I see that the President has referred to the judge in the Immigration Executive Order (EO) as a “so-called” judge. I thought this was unfortunate, not to mention bad tactics … but after listening to the oral arguments about the EO, I understood more about where he was coming from.
The astounding part to me was that both the Judges and the lawyer for Washington State were discussing statements made by then-candidate Trump and by Rudy Giuliani, in order to determine whether this was really a “Muslim ban” in disguise.
The argument the lawyer made and the three-judge panel is actually considering is that if the Judges determine that the President acted with bad intent, if he crafted the law in response to some ignoble impulse to ban Muslims, that is a reason in the scales of justice to find in favor of the plaintiffs.
Now, hold it right there. Just stop. Think for a moment about what they are saying. Here’s their claim:
If they find the President acted from bad motives, that is a reason to find his actions illegal.
And of course, this has the opposite and in some sense more interesting corollary:
If they find the President acted from noble motives, that is a reason to find his actions legal.
Say what? These three good folk have set themselves up to judge legality, not based on the ACTUAL LAW, but based on their own assessment of the Presidents motives?
The idea of considering the statements of candidate Trump and some random interview of Rudy Giuliani in this context is the most moronic thing I’ve ever heard come out of a judge’s mouth. I can see why Trump calls folks like this “so-called Judges”. A judge is supposed to look at what the law actually says. Not what Rudy Giuliani said about the law. What the law says. Not what Elizabeth Warren said about the law. What the law says. Not what Candidate Trump said about the law.
The only valid point at issue is WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS! Appeals court judges are not the morality police, they weren’t appointed to decide which lawmaker is a good person and whether their motives are pure.
The question they should be discussing is whether the Immigration Executive Order is legal according to what the various laws ACTUALLY SAY about Presidents and EOs. In other words, does the Executive Order ACTUALLY BAN MUSLIMS OR NOT? Does the Executive Order ACTUALLY INSTITUTE A RELIGIOUS TEST OR NOT?
Hey, protip to the Judges! Sometimes good men write bad laws … however, the fact they are good men is NOT a reason to find their bad laws legal. Even granting that the authors of a given law were busy paving their particular road to hell with only the finest of truly pure and good intentions … so freakin’ what? It’s still the road to hell …
I dunno … maybe living seventeen years in the South Pacific Islands has something to do with it, but I swear I just turned around, and suddenly we have judges who seem to think that their political moralizing, and what Rudy said, is more important than the law itself.
Huh? I’d heard that the Ninth Circuit Court was both the most liberal and the most-reversed Circuit Court in the land, but I had no idea it had gotten to the level of Judge Judy … actually, I take that back, it’s an insult to Judge Judy …
I can see why this would set the President’s hair on fire … that kind of judicial malfeasance angrifies my own blood mightily. It’s still bad tactics to call them out, but certainly understandable.
Rainy day, I can only see about a hundred feet (30m) into the mist … reminds me of the song:
When you’re in the Little Land, they fill your hands with gold,
You think you’ll stay for just a day, you come out bent and old.
Dead leaves in your pockets, snowflakes in your hands,
Run, run from the little folk,
Or you’ll have dead leaves in your pockets, and snowflakes in your hands …
For all of you, sunlight far-reaching on the boundless sea …
PS: As always I ask that if you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO. I’m happy to discuss and defend my own words. I cannot comment on your personal interpretation of unknown words of mine.
PPS: Don’t get me started on the question of Judge James Robart, the man who stayed the Immigration Order, the man President Trump described as a “so-called Judge”. From Reason (emphasis mine):
Remember Amherst College student “John Doe,” who was expelled for sexual misconduct, even though he had good reason to believe that his accuser had actually assaulted him? A judge recently blocked Doe’s attempt to subpoena his female accuser’s text messages on grounds that re-litigating the matter “would impose emotional and psychological trauma” on her.
Consider the implications of this decision. According to Seattle District Judge James Robart, a student who believes Amherst violated his due process rights, wrongfully expelled him, and ignored subsequent evidence that his accuser, “Sandra Jones,” was the actual violator of the college’s sexual misconduct policies, does not deserve the opportunity to make his case because someone else’s feelings are more important.
Come for the tragedy … stay for the miscarriage of justice … my further thoughts on the subject of kangaroo courts on campus are here.