Judge Robart’s Black Humor
The funniest part of Judge James L. Robart’s cursory, six-and-a-bit-page restraining order against Donald Trump’s executive order -- which temporarily suspends travel into the United States from seven notorious sponsors of terrorism -- comes at the end:
Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches.
Ha! What a card!
The Left goes shopping for a likeminded judge, and finds a Seattle District Court judge who is sympathetic to Black Lives Matter and does pro-bono work for refugees. He has the added advantage of being located in the Ninth Circuit, the wackiest, most reliably left-wing precinct of the U.S. appellate system (though that may change soon). Said judge then intervenes to suspend the implementation of an executive order issued by the president of the United States to help safeguard the country.
The Justice Department quickly asked for an emergency stay of Judge Robart’s order, but, as could have been predicted, the left-leaning Ninth Circuit just as quickly denied the request. Additional legal briefing in the ninth circuit is forthcoming, but most observers believe the case is headed for the Supreme Court. What happens then will depend on many things -- including the fate of Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the seat vacated by Antonin Scalia’s death last year. In the meantime, if another Orlando, San Bernardino, or Boston Marathon slaughter takes place, public sentiment will surely, and rightly, support Donald Trump's suggestion that Judge Robart is to blame.
Let’s pause to note what just happened.
Although he is but one of hundreds upon hundreds of District Court judges, Judge Robart insists that the “declaratory and injunctive relief” outlined in his order be applied immediately and on a “nationwide basis” (my emphasis). Seattle has spoken, Comrades! Judge Robarts finds (where? how?) that his court has jurisdiction over ... well, over just about everything: the president and the head of the Department of Homeland Security, for starters, but also “the United States of America (collectively).”
So all across the fruited plain, “Federal Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED” from enforcing the President’s executive order.
This may be the best place to pause and point out that Donald Trump, acting as the president of the United States, was perfectly within his rights to issue an executive order to suspend travel from particular countries.
As Andrew McCarthy pointed out at National Review, the order was completely legal. Not only does the Constitution vest plenary executive power in the president -- “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations” -- but laws governing immigration explicitly recognize that the president has authority to forbid specific foreigners from traveling into the United States for national security reasons.