Image 01 Image 03

Chris Matthews Surprisingly Skeptical on Court Ruling on Immigration Order

Chris Matthews Surprisingly Skeptical on Court Ruling on Immigration Order

Matthews: the courts “have gotten into somebody else’s marmalade here”

Wait a second: was that Sean Hannity on Fox News? Nope, it was Chris Matthews on MSNBC last night, expressing surprising skepticism over the 9th Circuit’s decision to uphold the stay of President Trump’s executive order on immigration.Matthews made a multi-pronged attack on the ruling.

  • Matthews suggested political motives on the part of the Court:”so much of this court ruling is based on what they think about Trump.”
  • He called it “an odd ban on Muslims if it doesn’t include 95% of Muslims.”
  • Matthews suggested that the ruling would not have gone 3-0 against the order if it had been heard in another [less liberal] Circuit court.
  • Matthews repeatedly attacked the court’s reliance on the fact that we haven’t been attacked by people from the countries included in the order. He argued that you couldn’t predict the future, pointing out that no one from Egypt had attacked the US before Mohamed Atta did on 9-11, and no one from the West Bank or Jordan before Sirhan Sirhan assassinated RFK.
  • Matthews was dubious about the court extending equal protection rights to non-Americans who are not in the country.

Concluded Matthews: “I think the courts have gotten into somebody else’s marmalade here. You start talking about policy, and which countries to target, which not to target. These judges don’t have any competence to do that.”

Note: Hardball flashed a chyron showing that Hillary Clinton had triumphantly tweeted “3-0.” When a Politico reporter suggested it wasn’t a political ruling since a George W appointee had gone along with it, Matthews taunted: “so you’re with Hillary on this. You’re with Hillary who says 3-0.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Matthews must have read the order. The order is well-thought-out, limited, reasonably tailored to achieve the objectives of a core executive responsibility, and yet flexible so as to avoid unjust results.

    Walker Evans in reply to Valerie. | February 10, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    It has been my contention since this brouhaha began that only those who had not read the EO, or were so committed to an agenda that they were willing to lie outrageously, could possibly attack it with such vehemence based on such incorrect data. It appears that Mr. Matthews may indeed have read it; now, if he can convince his friends to do the same, perhaps this absurdity can stop.

    Wait … leftists change their minds based on mere facts? Never mind.

And Dan Riehl tweeted back: Hillary is 0-2.

Chris Matthews is not stupid, he is hard core partisan. He knows this is not playing out well for the Democrats in the long run. This is a signal to his base.

    Observer in reply to EBL. | February 10, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Trump’s “score” on this is actually 4 – 1. Four leftist hacks in the 9th circuit (one district court judge and three appellate judges) ruled against him, while one federal district court judge in Boston ruled in Trump’s favor.

    But we probably shouldn’t expect a woman who lost to Trump 3,084 – 57 (U.S. counties) in the last election to get much correct.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to EBL. | February 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    EBL, I think you are right.

    Not the first time the MSM has openly communicated a game play to their party – the Democrat Party.

    LOL Did Matthews just call those judges “incompetent?”

When you lose Chris “tingle up my leg” Matthews you just know you are on shaky ground! ????????


“Matthews repeatedly attacked the court’s reliance on the fact that we haven’t been attacked by people from the countries included in the order.”

The court’s reliance on that “fact” deserves to be attacked, because it is a “fact” that is demonstrably false.

The district court asserted, and the 9th circuit appellate judges agreed, that “zero” persons from the 7 listed countries have been arrested in the U.S. for terrorist-related activities.

In fact, at least 60 persons from the 7 countries have been not just arrested, but convicted, of terrorist-related crimes in the U.S. There are also others, including the Somali “refugee” who recently attacked people with a machete at Ohio State while shouting “allahu ackbar,” who were not arrested for their terrorist activities in the U.S., but only because the Somali terrorist had been shot dead by cops in the middle of his terrorist rampage.

