{"id":220665,"date":"2017-02-08T13:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-02-08T18:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=220665"},"modified":"2017-02-09T16:47:57","modified_gmt":"2017-02-09T21:47:57","slug":"trump-tells-it-to-the-judges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Tells It to the Judges"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: I want to get to the Ninth Circus here, the oral arguments yesterday, because the judge panel could rule at any moment, even if it\u2019s like 9:34 out there now. Everybody expects them to move quickly here. Trump today went and spoke to law enforcement officers and sheriffs. He was standing there — I watched it — and he read aloud Title VIII, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code, which is the law involved here, which is the statute that permits his executive order. And this is it:<\/p>\n

“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.”<\/p>\n

And Trump said (paraphrased), “It\u2019s not just me. It\u2019s for Obama. It\u2019s for Ronaldus Magnus. It was done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens. It has nothing to do with religion.” So a helpful reminder that Obama initiated a six-month ban on anybody from Iraq<\/a> coming into this country, and nobody had a problem with it. So, then, Trump said that he listened to oral arguments about the legal challenges to his executive order, because the Ninth Circus made them available for audio streaming.<\/p>\n

And he said, “When you read something so perfectly written, so clear to anybody, the courts seem to be so political. It would be so great for our court system to just read a statement and do what\u2019s right.” Let me just tell you about this. (interruption) “In a sterile world” is exactly right. Let me read this to you again. There\u2019s nothing ambivalent here. There\u2019s nothing that is in any way confusing or that would provide any out from legal opposition. “Whenever the president…” By the way, this is a law passed and debated in Congress.<\/p>\n

It was legislation signed into law by the president at the time. “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.” There\u2019s no wiggle room there. There\u2019s no alternate interpretation. (chuckles)<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no reading between the lines to find out what they really meant here. It is as crystal clear as can be. This is why Judge Robart in the state of Washington did not use the law in issuing a temporary stay of the executive order. He couldn\u2019t! He had to go off on tangents and use other things, such as it\u2019s a religious ban, or it\u2019s unfair, or it\u2019s bigoted. And remember Judge Robart is not a Republican. He\u2019s a Republican-appointed judge, but he is a left-wing judicial activist actually chosen by Patty Murray, the senator.<\/p>\n

\"\"Now, here\u2019s the legal theory on which opponents to Trump are trying to have this thing thrown out. The theory is that this statute cannot override constitutional rights, that no president is able to issue an executive order that overrides any person\u2019s constitutional rights. Now, common sense says: “That should have nothing to do with this, because we\u2019re talking about aliens! We\u2019re talking about people outside the country who want to come in. They are not citizens. Therefore, citizenship is not being denied. Citizenship is not being trampled.”<\/p>\n

Because we are talking about aliens and immigrants, refugees and all that outside the United States, who have no constitutional rights. However, there is a little gray here because some of the aliens affected by the Trump executive order have been in the United States before. They left, and they were prevented from getting back in by the issuance of the executive order. But they had been here before, and some of them have some degree of legal status here. But it isn\u2019t citizenship that they have, the people we\u2019re talking about and the people that Trump wanted to restrict from coming in.<\/p>\n

Now, the left is arguing that this little bit of gray area gives them a measure of constitutional rights, gives these aliens who have been in the country before but who then left and wanted to come back and now can\u2019t get in because of the order… Well, the left says, “They had quasi-constitutional rights. They had a measure of them, \u2019cause they\u2019ve been here.” As an example of this, the police cannot enter the home of an alien criminal suspect without a warrant, even though the alien is not a citizen. There are still constitutional rights that do descend to a criminal alien suspect.<\/p>\n

The Fourth Amendment applies to them just as it does to citizens. This has been so ruled by the courts. Now, whatever the merit of this argument, the fact remains that the rights of aliens who have some legal status in our country cannot outweigh the security of American citizens from foreign threats. In other words, this should not matter. The leftist argument is, “Wait a minute. You are denying somebody\u2019s constitutional rights because they have been here before. Some of these aliens that wanted to come in and were prevented had been here before.<\/p>\n

