The U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court

A number of prominent national security experts are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to put “in their proper place” the lower court judges who have ruled against President Trump’s plans to temporarily restrict entrants to the United States from certain terrorist-producing nations.

The lower-court judges have made rulings based on their own political ideology and their opposition to the president rather than the law, contends a brief filed by the American Freedom Law Center, or AFLC, on behalf of the national security experts, including Andrew C. McCarthy, the Center for Security Policy, Frank J. Gaffney, Robert J. Shillman, retired Adm. James Lyons, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin and Ambassador Henry F. Cooper.

McCarthy has authored two New York Times bestsellers, “Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad” and “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.” For 18 years he was an assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, where he prosecuted the “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Shillman is founder of Cognex Corp., the world’s leading supplier of machine vision systems. His work has given him expertise in the “threat that Islamic terrorism poses to domestic and international business interests,” the filing explains.

Lyons is a premier global consultant on enterprise risk, including anti-terrorism security. Boykin was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and commander of the Army’s elite Delta Force.

In “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” renowned activist Pamela Geller provides the answer, offering proven, practical guidance on how freedom lovers can stop jihadist initiatives in local communities.

Cooper was President Ronald Reagan’s chief negotiator at the Geneva Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union and the Strategic Defense Initiative director.

The issue is that the president, for national security reasons, ordered a temporary halt to incoming aliens from a handful of nations that produce terrorism. Courts, however, have insisted Trump’s vow during the 2016 campaign to ban Muslims is relevant to the order, ruling it violates religious-freedom protections because the nations named in the order are Muslim-majority.

The Supreme Court, in the last day of its June term, upheld parts of the ban and agreed to consider its overall constitutionality in the fall.

The filing asserts the lower courts struck down the executive order “not because it transgressed the theoretical constitutional rights of lawful permanent-resident aliens, immigrant visa holders, or state universities. The judges struck it down because they have a policy objection to the notion of subjecting Muslims to heightened immigration scrutiny.”

“That is, they have a policy objection to government recognition of the nexus between Islamic scripture and terrorism committed by Muslims,” the brief argues.

“Thus, for the lower courts, the law is not a corpus of constitutional and statutory principles to be applied. It is a pliable weapon for achieving policy goals, enabling will-to-power to masquerade as a ‘legal process.'”

The brief states that under “the current judicial climate and absent clear guidance from this court, there will likely be no way to craft an order restricting immigration from Muslim countries that will satisfy the lower courts no matter how rife with jihadism with countries are or how manifest it is that their dysfunctional or anti-American regimes make visa background checks impossible.”

What do YOU think? What’s the gravest danger America faces? Sound off in today’s WND poll!

Consequently, the security experts contend “that perhaps the most important objective the court can achieve through this litigation is to put the lower courts back on track and in their proper place, particularly when it comes to policy affecting national security.”

Others participating in the case have argued that the Constitution allows the president to impose such entry restrictions and the courts have no say in the matter.

The brief says the lower courts were never going to accept the “undeniable, unambiguous, sweeping legislative authority vested in the president to restrict alien entry into the United States.”

“Nor were the lower courts prepared to genuinely accept the legal reality that non-immigrant aliens outside the United States do not have constitutional rights or the fact that our system makes border security against foreign threats the responsibility of the accountable political branches, not the unaccountable judiciary.”

All because of politics.

“What we have seen in the courts below is politics of a most demagogic kind, not legal analysis. … What the lower courts offer instead of a proper legal analysis is a dark theory of purportedly rabid anti-Muslim bias, cobbled together by parol evidence of campaign-trail rhetoric.

“Here is the inescapable fact: The United States is in a defensive war against what is imprecisely called ‘radical Islam.’ The war proceeds on two tracks: the kinetic militancy of jihadists, and the cultural challenge of anti-Western, anti-constitutional Islamic law and mores. The ideology that catalyzes both tracks is Shariah supremacism. The implementation and spreading of Shariah, classical Islam’s societal structure and legal code, is the rationale for all jihadist terror and of all the Islamicist cultural aggression that slipstreams behind it.”

There are pro-American Muslims who “reject the imposition of Shariah on civil and political life” as well as Shariah “supremacists,” the brief points out.

Such attitudes need to be reviewed by the government, it says.

“The government must vet for this. Indeed, that is, we suggest, what the majority of the American people want: Muslims who embrace our way of life invited in and Muslims who threaten our way of life kept out.”

The brief points out that foreigners who threaten the nation’s security don’t have constitutional rights.

“They would have us believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact: that alien Muslims somehow have an Establishment Clause right against enhanced inspection and thus an immigration system that has always vetted against totalitarian political ideologies cannot vet against this one, Shariah supremacism, because it shrouds itself in religion.”

The brief asserts the court “must recognize that Islam, while it has plenty of diversity, has a mainstream strain – Shariah supremacism – that is less a religion that it is a totalitarian political ideology hiding under a religious veneer.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC senior counsel, said the litigants in the case and their supporters “will focus on the narrow issues of the travel ban, and especially on the power of the executive branch to exclude travelers from failed states.”

“Most of the president’s adversaries will claim the travel ban is a disguised ban on Muslims while the president and his legal team from the solicitor general’s office will flee from that fight by arguing that it has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam,” he said. “This brief plants a flag of coherence on the beach we must take if we are to protect this country’s security from the quiet and legal infiltration of jihadists flowing in from not only Muslim failed states, but also Muslim functioning states, Africa, and even Europe.”

AFLC co-founder Robert Muise said the AFLC brief “argues that the president has not only the authority for a temporary travel ban, he has the constitutional and statutory authority to impose an ideological vetting process to screen for sharia-adherent Islamists.”

“This will be the first time since 9-11 that this issue will be squarely and coherently briefed to the Supreme Court. It begins the all too important policy discussion at the highest levels within the Halls of Justice and, as such, within the inner reaches of the law. It turns the lawfare of the Islamists and Progressives in on itself and reshapes and indeed opens up new fronts on the legal and policy battlefields enabling those who cherish western civilization and our constitutional republic to take an offensive and ultimately rational posture into the lawfare and policy trenches.”

WND reported in June Temple University law professor Jan. C. Ting’s contention that the law clearly holds that the president has the power to exclude any person or group of people from entering the United States.

Ting, formerly assistant director of the INS, noted the statute is question reads in part: “Whenever the president finds that the 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 or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Jan C. Ting:

In “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” renowned activist Pamela Geller provides the answer, offering proven, practical guidance on how freedom lovers can stop jihadist initiatives in local communities.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.