Feb. 8, 2017, "The Gorsuch Gaffe," Editorial of The New York Sun
"Talk about disheartening. That’s the word President Trump’s nominee to
the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is using to describe President
Trump’s remarks in respect of the riders of the 9th United States
Circuit Court of Appeals. The president is upset at their politicking
over his order to tighten up on immigration. Is the president’s pique so
disheartening? Not to us.
What’s so disheartening is to see such a
promising nominee to the high court lose his bearings in a storm.
in the world was Judge Gorsuch thinking? President Trump expressed his
exasperation with the 9th Circuit’s pettifogging in remarks to police
chiefs. The president was right Trumansesque in the bluntness with which
he made clear his views of the judges’ shenanigans. Judge Gorsuch then
fetched up in the office of the senior Democratic senator from the
People’s Republic of Connecticut, and starts wringing his hands about
the behavior of the president who nominated him.
It would be surprising to us if by chastising his nominator Judge
Gorsuch gained any quarter whatsoever from the Democrats. Not even a
micron of a quarter. The opposition senators announced they were against
Mr. Trump’s nominee even before his name was put up by the President.
It would not be surprising, though, were Mr. Trump to turn around and
yank Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and send up to the Senate a candidate
who can keep his or her cool.
Certainly Mr. Trump is ahead of his critics in his understanding of
this situation — just as he was ahead of the entire Republican field,
not to mention the Democratic intelligentsia, in understanding the
politics of the 2016 election. Every single voter who cast a ballot for
Mr. Trump comprehends that the 9th Circuit is behaving in a political
fashion. If it weren’t, the Circuit would have dismissed the lawsuit
from the State of Washington for the ideological grandstanding that it
Every sentient voter in America gets this. It is hard to think of a
campaign promise in the whole history of the Republic that was more
clear than Mr. Trump’s vow that he was going to tighten up on
immigration until he can get a handle on the situation in the middle of
this war. So what if it wasn’t everyone’s priority? That it was one of
the mandates the voters gave to the winner of this election is
unmistakable. Since when did it become unconstitutional to keep campaign
There used to be a concept in law that political matters were
non-justiciable. National security matters, too. It’s easy to understand
why, given the way our powers are separated and the inherently
secretive nature of military and intelligence matters. As the courts
have thrust themselves into political questions, confidence in the
Supreme Court has begun to decline. It’s still higher than Congress, but
that’s not saying much.
In a Pew poll from late 2015, a favorable view of the Supreme Court
obtained among but 50% of Americans. The percentage of Americans who had
a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court slumped
to 3 in the decade ending in 2006, according to Gallup. Where Americans
confidence reposes, it turns out, is in the military, the police, and
religion. The Supreme Court’s slide is what’s disheartening.
It is not President Trump’s criticism of the courts that precipitated
that slide. On the contrary, Mr. Trump is but one of the millions of
voters who are upset by the politicization of the courts and he has
emerged as a tribune for, among other things, millions of citizens who
feel similarly. We’re among them. It’s not that we’ve lost our
oft-expressed admiration for the greatest of our judges. They are heroes
of the Republic.
To protect them was an enumerated reason for seceding
from Britain, which is why when they fail to redeem that bet it is so
particularly — to use Judge Gorsuch’s phrase — disheartening."
Added: US Circuit Court decisions overturned or vacated are a matter of public record and commented upon all the time. Judges are political appointments, we wish them well, but they're not saints. Following, "Scoring the Circuits," for example, describes a four year average, 2010-2014:
"For the last four Terms including the current
session [through June 2014]...the Court has reversed or vacated and
sent back 79.5% of the Ninth Circuit decisions it has reviewed."...
6/22/2014, "SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Scoring the circuits," scotusblog.com, Stephen Wermiel
"As the Supreme Court nears the completion of its current Term, it
is interesting to explore the track records of the courts whose
decisions the Justices reviewed.
Most of the approximately seventy-five cases the Justices hear and
decide each Term come from the federal appeals courts, which are divided
into twelve regional circuits that cover the country....
The (Supreme Court) Justices have long had a seemingly contentious relationship with the
Ninth Circuit, which covers most of the western United States and
Hawaii and Alaska. Far more cases come to the Court from the Ninth
Circuit than any other court, and — not surprisingly — Ninth Circuit
rulings make up a sizeable portion of the docket of argued and decided
cases – 75 cases, or 25.7% for the last four Terms including the current
session [through June 2014]. During that period, the Court has reversed or vacated and
sent back 79.5% of the Ninth Circuit decisions it has reviewed."...
Added: Letter to the Editor of the Chicago Tribune from recent State Dept. employee working in US refugee program:
2/7/17, "Letter: I have seen first-hand the abuse and fraud in the U.S. refugee program," Chicago Tribune, Letter to the Editor, Mary Doetsch, Wheeling
"I fully support President Donald Trump's
executive order that temporarily halts admissions from the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program and bans travel from nationals of countries that
potentially pose a security risk to the United States; however, I don’t
think the action goes far enough. Further, I believe there are many
people throughout the country who feel the same way.
As a recently retired 25-year veteran of the U.S. Department of State
who served almost eight years as a refugee coordinator throughout the
Middle East, Africa, Russia and Cuba, I have seen first-hand the abuses
and fraud that permeate the refugee program and know about the
entrenched interests that fight every effort to implement much-needed
Despite claims of enhanced vetting, the reality is that it is
virtually impossible to vet an individual who has no type of an official
record, particularly in countries compromised by terrorism. U.S.
immigration officials simply rely on the person’s often rehearsed and
fabricated “testimony.” I have personally seen this on hundreds of
As a refugee coordinator, I saw the exploitations, inconsistencies
and security lapses in the program, and I advocated strongly for change.
Nonetheless, during the past decade and specifically under the Obama
administration, the Refugee Admissions Program continued to expand
blindly, seemingly without concern for security or whether it served the
best interests of its own citizens.
For instance, the legally
questionable resettlement of refugees from Malta to the United States
grew substantially, despite the fact that as a European country with a
functioning asylum system, “refugees” should have remained there under
the internationally accepted concept of “the country of first asylum.”
Similarly, the “special” in-country refugee programs in Cuba and Russia
continue, although they are laden with fraud and far too often simply
admit economic migrants rather than actual refugees.
As an insider
who understands its operations, politics and weaknesses, I believe the
refugee program must change dramatically and the courts must allow the
president to fully implement the order."
-"Mary Doetsch, Wheeling"