Trey Gowdy issues stinging takedown of 9th Circuit Court — his final lines are not to be missed

Like a number of prominent conservatives, U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) had harsh words for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled to block President Donald Trump's temporary immigration ban executive order.

Gowdy — who chairs the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations — often wields a rapier-like wit when issuing criticism. And it was in no short supply in his Thursday statement on the matter.

"No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today's ruling," Gowdy began. "The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible. Unlike the district court order, there is at least a court opinion which can be evaluated."

More from Gowdy's statement:

Of particular interest is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' suggestion that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration. The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President's national security conclusions.

Legal permanent residents, non-citizens with current valid visas, non-citizens with expired visas (which were once valid), aliens with no legal standing, aliens who have committed a crime but have not yet been deported and aliens who are not even present in the United States but seek to come are just a few of the categories the Supreme Court will need to determine what process is due, if any. It seems clear to most of us - not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - there is no right to come to this country for non-citizens of the United States. It also seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the Commander in Chief. There is a reason we elect the Commander in Chief and do not elect federal judges.

But Gowdy saved his biggest takedown for his final sentences: "For those, like Alexander Hamilton, who once or now wondered if the Judicial Branch would be too weak. Wonder no more."

(H/T: Young Conservatives)