Some of the legal cases covered on this site are straightforward. And while some of the intricacies of the cases might border on the obscure, their main point is clear. This one does not fit that mold, but it is important none the less.
What we’ve got hold of is an appellate court deciding that what a president might have said during a campaign can be the grounds for determining how a case should be decided when it touches on matters such as religion.
In a sense, the majority decision of the appeals court that will be examined in a moment makes it almost impossible to consistently render justice. Put another way, all of our courts should operate under a consistent set of rules of jurisprudence, much of which based on precedent.
Different courts will see the evidence differently, but there should be a commonality within our judicial system. Take that away, and the administration of the law becomes a matter of random chance with the injection of irrelevant matters into the judicial process.
The end result of this is judicial chaos, and we have an appeals court that is headed in that direction. Not surprisingly, this involves the Muslim religion, many of the adherents to which seem intent on changing the very foundations of the American tradition of jurisprudence and the documents on which that foundation is built.
What a candidate says while running for president, is to become a matter of relevance in court proceedings if that candidate becomes the president and those campaign comments can somehow be connected to the case being tried. If there was ever a recipe for judicial chaos, it would be hard to imagine one any more effective than this. Yet, ten judges formed the majority opinion, and until heard and hopefully overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is the law for those courts under their jurisdiction.
Here we go:
“Ten progressive judges in Virginia have decided that Muslims can ask judges to change the nation’s national security and immigration policies whenever prior campaign statements in democratic political elections can be described as unfair to Muslims living in America.
“‘To the extent that our review chills campaign promises to condemn and exclude entire religious groups, we think that a welcome restraint,’ boasted the majority opinion, which was approved by 10 judges on the Richmond-based Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and announced May 25. President Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Islamic migration ‘speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination’ from the 2016 election campaign, the judges insisted.”
This court is proud that its decision “chills campaign promises” that they think are unfair to certain religions. Not only that, such political speech is admissible in court to support the claims of self-proclaimed aggrieved Muslims. We now have an appellate court so filled with leftist judges that it is prepared to effectively throw out the First Amendment when it comes to the very reason it was inserted in the Bill of Rights in the first place, that being the protection of political speech.
These judges are rightly considered dangers to our form of government. Not only must this decision be overruled by the Supreme Court, but they should all be removed from their positions and disbarred. This is just that big of an outrage.
Can you imagine someone running for office needing to consider everything he or she might say that might someday be used in a court of law as though a campaign statement had the same weight as the nation’s laws and judicial precedents? Candidates can talk about the weather, perhaps, but what else? And even if they mention the weather, that could come back to haunt them should a case be tried relative to global climate change. This may seem like ridiculous talk, but that’s only because the decision these ten derelict judges rendered is ridiculous.
As is the so often the case, the decision of the majority as well as any dissents are enormous. So just an especially pertinent sample of the dissenting opinion will be offered here:
“However, a dissent approved by three judges highlighted the political ambitions and risks hiding behind the court’s declaration of support for the Islamic plaintiffs. ‘The danger of the majority’s new rule is that it will enable any court to justify its decision to strike down any executive action with which it disagrees,’ says three three-judge dissent, which concluded:
“‘Unless corrected by the Supreme Court, the majority’s new approach, which is unsupported by any Supreme Court case, will become a sword for plaintiffs to challenge facially neutral government actions, particularly those affecting regions dominated by a single religion. Government officials will avoid speaking about religion, even privately, lest a court discover statements that could be used to ascribe a religious motivation to their future actions. And, in the more immediate future, our courts will be faced with the unworkable task of determining when this President’s supposed religious motive [in the 2016 election] has sufficiently dissipated so as to allow executive action toward these or other majority Muslim countries.'”
What we have here are a collection of offenses. One of which is a judicial “gag order” on candidates for office, “chilling” their freedom to express themselves on controversial issues lest those comments come back to bite them in court decisions should they get elected.
In that regard, this is a broadside on the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, especially political speech.
It is difficult to draw any conclusion other than these ten judges are so enamored with the Islamic cause that they are prepared to jettison the Bill of Rights as they act as advocates for Muslims.
And for good measure, they probably hate President Trump as well.
However, none of these desires, preferences, or reasons justify judicial dereliction.
Appeal the case and send these ten judges where they can decide cases more within their capabilities, such as the barbecue contest at the local county fair.