Strange Things Are Happening with Judge Robart, the Constitution and Federal Law

Judge James Robart’s strange ruling for a temporary restraining order on President’s travel ban could only come from LEFT field. The Judge’s order does not give any hint as to the rationale for his thinking, or proof of the reason for the order. He has ruled against the Constitution and federal law. This should not stand. If it does, Congress should take action.

As Written By Jerome Woehrle for Liberty Unyielding:

Immigration laws have long treated different countries differently. For example, a citizen of France can travel to America without a visa — but not a citizen of Poland. But a Seattle judge has blocked President Trump’s executive order restricting entry from seven violence-wracked or terrorism-supporting countries, suggesting (without explanation) that it violates the Constitution. Judge James Robart’s order has no legal basis, and barely pretends to. It is a bizarre ruling from a bizarre judge.

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 …….

KEEP READING THERE IS MORE HERE:

A strange ruling from a strange judge – Liberty Unyielding

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Leave a Comment

Comment via Facebook

Comment via Disqus

  • maryannela

    this must have been shoved down bush’s throat, this guy is a joke and the gift just keep on coming from these loons.