“They had lived here. They may not have had citizenship, but they had been effectively quasi-citizens by virtue of the way they lived and the way they were treated.” And the answer to that is: “Doesn\u2019t matter. A, they\u2019re not citizens. But, B, we cannot allow that small subset group of people to supersede national security!” The left says, “Damn right! Yes, we can. Screw you!” We\u2019re gonna do anything we can to stop this president. We\u2019re gonna do everything we can to stop Trump, and we\u2019ll go any legal avenue open to us.”<\/p>\n

\"\"But again their argument I think is specious and Swiss cheese because the rights of the aliens we\u2019re talking about do not have citizenship. They\u2019ve got some legal status, but they don\u2019t have citizenship. You can\u2019t allow deference to them to outweigh the security of American citizens from foreign threats. This is a matter the Constitution delegates to the political branches, not the judicial. The Constitution doesn\u2019t give the judiciary a role here in national security, and they cannot assume it. So the president, whoever it is — in this case, Trump — has a very high degree of constitutional authority to repel foreign threats. And Congress, which has the authority to determine the qualifications an alien must meet to enter our country, has delegated sweeping authority to the president in the statute that I just quoted.<\/p>\n

He has total say-so, by proclamation. He can suspend entry into this country by aliens, illegal immigrants, anybody, at a time he thinks we are under threat, and he can determine how long that ban is. Congress has given the president that sweeping authority. I sent this to a legal friend of mine to make sure that my interpretation was correct, and I highlighted the word “he,” “he shall deem necessary,” “he may deem appropriate.” That\u2019s in reference to the president.<\/p>\n

And the fact that the word “he” and singular and the reference to the president is in a statute that was passed by the Congress indicates Congress wanted the security decision made by the president alone. That\u2019s why I said there\u2019s no ambiguity here, and there\u2019s no ambivalence. The power vested in the president here is total and complete, by Congress. They wanted the security decisions made by the president alone, not the president under the supervision of the federal courts.<\/p>\n

\"\"Nowhere in this statute is there any reference to the judiciary at all. There\u2019s no reference to the judiciary having review, that the judiciary must sign off on whatever the president does. That\u2019s why what Judge Robart did is totally wrong! As a matter of law, Judge Robart was way outside his legal purview in issuing the stay.<\/p>\n

And he did it because he\u2019s a leftist hack doing the bidding of the side he agrees with. His ruling, if you go look at it, he didn\u2019t address the law at all because he can\u2019t. He cannot stay Trump\u2019s executive order on matters of the law, and that\u2019s why Trump is out tweeting how unfortunate all this is that politics — by the way, it\u2019s not politics; it\u2019s liberalism. It\u2019s liberalism.<\/p>\n

Now, Trump\u2019s saying politics, I know why he\u2019s saying that. Calling it the courts getting political is probably a little bit more effective in persuading people to your side than attacking liberals because it just is. Because people instinctively know the courts shouldn\u2019t be politicized, you know, civics 101, courts should not be politicized, and people think that they aren\u2019t and shouldn\u2019t be. So I understand Trump using the word “politics” instead of “liberal.” But they\u2019re a bunch of left-wing hacks, and two more of them on the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel.<\/p>\n

\"\"Now, see, this doesn\u2019t end here because the problem — Andy McCarthy wrote about this<\/a> — let\u2019s assume here that the Ninth Circuit upholds Judge Robart, Trump loses, and one of two things can happen there. The government can ask for the entire Ninth Circus to hear it. That\u2019s called en banc. This a three-judge panel that can ask for all — I think it\u2019s actually 19. There are many more judges at the Ninth Circuit, but some of them are long gone and they\u2019re just there in name only. A lawyer being of counsel to a firm, name\u2019s on the door, but doesn\u2019t do any work. I think it\u2019s actually 19 judges or thereabouts. And hardly ever is that granted. Appellate courts generally side with what their three-judge panels do.<\/p>\n

