On Mark Levin’s nationally syndicated radio talk show program Thursday, Daily Wire Editor and host of the Ben Shapiro Show Ben Shapiro suggested that the three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against President Trump’s travel ban because “the left has no interest whatsoever in the actual law.”

“All of which goes to show, that when it comes to the interpretation of law, the left has no interest whatsoever in the actual law,” stated Ben Shapiro. “They already have a preconceived notion of what the law ought to be, and they decide to rewrite the law based on those notions.”

Ben Shapiro’s comments came after a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals further frustrated the Trump administration “over the broader legality of the president’s executive order temporarily barring travelers from six mostly Muslim nations” and “said Trump was wrong in how he interpreted an earlier order by the high court affecting thousands of refugees seeking entry into the U.S.” notes Bloomberg Politics.

Below is a transcript of Shapiro’s comments on Mark Levin’s radio show Thursday:

“‘The Ninth Circuit panel also said Trump was wrong in how he interpreted an earlier order by the high court [to restrict restrictions to] … thousands of refugees seeking entry into the U.S.’

“‘Thursday’s decision by a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court [of course] further frustrates the administration as it heads toward an Oct. 10 showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court over the broader legality of the president’s executive order temporarily barring travelers from six mostly Muslim nations.

“‘According to Bloomberg, President Donald Trump suffered another setback on his embattled travel ban, with an appeals panel leaving in a place a lower-court ruling that forces the administration to accept people with grandparents, cousins and other relatives in the U.S.

“Breaking news here: The courts, once again, overstepping their boundaries, it’s just become a regular thing here.

“So, if you recall, Trump’s revised travel order got rid of restrictions who already hold green cards, and it redrew the rules with regard to who could come in because a lot of the lawsuits based on Trump’s original travel ban were based on the notion that: ‘Here I am in the United States. I want to bring my mom over from Iran, and now I can’t bring my mom over from Iran. I have standing in court to challenge this. It’s a religious ban, and I want to bring my mom in.’ And the courts basically upheld that.

“So, the response from the Trump administration was, ‘Okay, well, we’ll allow close relatives in. We’ll allow close relatives in.’

“Well, now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – of course, the most reversed court of appeals in the country – they have now ruled, this three judge panel, that it’s not enough to allow in parents or in-laws. No, we also have to allow in anybody’s grandparents, cousins or other relatives.

“Well, everybody’s got a relative here. I mean, my God. Like everyone in the United States has a relative abroad, and a lot of people have relatives in countries that are dangerous. And the notion that terrorists don’t have relatives is asinine.

“How could you possibly suggest— First of all, the president has plenary power over immigration. Okay, constitutionally speaking, there are laws on the books that basically give the president of the United States national security discretion over immigration. There’s a good legal argument about how far that discretion goes, but there is no question that when it comes to enforcing national security, there’s no argument that I have a second cousin over in Tinbuktu and that person can’t come in the country, that that person can come in the country because they’re my relative.

“One of the main issues in the travel ban case was the issue of standing. I mean, if you’re a citizen of the United States, then the travel ban doesn’t apply to you, and if you have a green card, it doesn’t apply to you. So, how do you even have standing to sue based on the unconstitutionality of the travel ban?

“And so, the way the left got around this is they said that if you run a college, for example, if you run a college and you want to bring in students from Yemen, that you have a harm that has accrued to you by virtue of the fact that you can’t bring in students from Yemen.

“Really dumb argument. Really stupid argument because, theoretically, that would give everybody standing in every case in the United States.

“Alright, let’s say that there is a situation, for example, where in the United States you had a situation where we go to war with some country and somebody in the United States challenges that on the basis that, ‘Well, somebody in that country might want to come work here, so can we really go to war with that country?’ You can’t have standing work that way.

“Well, now, they’ve expanded standing to anyone who has cousins and grandparents who live outside the country.

“This is the whole problem, folks. Okay, people have relatives who live outside the country.

“How many terrorists have we seen inside the United States who bring in relatives from abroad?

“The San Bernardino shooters. Okay, that was a guy who lived in the United States, who was a United States citizen, he went abroad, he got married abroad – I believe it was in Saudi Arabia – and he brought his bride back with him and they became terrorists. Okay, that was a citizen going abroad and getting married. That was bad enough, but now you’re telling me that if that guy has a cousin he’s never met in Yemen, applying for a green card, the Ninth Circuit says you gotta let that guy in now.

“All of which goes to show, that when it comes to the interpretation of law, the left has no interest whatsoever in the actual law. They already have a preconceived notion of what the law ought to be, and they decide to rewrite the law based on those notions.

“Judge Richard Posner, who used to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, recently retired, but he used to say that he’d look at a fact pattern in a case and the first thing he would do is he would decide how he was going to rule and the second thing he would do is look for an excuse to rule that way.

“This is dangerous, judicial usurpation of executive authority, just as the judiciary has usurped legislative authority too.

“For the left, words only mean what they want them to mean.

“And this is not about Trump. This isn’t about what Trump said on the campaign trail. This is about the left has a preferred immigration policy. Their preferred immigration policy is everybody gets in.

“That’s why, already, the left is talking about challenging President Trump’s actions getting rid of the executive amnesty or at least putting a hold on the executive amnesty.

“You’ve seen a bunch of Democrats who are saying now that they want to challenge President Trump for striking down an unconstitutional executive amnesty from President Obama. What standing would they have to do that? How could they even make that legal case?

“It doesn’t matter. If they can get it in front of a friendly judge, they can get whatever they want.”