6

Bush Appointed Judge

 

 

When a Seattle Federal Judge, James Robart, imposed a nation wide injunction on portions of President Tump’s executive order, most of the media hastened to noted that he had been appointed by Bush 43.  True, but misleading, as noted by Jerome Wohrle at Liberty Unyielding:

 

 

Judge Robart’s Friday order against Trump sheds little light on his thinking. But at an earlier hearing on Washington State’s motion for a temporary restraining order, he asked what rational basis the government had for restricting entry from the seven countries covered by Trump’s order: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. As NPR notes, these seven countries were previously singled out by Congress for milder restrictions on visas. Congress did so after terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, in a 2015 law tightening up the Visa Waiver Program that was signed by President Obama. Critics argue that there was no rational basis for restricting travel from these countries but not other countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. This argument is silly, since America has deep economic links and security ties with Saudi Arabia that it lacks with the seven countries subject to the 2015 law and Trump’s executive order. America need not antagonize a key ally when it takes steps to increase border security. Perhaps for this reason, Judge Robart’s order in State of Washington v. Trump does not even make this argument, simply suggesting that for some unexplained reason the executive order may violate the “Constitution.”

To cover up the embarrassing weakness of Judge Robart’s temporary restraining order, reporters at the Washington Post and elsewhere have trumpeted the fact that Robart was nominally appointed by President George W. Bush. They have done this to suggest that his ruling must have merit, because otherwise he would not have ruled against a President of the same party as the man who appointed him. But this is misleading, since Robart is a “staunchly liberal” judge whose appointment was “effectively forced on Bush” by liberal Senator Patty Murray in 2004, when Washington State had two liberal Senators.

The media ignores the fact that Robart’s appointment as a federal judge was championed by liberal Senators like Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who used Senatorial custom allowing senators to veto Presidential appointments of trial judges to obtain the appointment of liberal trial judges like Robart in Washington State. An April 13, 2005 press release by Murray touts Robart’s appointment as the “bipartisan” result of using a state commission to select federal trial judges in Washington, whose appointment Bush then rubberstamped. This Senatorial veto power, known as the “blue slip,” is an old tradition, dating back to at least 1917, that lets senators have a say on which trial judges are appointed to courts in their home state.

When Obama was president, the media did not do this. They would not cite the fact that Obama appointed a judge to suggest that the judge’s ruling against Obama had merit. When Judge James Boasberg ruled against the Obama IRS, few news stories mentioned the fact that he was a liberal Democrat appointed by Obama himself. When Judge Amos Mazzant issued an injunction against Obama’s overtime rule, most of the media either did not report the fact that Mazzant had been appointed by Obama; or if they did, they also suggested that he was a conservative judge, because Republican Senators in Texas used their “blue slip” privilege to block Obama from appointing liberal trial judges in Texas.

Even critics of Trump’s order have found Judge Robart’s order senseless. As one put it,

Judge Robart’s temporary restraining order … may make things even worse in the long run, and had no basis in law. The judge’s temporary restraining order is harmful — it bans giving priority in asylum claims to Yazidi and Christian applicants, even though they are the ones who face a high risk of being killed in Iraq and Syria. (It bans ‘proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities,’ see Order at pg. 5, paragraph 1). This ban is perverse, because under U.S. law and international treaties, asylum is SUPPOSED to be given to members of groups facing persecution based on religion, and the threat of genocide faces only certain religions. The judge provided NO REASONING AT ALL for his assertion that the constitution might be violated by the executive order, and lawyers like Scott Johnson have noted that the judge’s order had no real legal basis.

As another observer pointed out, Judge Robart has a history of strange rulings:

Judge Robart, the oddball judge who issued that TRO against the executive order, is the same guy who issued the bizarre college sexual assault ruling that Robbie Soave wrote about earlier at Reason Magazine.

He ruled a falsely-accused male student could not depose or obtain relevant documents from the female student who got him expelled because that would traumatize her (never mind that it was SHE who performed a sex act on him when he was blacked out, meaning that if anyone was guilty of sexual assault it was HER). Reason’s article about it can be found here.

…Robart also bellowed “Black Lives Matter” in open court, as the Daily Caller noted (in a context in which it made little sense).

Go here to read the rest.  So a highly political liberal judge enjoins a Presidential executive order on the grounds that it may violate the Constitution in some mysterious manner that the Judge fails to spell out in his order, and the mainstream media fails to note any of these facts.  Par for the course.

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    2
    Shares

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

6 Comments

  1. I am expecting that, out of the pits of Hell liberal, 9th Circuit to rule against Trumo every chance they have. I think his likelihood of having to appeal to the SCOTUS is very high. I also do not understand how one federal judge has the authority to stop something nationwide. Don’t these judges at this level have limited jurisidiction to a given region?

  2. The stay-ruling has no basis in law. The Appeals court ruling has no basis in law.

    Its’ simply another liberal fabrication, like “privacy/abortion”, “gay marriage.” and tranny men in ladies’ rooms.

    The liberals, I think, call it “populist authoritarianism” – GASP, elected legislatures refusing to give them fictitious tights.

    Here, this so-called judge ratifies the liberals’ dream/nightmare that 6+ billion people have the unlimited right to come to America, hate us and our way of life, live off the American taxpayer, and kill Americans whenever they decide to do it.

  3. Attorney Robert Barnes makes a compelling case that Robart’s decision is entirely unsubstantive:

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/

    Barnes compares the Trump-favorable ruling of the Boston district judge (21 pp’s, over 50 legal citations, all to relevant immigration case law)to Robart’s (dare I say schoolboy-level) 7-p “ruling” with no actual citations to any immigration case law, and of course the President has the authority to protect the people of the US from enemies foreign and domestic (that is my addition), it’s in his oath of office. Tashveen Malik, the “wife” of San Bernardino terrorist murderer Syed Farookh, came into the country in Aug. 2014 on an unvetted F4 visa, because Pres. Obama didn’t care to impose immigration controls (as even James Comey testified in July, 2015, that he couldn’t assure the background checking process of the mass of migrants flooding into the country from terrorist-sympathetic countries.

  4. Now, I say to all, be of good cheer: Let the federal courts do their swath of scorched-earth destruction to Trump’s executive powers (should they be so daft to do so—and certainly many of them are of the Bader-[Meinhoff]-Ginsburg mindset:

    Because if they were to hamstring Trump’s executive powers, for the next 4 years he will beat them like a drum, mercilessly as terrorist attack in the US and out of the US continues to go on and accelerate (ISIS and Al Qaeda have announced they specifically are focusing on “punishing” the US for Trump’s election). One of the assets of Trump(some thought it originally a liability) is he doesn’t shut up. Unlike GW Bush, who stood there smiling and whipped like a batter housewife, Trump keeps on the pressure—and everyone knows who has worked with judges, they can dish it out, but they cant take it (my father for years became a scheduler and chief administrator for a court system here in the SF Bray-at-the-moon Area, so dealing with a good number of these coiffed and pampered egos was the daily fare). Anyway, it could be the American Left’s worst nightmare’

  5. Critics argue that there was no rational basis for restricting travel from these countries but not other countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia.

    What a horrible argument. You can’t stop dangers from A, B, C because X, Y, Z are just as bad? So a law banning entry from Haiti because of some virus is invalid because other countries may have viruses that are just as bad? I know political appointments often result in weak officeholders, but this is ridiculous.

Comments are closed.