So if they request en banc and it\u2019s denied, it\u2019s hello Supreme Court, where the assumption is that it\u2019ll go 4-4 \u2019cause there are eight justices, and that would send the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Trump lost, and that would be the end of it.<\/p>\n

McCarthy writes: Wait a minute. It\u2019s a mistake to assume this gonna go 4-4 because Anthony Kennedy, we can\u2019t count on him on this, because Anthony Kennedy in couple of other cases has made it very clear he doesn\u2019t like the judiciary being subordinated in these kinds of cases. He doesn\u2019t like the fact the judiciary could just be swept aside. He doesn\u2019t like the fact judiciary is told to stay out of matters like this.<\/p>\n

The point is, it\u2019s not a slam dunk that the Supreme Court would go 4-4, and it could go 5-4, either way, you just don\u2019t know. There ought not be any debate. This is what\u2019s wrong with the judicial system. This is where we are because of liberal hacks who are judges, because the law on this is just crystal clear; there is no alternative view of this. And now the left is saying to the judges during oral argument, “Yeah, did you hear what the president said during his campaign? He said he wanted to ban all Muslims, all the time.”<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not relevant. Objection! Relevance! Throw it out. You can\u2019t start talking about — a responsible judge would shut down any lawyer who made that argument before he finished the sentence. We\u2019re talking about the law. These left-wing liberal judge hacks are now telling us what they think was in the president\u2019s mind and whether it\u2019s moral or not, according to their political beliefs. It\u2019s just bad.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

\"\"RUSH: All right, now, let me make another point here, folks. I want you to buckle in for this. You think Donald Trump is president; he is. You think he won the election; he did. Ever since Judge Robart stayed the executive order that Trump issued putting a temporary ban on all entry to the U.S. from people from those seven states and Syria, get this, the Washington Examiner<\/a>: “Since President Trump\u2019s immigration restrictions on seven nations were sidelined by a federal judge last weekend, the State Department,” which effectively Trump runs now, “has rushed in 100 Syrians, according to a report.”<\/p>\n

The State Department of Donald Trump, clearly with a lot of Clinton and Obama holdovers in there, 100 Syrians. Syria was a nation mentioned in this list, and their ban was ongoing. It was not to be lifted in 90 days; it was permanent for however long. And the State Department has just looked at Trump and basically gone (raspberry) you, because in just two days, the State Department has rushed in 100 Syrians.<\/p>\n

“From February 5 to February 7, 15 Syrian refugees were sent to New York, 10 to Virginia, 9 to Texas, and the rest to 11 other states, according to State Department numbers posted by Refugee Resettlement Watch.” Here\u2019s the kicker. “Those let into the United States were vetted by the United Nations,” not us, all because a leftist hack judge stayed Trump\u2019s executive order.<\/p>\n

Does anybody have any doubt what the left is trying to do here? This is a willful, purposeful attempt to corrupt and undermine this country. One hundred Syrian refugees. Now, some of them may be perfectly fine. That\u2019s not the point. The United Nations vetting them? That\u2019s supposed to make it okay? This is the Trump State Department.<\/p>\n

Daily Caller<\/a>: “New Poll Shows Most Americans Support President Trump\u2019s Immigration Ban.” It\u2019s an Investor\u2019s Business Daily poll. The public that voted for him is still with him. That\u2019s that.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I want to get back to wrap up here on the Ninth Circus oral arguments and the way the left is approaching securing a temporary stay on Donald Trump\u2019s executive order designed to protect the United States from bad actors getting into the country. They are harping the lawyers, the judges. The two liberal hacks on the Ninth Circuit panel yesterday are harping on this fact that it\u2019s the a religious ban. “The president can\u2019t ban people\u2019s religion! There\u2019s no religious test,” and here\u2019s what they\u2019re relying on for this.<\/p>\n

