President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban has been knocked down by politicized judges yet again, and this time both judges are appointees of former President Barack Obama.
Both judges that committed egregious judicial overreach this week, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson and U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang, are Obama political appointees, according to Politico.
Trump spoke at a rally in Nashville not long after the suspension of his order was implemented, where he discussed the massive overreach: “This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach … This ruling makes us look weak.”
“This is a watered-down version of the first one. … I think we should go back to the first one and go all the way which is what I wanted to do in the first place,” Trump said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice hit back against the suspension and described the ruling as “flawed both in reasoning and in scope,” before affirming that the administration will “continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts.”
Chuang evidenced his extreme bias in his ruling as he smeared Trump, claiming that this is a Muslim ban and also that Trump has “animus” toward Muslims.
“These statements, which include explicit, direct statements of President Trump’s animus towards Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States, present a convincing case that the First Executive Order was issued to accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump’s promised Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.
Chuang went on to evidence how dangerous his move to play politics with national security is, as he grossly overstepped his bounds by determining what is and isn’t in the country’s security interests — something that is supposed to be up to the president, not the judiciary.
“In this highly unique case, the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban,” Chuang wrote.
“While the travel ban bears no resemblance to any response to a national security risk in recent history, it bears a clear resemblance to the precise action that President Trump described as effectuating his Muslim ban.”
Watson showed the same disturbing bias in his ruling by criticizing the Trump administration and others who have used common sense and facts to point out that it can’t be a Muslim ban when so few of the world’s Muslims are actually affected. “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,” he wrote.
“The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.”
That is one ridiculous way to spin and twist the Constitution to suit your ends.
As National Review reported:
Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added).
Surely U.S. District Court Judges are familiar with that part of the law — one would hope.
Of course they are and that’s why this is so egregious. This is a gross example of playing politics with national security and attacking the separation of powers.
These judges are using the bench to push the open-borders globalist agenda, and they are twisting the Constitution beyond recognition to do it.
That is disturbing, and the Trump administration is going to need to gear up to fight back hard against it, otherwise we might as well kiss our country goodbye and say hello to globalism, because the leftist courts have proven that if the globalists don’t get their way in the White House, they’ll take over.