A one way ticket

If you have a one way ticket from Somalia then you’re likely never to have to go back and that is why it is important to know who we open the door to. It is refreshing that the Supreme Court has recognized the President has the authority to control our borders instead of some judge in Hawaii. It is incredible that low level judges can try to over-ride the President’s control of our boarders.

If Congress finely decides to change the existing laws then that is their prerogative but until they act the President’s responsibility is to control the borders by using this discretion and that is exactly what he has done.

It makes you wonder when a low level political appointee can void the orders of an elected President of the United States. It seems that something is wrong here. There is a major problem when the lower courts think they are in charge and can rewrite the laws. It is one thing to schedule a trial and hear evidence, then make a determination. But to issue an injunction that stops everything is an outrage.

A federal Judge has just halted the deportation of about 1,400 Iraqis, even though many have committed crimes and most have already been in court. Many of these cases have been adjudicated years ago but the Iraqis have been hard to round up. Again judges should have nothing to do with immigration cases that have been already handled by an immigration court. This is just more court interference.

The judicial system is out of control with these low level appointees trying to control government functions. Let’s hope the Supreme Courts gets the system in order. Makes you ask who the hell these judges think they are, the president? The activist courts have been overstepping their authority much more frequently than in the past. This must be rolled back.

It seems that these lower courts know more about the Constitution then the executive branch. How can a political judge somewhere in Hawaii know so much more about Constitutional law than the Justice Department? Shopping for judges is now a common phrase. It must change so that judges can hear both complete sides before issues any injunction effecting Constitutional law or the powers of the Executive Branch.

Stopping these people from entering the United States seem like a reasonable thing and keeps us safe but the left wing wants to destroy what we have built. Let’s put some limits on the power of these political appointees. The Supreme Court is one thing but some local political driven judge should not have the power to bring the government to a standstill.


  1. Agreed. Too many are stealing our resources. Time to send them all back to their own country and fix it rather than run away.

  2. Lee Harper says:

    I’m with you 100 percent friend.

  3. Lando Anzaldo says:

    This was more of a poorly written persuasion piece than conveying news coverage! I’m not impressed as it reflects personal opinions with an emotional stance. Up your news-reporting game Mr. Young.

    • Teri Nehrenz says:


      I’m sure Mr. Young can speak for himself but his columns are MEANT to be opinion pieces. Mr. Young has never “reported” news. We have several columnists who write opinion pieces or editorials which is part of our goal; to invite thought and discussion on current events. Thank you for reading and commenting

  4. Terry Donnelly says:

    No one has ever questioned the president’s authority to protect our borders. The Supreme Court decision to allow parts of the travel ban to go into effect is certainly a decision leaning in the administration’s favor. However, the question, which again has never been about authority, but rather about intent, is still in question and will be argued next fall. The evidence against the ban will be words coming straight out of the president’s mouth. It seems clear to me, as it did to the lower courts, that the intent was a religious ban which is beyond the president’s purview. The second version of the ban, the one the president has come out against, saying it isn’t good enough, will be the one reviewed by the S.C.

    In your rant, Mike, you abase the court system, a sine qua non of our government stemming in both procedure and process from the Constitution, as fatally flawed. It isn’t. The Founding Fathers wanted it that way and it has worked well for nearly 250 years–lots of different views from lots of different arenas before a decision is reached. The way this is supposed to work is that you argue the facts of each decision–not the total court system. We’ll have to wait and see. Maybe I’ll have a rant of my own in October, and maybe I won’t. BTW, you need an ‘a’ in Somalia.

  5. David Petrillo says:

    Poor Mike! He must have failed Civics in high school. We have a system of checks and balances. The courts have an equality with both the legislative and executive branch. As stated by Terry Donnelly, the Supreme Court will rule whether a religious group can be discriminated against. My guess is that a religious ban will not pass in the eyes of the Justices. President Trump has confirmed that the ban is religious in nature. His tweets are official pronouncements and can be admissible in court. You can thank me for the legal opinion. I hereby rule against Trump.

  6. Mike Young says:

    Folks – Muslims are trying to kill us and most of them come from a few countries that have no records whether these people are good or bad. There are Christians in these countries but they can’t come ether until we find a system to tell good from bad. But the main point is can a lone low level judge that is a political appointee from the opposition party, stop the President from doing his job without a full trial? I agree that the legal system is a needed check and balance but not a lone judge. Lot of people (all) say things in Political campaigns that they don’t do, they say it to get votes. I can remember a few whoppers told by both sides but you don’t freeze government function until a full hearing.

    • Terry Donnelly says:

      If they are trying to kill us, they’re doing a really poor job. There have been zero murders on our soil by refugees or immigrants from any of those countries. Plus, these are not “low level” judges. They are federal judges in positions one or two layers below the Supreme Court. The “lone judge” (actually four different federal judges) will have their decisions reviewed. You are arguing against the system because it isn’t working in your favor this time.

Speak Your Mind