\"\"This so-called no-religious-test clause in the Constitution. You talk about bastardization and distortion? Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution says, quote, “But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That\u2019s it. That simply and only means that religion cannot be considered for holding public office. Nobody is disqualified from running for office or winning and holding office because of their religion. It has nothing to do with immigration!<\/p>\n

I\u2019m sorry if I sound a little exorcised here today, folks, but this stuff, there just some days it gets to me. I mean, really infuriates me. And last night into today is one of those periods of time. When I hear judges — appellate judges — questioning about a religious ban, these people ought to be the people who are experts on the Constitution. And the problem is, these people who actively seek to undermine it because they don\u2019t think it applies any longer. “It\u2019s an old, decrepit document. It has nothing to do with the current way of life in the world today,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s not the way to interpret. It\u2019s the law! We have religious tests applied to illegal immigrants and aliens and refugees every day. It is standard. It is part of the process that we involve ourselves in when determining who gets into this country, and here are these judges trying to say that Article 6, Section 3 means there\u2019s no religious test for anybody doing anything in the United States of America. They want it to be able to be considered to decide anything else: Who can be admitted; who can\u2019t be. Now, the Trump executive order is not a religious ban.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve had emails. “How do you know it\u2019s not a religious ban? You keep sitting there saying it\u2019s not a religious ban, but look at the countries.” Yeah? Well, let me tell you something: If it were a religious ban, then the ban would have been on people from every country where there are Muslims! The fact of the matter is 85% of the Muslim world was untouched by the Trump executive order! So you tell me, you arrogant, cocksure liberals, how the hell is that a religious ban? If it were a religious ban, it would not have left out the 85% of the Muslim world.<\/p>\n

But there we had two judges on the Ninth Circuit Panel Persisting and pretending it\u2019s a religious ban, pretending that it would be illegal and unconstitutional because it\u2019s a religious ban, and it\u2019s not. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was probably the first to cite that law back when Trump was being attacked in December 2015 for suggesting that the Syrian refugee program be suspended. So there is no religious test, and these judges trying to take Article 6, Section 3 and expand that — which is merely a statement that we cannot have a religious test for anybody holding office — I think is outrageous.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: No, what I\u2019m trying to say here, people asking me about this executive order and the courts. What we have here is a clear violation of the separation of powers. There is a statue passed by Congress, the elected representatives of the peoples, that vests total authority and power in the president of the United States to determine who and who does not get into the country, by proclamation of the president and for however long he deems necessary to secure the borders and the safety of the United States, national security.<\/p>\n

\"\"And we have a judge in the state of Washington who told the president, “I don\u2019t like that you\u2019re doing it, so I\u2019m gonna say that you have to stop.” The judge does not have the constitutional authority. This statute, it is clearly constitutional. It\u2019s not been challenged. And because this judge stayed the executive order, now we have a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is hearing the appeal by the federal government on the judge in Washington.<\/p>\n

If this stands, this is the judiciary taking power from the executive, which it is not entitled to have. Where does this stop? What other executive branch powers can a rogue judge, who is a leftist hack, just forestall by virtue of having another leftist hack ask for a stay of execution on whatever presidential act is being disagreed with. And if a bunch of liberal judges can literally co-opt a president and steal executive power with no redress, that cannot stand.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s all that\u2019s going on here. This is nothing more than a bunch of political hacks who are wearing robes and are called judges, telling a president he can\u2019t do what he has the clear legal authority to do because they disagree with him. And the frightening thing is that this could go all the way to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

There are enough liberal hacks on the Supreme Court who could rule that the president doesn\u2019t have this authority because we don\u2019t agree with him. Not because it\u2019s illegal, not because it\u2019s unconstitutional, but we don\u2019t like it, we don\u2019t like what he\u2019s doing so we\u2019re gonna stop it.<\/p>\n

Well, where does that end? The real question is, what\u2019s the redress for this? And we will discuss that in due course, should that become necessary. I can\u2019t tell you how the Ninth Circuit — well, the odds are the Ninth Circuit\u2019s gonna uphold the judge in Seattle. You\u2019ve got two liberal hacks on this three-judge panel that are of the same stripe as Judge Robart, who is a liberal hack in Seattle.<\/p>\n

