with such stringent restrictions, the US still has a higher rate of suits for "Tort injury" than any other nation in the world - just one more proof that American society has gone so far down the path of denying personal responsibility that it is on the verge of total collapse - not due to any economic or political reason - simply because of our own denial of personal regulation ("restraint", if you will) and civic duty. Americans, at this point in time, just want someone to blame. It's the endemic disease that's killing us...
/LT