Sean Hannity: part-time constitutional scholar and full-time presidential fluffer

We’ve all been patiently waiting. Hours. Days. Weeks. And now it’s finally here. Sean Hannity—part-time constitutional scholar and full-time presidential fluffer—has written a column explaining the moral and legal justification of Trump’s executive order. I don’t want to ruin it for you. But I will: it’s vapid and misleading and offensive.

Here’s how he begins:

A fierce legal battle is brewing over President Donald Trump’s extreme vetting executive order as the radical alt-left continues its willingness to gamble with the lives of Americans.

23 words. 23. That’s how long it took him to raise the specter of Americans dying if Trump’s executive order is not allowed to take effect. Solid start.

The legal back and forth is complete nonsense, and here’s why. It is a classic example of activist judges ruling based on their own personal opinions and not on what the law actually says.

So, what does the law say?

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. 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, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,” reads the relevant federal law.

On one hand, Hannity makes a good point. The above is indeed enshrined in federal law. On the other, larger hand, he doesn’t make a good point. At all. He makes a bad point. A very bad point. The above is found in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).  Now, flip your copy of the U.S. Code over to 8 U.S.C. § 1152.

I’ll wait.

There? Okay.

In 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), Congress also said that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” I’m no Sean Hannity. And I didn’t go to Trump University. But as far as I can tell, a categorical ban on issuing visas to individuals to certain countries is discriminating against people based on their “nationality” and “place of residence.” Sad!

But, you point out, that statute only deals with issuing visas. That doesn’t cover everyone the executive order affects. And maybe you think that § 1182 trumps (get it?) § 1152, so the ban on discrimination doesn’t apply to Trump’s authority to suspend the entry of aliens. Fair points, you. Fair points.

Unfortunately for Trump, there’s this little thing I like to call the “U.S. Constitution” that can trump (ha ha!) a statute. And the “U.S. Constitution”doesn’t like it when government officials exercise their statutory authority in a way that discriminates based on religion or takes away rights with no notice. So there’s that.

Anyway, Sean, you dick, you were saying.

Trump is acting to protect Americans, but judges seem to believe they can impose their will over his.

Yes. They are literally allowed to impose their will over the president’s when he is violating the law. That was settled about 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S 137 (1803). Perhaps Trump University skipped over that one.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where this legal battle is now playing out, is known by all to be the most liberal federal appeals court in the country. That three-judge panel is set to review a ruling by Seattle-based federal District Judge James Robart, who put a temporary halt to the president’s extreme vetting executive order on Friday.

It’s true. Before the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in the appeal addressing the legality of Robart’s temporary restraining order, two of the Ninth Circuit judges gay married each other and then the third judge had a partial-birth abortion and then gay married the courtroom deputy, who then had her own partial-birth abortion, and everyone was vegan and an atheist and drove a Prius.

Robart himself has shown his liberal leanings from the bench, declaring last year during a hearing on police reform that “Black lives matter.” A fair-minded, even-handed judge might believe, as I do, that all lives matter.

You are writing this column in support of a presidential policy that prevents people fleeing war from coming to the United States. It will almost certainly result in the death of innocents. I think that means you forfeit the right to say that “all lives matter,” dick. It upsets me that you’re too stupid to see that.

It isn’t just judges. The out-of-control hypocrisy of lawmakers is on full display, too. For example, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is crying foul over the president’s executive order, but what the senator is not telling you is that back in 2015, he actually said a pause on admitting refugees into the country could be necessary.

Oh, you mean this, where Schumer said it “may be necessary” but first wanted to wait until he had been briefed on the issue so he could make an informed decision?  And then when he was briefed shortly thereafter, he said a pause would not be necessary? Yes. That sounds exactly like what Trump did.

And take a guess who said this:

“We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

That was President Clinton, in his 1995 State of the Union address.

What Clinton said is nothing like Trump’s executive order. At all.


Mary: I wish little Timmy didn’t cough so much.

Peter: Totally! Let’s chop off his head and bury him in the backyard.

Mary:  We should deal with the rat problem in our house.

Peter: I agree! Let’s burn it to the ground.

Mary: Kiss me.

Peter begins urinating all over Mary in their hotel bed

I’m not sure that last one works. But my point, I think, has been made.

If those on the left want to keep playing games, it should bear in mind that If one American loses his or her life as a result of letting dangerous, unvetted people into this country, they will have blood on their hands. And they will have a tough time explaining to the American people why they put politics ahead of our safety.

According to one estimate, repealing the Affordable Care Act will kill more than 43,000 people annually. But please, Sean. Lecture me more about how concerned you are for the lives of Americans. Have I called you a dick yet? I don’t remember, and I don’t feel like scrolling up to check. So, out an abundance of caution, let me just say, you’re a fucking dick, dick.

-Fred (@bleakblog)