Wonder why they chose see that for this? A district court judge telling a president of the United States he can\u2019t do what the judge disagrees with? To me this is serious stuff. I\u2019ve been asking every legal authority I know how can you be so patient with this. To me, it\u2019s almost a constitutional crisis. I may be the only one who sees it that way. ‘Cause I think the academics get involved in all this, you know, it\u2019s just a fascinating intellectual exercise. To me it\u2019s the real world. To me it\u2019s the left taking over a branch of government and trying to stop what they lost during a campaign.<\/p>\n

And I think back to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats talking about what a threat to our democracy Donald Trump would be if he failed to accept the results of the election if he lost. Where are people asking that about Judge Robart? Where are people asking that about the Ninth Circuit, depending on how they rule, where are people asking that about the Democrat Party? Hillary Clinton says Donald Trump poses a threat to our democracy if he refuses to accept the results of the election. This is when Hillary thought she was gonna win in a landslide. Well, now, who\u2019s refusing to accept the results of the election? The entire Democrat hate group.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: President Trump just met with the CEO of Intel. Intel announced that they\u2019re gonna invest $7 billion in a factory in Arizona, and they\u2019re gonna employ 3,000 people. We\u2019re getting news like this every day. We\u2019re getting good economic news like this every day.<\/p>\n

\"\"I was watching CNN during the break, and they\u2019re just wringing their hands over what Trump was saying about the judges on the Ninth Circus and they got some guy, “Trump said was disgraceful the way these judges — it wasn\u2019t disgraceful, it was full of grace. These justices were arguing the cases, this was democracy on parade, and the president is thinking this is not subject to judicial review, this is horrible, this is horrible, this is very damaging to our wonderful and graceful democracy,” and blah, blah, blah. This is not judicial review going on; this is political hackery going on.<\/p>\n

Straight up political hackery is going on, not judicial review. The judge in Washington was wrong in staying executive order. The law doesn\u2019t matter to these people, obviously, they so politicized everything that — I mean, if I weren\u2019t careful, folks, I\u2019d go off on a rant here that even the Republican FCC might have problems with. Just joking about that, but I mean these people tick me off like you cannot believe, and I\u2019m exercising more restraint than even I knew I had.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Dennis in Colorado Springs, I really appreciate your patience in holding on. How are you doing, sir?<\/p>\n

CALLER: I\u2019m doing well. I feel like I\u2019ve won the phone lottery today and actually getting to talk to you is such an honor.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate it.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Great. I have a computer question at the end of this, but first I wanted to ask you, given that President Trump has showed such undue deference to the courts that when the Ninth Circus finally upholds Robart, what would prevent President Trump from reissuing executive orders, seven of them, one at a time, banning entry from each particular country. Then, with each court challenge, he can then just simply exercise his singular authority in separation of powers and then simply bypass the courts until the constitutionality of the first executive order is decided?<\/p>\n

RUSH: You know, that\u2019s a good question. I know that there is redress for this. If this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court stays this and if Trump is not permitted this executive order, I don\u2019t know the specifics, but there have to be other ways of doing this and getting it done, which he\u2019s committed to.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Yeah, I\u2019m kind of thinking getting it done in the meantime, so that we\u2019re not leaving ourselves open for 90 —<\/p>\n

\"\"RUSH: That\u2019s what I\u2019m saying, I just don\u2019t know if it\u2019s seven brand-new executive orders or if it\u2019s one brand-new one, but no matter what he does, we now know what they\u2019re gonna do. They\u2019re gonna find a hack judge like this guy in Seattle, and they\u2019re gonna go before the hack judge, and the hack judge is not gonna use the law, he\u2019s gonna use politics and his dislike for Trump being president and stop it. At some point this is gonna have to get resolved. These people have to get slapped down. You have a computer question. Time\u2019s dwindling. What\u2019s the computer question?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Okay. I have an older MacBook Pro, and it\u2019s doing me fine, but I\u2019m wondering when Apple\u2019s gonna stop upgrading it like they stopped upgrading my iPhone, and I\u2019m going to be left without, you know, protection to the back door hackers and all that?<\/p>\n

