More Judicial Rottenness:
Another Reason to Hate U.S.
Federal Judges and the Federal Court System--
It is All Tied to Immigration Rulings


Victor Edward Swanson,

The Hologlobe Press

copyright c. 2018
(Version--June 29, 2018)

    Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which is a federal law created by a U.S. Congress and a U.S. president, states--"...Whenever the President finds that entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate....".  On Friday, January 27, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump, based on federal law, issued an order to temporarily--temporarily--blocked persons from seven countries of the world, one of which was Iran, a country the funds violent terrorism, from entering the the United States of America, and the period of time was set at four months.  A good person understands that the order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump was legal and right.  On Friday, February 3, 2017, U.S. District Judge James Robart (of a U.S. District Court) issued an order that U.S. President Donald Trump's order could not be followed, such as by immigration officers.  What the judge did was making a ruling that he had no legal right to do, given the wording existing in the "Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.  Then, even though what the judge had done was wrong and has no basis in real law, the Donald Trump administration went to the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (related to the U.S. District Court in which Judge James Robart exits) to get the judge's ruling shut down, and on Thursday, February 9, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals--particularly a three-judge panel for the court--ruled that it would not strike down or throw out U.S. District Judge James Robert's ruling, letting the ruling stand.  In essence, the three-judge panel noted that, for instance, aliens or non-citizens have the same rights as real citizens of the United States of America.  That is nonsense and idiocy.  By the way, the U.S. Court of Appeals also noted that the Executive Order made by U.S. President Donald Trump was racist (in a way) against Muslims, even though the Executive Order made no mention of "Muslims" and did not block Muslims from dozens of countries from all over the world from coming to the United States of America.  The entire event shows off only a little of the rottenness of the court system in the United States of America and people tied to the Democratic Party in the United States of America (a communistic-type political party), and it shows that the country is ending up with a precedence in which the courts will be able to make law about immigration (and other matters) and not a U.S. Congress and a U.S. president, and that is bad--very bad for good people in the United States of America.  Do you see how--now--a U.S. president, especially U.S. President Donald Trump, has been stopped from taking action to block bad people--non-citizens of the United States of America--from entering the United States of America?  Only a shit country has such idiocy, in which anyone can enter the country freely!  Then, on March 6, 2017, Donald Trump issued another legal Executive Order (having the legal right to do so) related in travel into the United States of America--it was another temporary ban on allowing people from only a few countries of the world in to the United States of America.  On March 15, 2017, a U.S. District Court Judge named Derek Watson issued an order designed to block the recent "Executive Order" from going into effect, and a big reason for blocking the Executive Order was that Derek Watson felt the Executive Order was a discriminatory based on what Donald Trump had supposedly meant in words spoken during the election campaign of 2016 and not on what the Executive Order said in words, and I report that Derek Watson showed off his rottenness as a person through the order given, and a few hours later, yet another judge U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang) showed off his rottenness by issuing another order designed to help block the "Executive Order" from taking place.  The two judges are shit-head people and are enemies of good people--non-communists and non-socialists and non-Shariaists.  More idiocy related to the court system of the country showed up on May 25, 2017.  On that day, Americans learned of a ruling related to the so-called "ban" by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the ruling upheld two lower court rulings--it was ten judges (all of whom had been appointed by Democratic Party related presidential administrations) against three (all of whom had been appointed by Republican Party related presidential administrations).  Here is only a bit on the nonsense from the court--especially the group of ten judges--"...The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of a reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that (the executive order's) primary purpose is religious...." and "...Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban muslims from the United States....".  The rottenness of the ten persons is out of this world.  The court is made up events and is made up of liars--Donald Trump never said he was banning all Muslims, and that is public knowledge, and Donald Trump did not show "anti-muslim sentiment".  The court made its decision based statements not related to the "Executive Order"; the court made a decision based on its feelings.  There is nothing good about the ten judges!  Each of the ten is hardly a person who could be defined as a "reasonable observer"--there was no "reasoning" based on fact in any mind of the ten.  On June 1, 2017, the Donald Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a stay (as soon as possible) on the recent lower-court action related to his travel-restriction Executive Order, and the administration asked for a full hearing on the matter.  More rottenness showed up on June 12, 2017, from a court when it was made public the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which is based in San Francisco, California, and which has been known for being a rotten unit of the federal court system) added more idiotic weight against the Executive Order about the temporary ban, and one statement of idiocy and rottenness from the court was--"...In short, the order does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States....".  