It’s a pretty damning indictment of the four federal judges who ruled against Trump’s EO that some loony talking head like Chris Matthews demonstrates more reasoned legal judgment than the judges do.

blind pigs, acorns.

some assembly required.

I’ve told my acquaintances that liberals would have exploded had judges attempted this kind of mugging on President Obama. I’ll leave it at that, since it appears the Professor has amply addressed the many, many errors of the decision, including the massive seizing of power (using a mere TRO as the vehicle for it) by the 9th Circuit, in a previous post today.

Every now and then he does the right, objective thing…even if it is only for cred.

Wouldn’t Alinsky advocate just moving inside the 9th circuit’s OODA loop by issuing a new executive order every day which revokes the prior order and makes some small update? Revoking the prior order would moot any litigation based on it wouldn’t it?

Regardless of what one thinks of Chris Matthews, he is correct here. And, this merely strengthens the point that the courts are acting based upon politics, rather than upon legal standards. Once the courts renounce any semblance of political or ideological impartiality, they lose all power. Now the 9th CA is nothing more than a bunch of political hacks in black robes, who have absolutely NO power to coerce the President or Congress to do anything.

So, Trump wins this round. Sooner or later, the courts are going to have to validate his EO AND his authority, under the law to, to issue it.

If the courts ruling were to stand, we would have no borders at all.

If the President doesn’t have the authority to curb immigration from hostile states, who according to the constitution does?

and no… I don’t think the horrors of the foreign places these people are coming from get to play into the courts decision process. There are other ways to deal with getting them safe… gitmo has some empty beds for instance.

Matthews is showing signs that he’s finally recognized the pattern they’re locked in and how bad it is for both the press and the Democrats.

The pattern flows like this:

1) Trump says/does something mild to moderately objectionable

2) The press and Democrats seize upon it and start publicly commenting about it

3) To try and score political points and whip up fear, the press and Democrats EXAGGERATE and LIE about it for edgy sound bytes

4) Trump says they’re lying liars who lie and are just partisan hacks

5) The common people find out about their easily verifiable lies

6) Any objections to what Trump is ACTUALLY doing are lost amidst the lies and defense against the lies

7) Trump support grows

8) Trust of the press falls further

I mean seriously. I don’t know how many times this pattern has to repeat.

Matthews recognizes that this decision by the 9th Circuit is idiotic, devoid of legal reasoning, going to be overturned by the Supreme Court, and that means Trump will have been completely vindicated in criticizing the 9th Circuit as partisan hacks.

This is bad for both the 9th Circuit and the Democrats for them to behave in this blatantly political and partisan a way – and at the end of the day, for what? A temporary stay on a legal EO?

    mailman in reply to Olinser. | February 10, 2017 at 5:50 pm

    I wonder if the justices realise they have essentially signed their own death warrants? With a failure rate over 80% you would think these clowns would have some understanding of how vulnerable their position is.

    But this is the thing about Liberals…they actually have no idea just how terrible bad they really are. So when the 9th Circuit does get broken up in the near future they will be completely caught off guard and totally didn’t see it coming…which will make it even more delicious…those delicious liberal tears 🙂

    murkyv in reply to Olinser. | February 10, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    Matthews was actually watchable back during the good old days of Impeachment.

    He thought Bubba had unnecessarily damaged himself and the Party since they were forced to defend him

    tom swift in reply to Olinser. | February 11, 2017 at 1:46 am

    I mean seriously. I don’t know how many times this pattern has to repeat.

    The trained seals haven’t changed, the chopped fish tossed to them hasn’t changed … there’s little reason to expect that the ensuing circus act will change any time soon.

*SHRUG* the liberal ploy is pretty simple … Oppose everything … Fund raise to support their paid protesters to make it look like Trump support is crumbling … Increase the number of dead on voter rolls …. And with media compliance make it look as though every white house policy is somehow killing dogs … Old ladies and children