RUSH: How old is your MacBook Pro?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Real old. It\u2019s like a 4. Really old.<\/p>\n

RUSH: But what year?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Oh. Gee, I don\u2019t know. I kind of inherited it from my wife. It\u2019s gotta be at least 10 years old.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, I think you\u2019re already there, because something that old you probably cannot put the latest operating system on it.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Right. They stopped upgrades.<\/p>\n

RUSH: They probably have stopped issuing security upgrades to the machine, so your time to upgrade is now.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Would that be the same thing with the notebook, the Mac Pro notebook?<\/p>\n

RUSH: You mean the 12-inch thing?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Yeah. I have an older MacBook Pro that I think is going to be timed out as well, but my iPhone I\u2019ve already given up on trying to update that.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Wait a minute. I thought you were talking about the MacBook Pro. You\u2019re talking about the iPhone?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Right. No, both. Both. I have a MacBook Pro that\u2019s older. It\u2019s a 2011.<\/p>\n

RUSH: I\u2019m out of it time, darn it. I\u2019m sorry. I\u2019ve gotta go.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, it turns out I answered the guy\u2019s question even though I didn\u2019t think I had. You know what? I\u2019m right even when I think I\u2019m wrong. I get it done even when I think I haven\u2019t gotten it done. I answered the guy\u2019s question. Satisfactorily, too. His computer will still work.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Nowhere in this statute is there any reference to the judiciary at all. There's no reference to the judiciary having review, that the judiciary must sign off on whatever the president does. That's why what Judge Robart did is totally wrong! As a matter of law, Judge Robart was way outside his legal purview in issuing the stay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[12,1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nTrump Tells It to the Judges - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Trump Tells It to the Judges - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: Nowhere in this statute is there any reference to the judiciary at all. There's no reference to the judiciary having review, that the judiciary must sign off on whatever the president does. That's why what Judge Robart did is totally wrong! As a matter of law, Judge Robart was way outside his legal purview in issuing the stay.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/TrumpJudges.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"George Prayias\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/TrumpJudges.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/TrumpJudges.jpg\",\"width\":594,\"height\":413},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/\",\"name\":\"Trump Tells It to the Judges - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-02-08T18:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T21:47:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2bc43fbe4b4e1ff4d1f092c6086a349\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trump Tells It to the Judges\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2bc43fbe4b4e1ff4d1f092c6086a349\",\"name\":\"George Prayias\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a43c262983f0228d5f474ce08e691cf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a43c262983f0228d5f474ce08e691cf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"George Prayias\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/georgeeibnet-com\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Trump Tells It to the Judges - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Trump Tells It to the Judges - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: Nowhere in this statute is there any reference to the judiciary at all. There's no reference to the judiciary having review, that the judiciary must sign off on whatever the president does. That's why what Judge Robart did is totally wrong! As a matter of law, Judge Robart was way outside his legal purview in issuing the stay.","twitter_image":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/TrumpJudges.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"George Prayias","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/TrumpJudges.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/TrumpJudges.jpg","width":594,"height":413},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/","name":"Trump Tells It to the Judges - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2017-02-08T18:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T21:47:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2bc43fbe4b4e1ff4d1f092c6086a349"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/02\/08\/trump-tells-it-to-the-judges\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trump Tells It to the Judges"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2bc43fbe4b4e1ff4d1f092c6086a349","name":"George Prayias","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a43c262983f0228d5f474ce08e691cf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a43c262983f0228d5f474ce08e691cf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"George Prayias"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/georgeeibnet-com\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220665"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220665"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220665\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":220995,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220665\/revisions\/220995"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}