Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Monday, February 6, 2017

Seattle Judge Goes Off The Rails By Smacking Down Trump Executive Order. Trump Attacks.

Photo by Aude Guerrucci - Pool/Getty ImagesTrump executive order
FEBRUARY 6, 2017
5611776 Comments8965
Late on Friday afternoon, US District Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush
appointee, issued a temporary injunction against President Trump’s immigration
 and refugee executive order. The order applied nationally and broadly; it
stopped Trump’s plans on refugees, as well as admission of those from Iran,
 Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The order made no legal
argument whatsoever about the case – instead, the judge simply declared t
hat the plaintiffs, the states of Washington and Minnesota, were likely to
prevail on the merits. The only indicator of Robart’s position came during
oral arguments, when he slapped the government’s lawyer for linking terrorism
 to the executive order: Robart said that Trump’s order wasn’t legal unless
 it was “based in fact, as opposed to fiction,” explaining that no terrorist
 attacks were perpetrated by people from the seven named countries.
VIDEOThe first legal test of Trump's travel ban

Current Time0:50
Duration Time1:39
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
It is not necessary for the executive branch to demonstrate that a policy it adopts
prevents a harm that has already occurred. The executive branch has broad
 latitude in refugee and immigration policy for purposes of national security.
The Department of Justice has rightly argued that judges do not have
access to classified risk information as the president does; furthermore,
foreign citizens abroad do not have Constitutional rights.
All of this led President Trump to lash out on Twitter at Judge Robart:

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
Some thoughts.
First, Trump has every right to criticize the court decision. The same media
going apoplectic over President Trump’s criticism of a court decision nodded
along as Barack Obama openly lied about the
Citizens United decision in front of members of the Supreme Court at a
State of the Union Address, then slammed Justice Alito for having the
temerity to shake his head at the untruth.
Second, Trump has a habit of attacking anyone who disagrees with him.
 It would have been nice for Trump to attack the judge on the grounds that
 he has exceeded his legal power, not on the grounds that Robart’s policy
 will be damaging to national security. Down that logical road lies
authoritarianism: it’s always easy for the executive branch to violate rights
 in the name of collective safety, then blame judges for undermining safety
if something violent happens. Robart may be wrong on policy and law, but
suggesting that judges “own” the political consequences of legal decisions
 is awful for the functioning of the judicial branch.
With all of that said, is this a Constitutional crisis, as the media seem to be
suggesting? Absolutely not. So far, there’s been no evidence that Trump
 is ignoring the judicial ruling. Even if he did, Congress could quickly strip
 him of his power to do so. The Constitution was written with gridlock and
rough interplay in mind. The judiciary should know that its review of legislative
 and executive acts can be checked, too. And it can certainly be criticized
 by members of the other branches, including the president.