Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Judicial Appointees: One Important Reason America Cannot Survive As We Know It Without DJT

Obama Appointee DC Judge Amit Mehta Rules Against DJT.  A True Team Player

Whether you a passionate fan of DJT or not, if you're honest, you have to admit there's an ongoing, concerted attempt to remove him from office, hook or crook. We now have Congressional Committee leaders J. Fatman Nadler, Bullet Head Cummings and Adam Schiff all acting as a cadre of hit-men. Enter Fedral Judge Amit Mehta.

Monday, the DC District Court Judge ruled against Donald Trump in the case deciding whether Trump's accounting firm Mazars USA LLP must comply with the House Oversight Committee's subpoena of his past financial records. Judge Mehta, native born of India, product of Law School minority set asides, an Obama appointee and cog in his "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" and liberalization of the courts, was appointed to replace a retiring woman judge, Ellen Segal Huvelle.

What perhaps wasn't quite so expected by both parties was just how quickly Mehta issued his ruling.  Or was it?  For no apparent reason, Mehta began his ruling with the words of President James Buchanan, no one's favorite presidents to say the least, from a court case during a failed attempt at impeachment, that can be only be interpreted as a dig at DJT:
"I do, therefore, . . . solemnly protest against these proceedings of the House of Representatives, because they are in violation of the rights of the coordinate executive branch of the Government, and subversive of its constitutional independence; because they are calculated to foster a band of interested parasites and informers, ever ready, for their own advantage, to swear before ex parte committees to pretended private conversations between the President and themselves, incapable, from their nature, of being disproved; thus furnishing material for harassing him, degrading him in the eyes of the country . . ."
Ignoring the separation of powers, the good judge then showed his liberal bias by leaning on the word of that great Constitutional scholar, Bullet Head Cummings as justification:
"Courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress's investigative power. The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose.
To be sure, there are limits on Congress's investigative authority. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which "legislation could be had," Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution. It is not for the court to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations. Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee." (emphasis mine)
Legislation could be had? Elijah Cummings and the Oversight Committee used in relation to grounds for the case as justification the sham excuse, and Mehta dutifully restates in his ruling, that the committee of dubious and questionable ethics was looking at "strengthening ethics and disclosure laws." As if anything about Trump's personal taxes or past financial records could somehow relate to any legislation Congress might legitimately take up.

Mehta closed with this statement:
"Plaintiffs have cited no case since Kilbourn from 1880 in which the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit has interfered with a congressional subpoena—because it either intrudes on the law enforcement prerogatives of the Executive or Judicial branches, seeks personal information unrelated to a legislative purpose, or demands records that lack "pertinency." This case does not merit becoming the first in nearly 140 years."
I guess we can theorize here and now Judge Mehta is a true Team player?

As many have said before me, the court system in America is tainted with present day bias. Many Obama appointed Judges have shown their personal bias in the last two years by consistently ruling against DJT and blocking legal policies simple because they personally do not agree with the processes. The Constitution is being ripped. Remaining in office and the reelection of DJT is mandatory for the survival of America. Without the neutralizing the loading of the courts via the Obama years of those who hold no respect for the Constitution as it was written is just one more reason, if not the most obvious, America will not survive as we know it without DJT's leadership.

~ Thank You MJA@IOTWReport for the Linkage! ~

No comments:

Post a Comment