President Trump Needs To Recall Neil Gorsuch For His Supreme Court Pick – He Is A Back Stabber With No Sense Of Loyality – Am I Wrong?

by Pamela Williams
I am not saying I am right in my opinion that President Trump cannot trust Neil Gorsuch. It is my opinion, and I am not a legal expert, plus I could be taking this situation in the wrong way. As the conflict of the immigration ban continues, I think it is blurring the lines between the power of the Presidency and the law in general. I tend to feel the office of the Presidency supersedes in power all other offices, even the Supreme Court. This is just my opinion, and the word “feel” is in no way a legal term.
I am a layman of the law, but I have a strong sense of loyalty. I tend to speak up on situations that I feel are unfair and wrong whether others agree, or if they do not. I feel a fair and equal debate is a great forum for the resolution of societal problems, so I urge anyone who reads this and disagrees to please comment.
It has been reported today that a spokesman for Neil Gorsuch confirmed to CNN that Gorsuch expressed concern about Trump’s remarks during a meeting with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), after Blumenthal first told reporters about the nominee’s reaction. Blumenthal telling reporters Neil Gorsuch used the words “demoralizing” & “disheartening” to describe Trump’s attacks on Federal Judge James Robart.
Neil Gorsuch, as President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, should have kept that opinion to himself if he had any sense of loyalty to the President of the United States. To go behind President Trump’s back and dilly-dally in gossip at this crucial time in judiciary history, proves to me that Gorsuch does not have the moral values or honor required for the nomination Trump bestowed upon him.
I feel strongly about this issue, and I pray President Trump can stay strong against those who seek to degrade him. Trump is entitled to the same respect and to the same “bringing to the table” of his own opinions and values in being the President of the United States. The people voted for him, because of the man he is…not the man we wanted him to be. I am committed to rally around him when he is being rejected by others, and we all know that this society cannot be trusted. We, also, know that the Democrats have devised a plan to overthrow him and his Presidency. These times are unique and unheard of, at least in my lifetime. We are living in a moral decay that is devastating and frightening.
a.msn.com/r/2/AAmK3L3?m=en-us

On Saturday, Trump ripped the “so-called judge” on Twitter, saying that the ruling that halted his executive order was “ridiculous and will be overturned.”
– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017
Federal Judge James Robart, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush and approved by a 99-0 Senate vote in 2004, issued an immediate nationwide restraining order last week against Trump’s executive order, which had cut off citizens from seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the U.S.
Trump has fought the decision since, and the Department of Justice has appealed the ruling.  The president on Wednesday also went after the panel of appeals judges considering his challenge to Robart’s decision.
“I don’t want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” Trump said at a gathering of the Major Cities Chiefs Association in Washington. “Courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they could read a statement and do what’s right.”


www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/06/gregg-jarrett-why-law-is-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

President Has Authority to Dictate Immigration
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security.
As I pointed out in a recent column, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Congress and the president have “plenary power” to regulate immigration.  For more than a century, the high court has consistently upheld such authority and rejected constitutional challenges to presidential action banning entire groups of foreigners.  Even the 9th Circuit has endorsed this legal principle.  Past presidents, including Carter and Obama, have issued orders similar to Trump’s.
It is true that a subsequent 1965 immigration law prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence. But that law says nothing about religion. And, more importantly, it applies only to the issuance of visas.  The president’s authority to deny entry to a large class of aliens is a broader power which supersedes individual visa considerations.
Trump’s Executive Order Is Temporary
Lost in all the legal tumult is the fact that President Trump’s executive order is only temporary: It applies for just 90 days for people in the seven designated countries that are sources of terrorism and 120 days for “refugees.” (The Syrian ban is “indefinite,” but that could change, too.)
By the time each side has had the opportunity to fully litigate the merits of the various cases and undertaken the usual course of appeals, the executive order will likely have expired. That may render most of the cases moot. Absent a legal controversy, there would be nothing for judges to resolve. The petitions and lawsuits would probably be dismissed.
For now, however, the Seattle case may head to a hearing before the full complement of judges on the 9th Circuit Court, known as an “en banc” session.  Or, the Department of Justice may seek an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The latter action might be imprudent, since the current court has only eight sitting justices. A 4-4 tie would allow the 9th Circuit’s decision to stand.  It would make more sense to wait for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to cast the ninth, and perhaps deciding, vote. Given the great weight of the law in favor of the president, the decision should be unanimous. But why take the chance?
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.