On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court sort of reinstated Donald Trump's idea of a temporary ban (through Executive Order)--there were conditions noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, such as noting a person (from one of the six countries related to the temporary-ban order) could be blocked from entering the U.S. only if the person did not have "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States....".  It was reported by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2017, that a full hearing on the Executive Order would begin in October 2017.  Yet more nonsense showed up on October 7, 2017, through a ruling made by Judge Derrick Watson, a U.S. District judge based in Hawaii, and, of course, Judge Derrick Watson put forth statements--that to a good and smart person--show the idiocy of his ruling; for example, he reported--"...Although national security interests are legitimate objectives of the highest order, they cannot justify the public's harms when the president has welded his authority unlawfully...." and it "...discriminates against people based on their nation of origin or religion....".  Notice the rottenness of Derrick Watson's mind.  The U.S. president has "authority," as I have shown in the first sentence of this piece of writing.  A good person knows through logic and thinking that any time an Executive Order is given to bar people entry to the country, those barred will always be from another country and will be tied to a "nation of origin," as happened during World War II, when Germans and Japanese (even those in support of the United States of America) got blocked from entering the country, and I say that barring types of people based on religion is allowed--for example, Sharia (Islamic law) is a political system that is, for one, anti-United States Constitution, and those who follow Sharia are working against The United States Constitution, and that is fact.  And history shows that pushers of Sharia, such as the leaders of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, are making war with the United States of America, such as by carrying out terrorists attacks against Americans.  I point out that Derrick Watson's rotten ruling helps perpetuate bad law and rulings of the past, making it so that no one can be barred from entering the country by a U.S. president based on where they come from and the religion of the country from which they come--that is, anyone can enter the country, and there is no quick way then in which to block bad people from entering the country, and that is rottenness to the highest degree [Note: It is like your not being allowed to say who may and may not enter your house.].  A U.S. president can act more quickly to bar potential enemies than the U.S. Congress can (through creating a real bill, which could become law), especially in this day and age, when many members of the U.S. Congress are socialists and communists, who are anti-United States Constitution, and, anyway, it is not as if barred people--non-citizens of the United States of America--have "rights" related to citizenship and The United States of America, and, also, they are already based in other countries and have homelands [Note: Remember--The discussion, here, is not about "political-asylum" matters.]. The U.S. president by definition is the "Commander-in-Chief," heading in the immediate the U.S. military, and when the U.S. president gets blocked by barring people from the country, his work to protect the country is highly diminished, and if the U.S. president is a bad person (such as by being a communist, like Barack Obama) and blocks people from entering the country, the people who could be hurt are those who want to enter the country, and that is no matter and that is too bad (in the future, with another person as the U.S. president, they may be allowed in), and when a U.S. Congress, like that of today, is corrupted by confused decision making and defective decision making and bureaucratic nonsense and laziness and elitists' self-protectionism and hatred for the country, being mostly filled with rotten people (some of whom call themselves "Republicans," though they are communists, like John McCain), the ability to have the current U.S. president make barring decisions quickly is the way in which to better protect the country from enemies outside of the country, especially when the U.S. president is not anti-United States of America under the ways of The United States Constitution, as Barack Obama was.  Keep in mnd--Forever, all persons barred from entering the country can claim that they were "discriminated against," and it results in endless numbers of court cases.  Once again, a U.S. federal judge--Derrick Watson--helped the cause of the "enslavists" and stuck a knife in the good people of the United States of America--he is an enemy of the United States of America in truth.  And then came June 27, 2018, and more rottenness was exposed in the federal court system--The U.S. Supreme Court gave out a ruling on the 'Trump ban," which was only a "restriction" with regards to immigration and people of a few countries of the world.  Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court reported that there was nothing wrong with U.S. President Donald Trump's restriction rule, but the vote in the U.S. Supreme Court was five to support the president and four to oppose the president.  And the "four" is the rottenness.  Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor--all supporters of communistic idea and socialist ideas--were against having the restrictions in force [Notice all the females showed off their rottenness, supporting idiocy.].   The vote should have been nine to nothing for the restrictions set in place by U.S. President Donald Trump if the each of the nine persons on the U.S. Supreme Court was a good person.  Only a few of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are worthwhile.  And that is the way of the court system in the United States of America.

    Hate the courts, and teach hate of the courts to children--the courts are the enemy of good people!


    Note: This document was posted in this form on the Internet on November 30, 2017.

    Note: This document is known as on the Internet as

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721
The United States of America

To go to the main page of The Hologlobe Press,
    click on:
To see the Site-Summar Page for The Hologlobe Press,
    click on: Site-Summary Page.