Two Obama-appointed judges have now blocked Trump's latest immigration EO

Headshot image of Dan Calabrese
Published by: Dan Calabrese on Thursday March 16th, 2017

Law is dead.

The first Trump immigration EO was stopped by a Bush-appointed judge out of the Seattle area. His legal reasoning was awful, and he had a background advocating for refugees, but nonetheless he made the ruling and an appeals court let it stand. Rather than defy the courts as his predecessor did, Trump had his administration draw up a new order that addressed the issues the court raised in the first one.

So that would eliminate all possibility of the new order being halted by judges, right?

Ha ha ha ha ha. Of course not, sillies. All this would mean is that pro-terrorist activists would have to judge-shop so they could find judges who were willing to ignore the law and the president's clear authority to issue such an order, and strike it down anyway sheerly for political purposes.

And they found them: Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii and Judge Theodore Chuang in Connecticut - both Obama-appointed, you will be unsurprised to know - issued orders in the past 24 hours halting the EO? Why? Because it's racist, you see. No matter how carefully the order is worded to make it clear that it is not a Muslim ban, this matters not when the left has pegged it as such.

Don't think for a second that control of the White House and both houses of Congress means you can do anything. As long as the left can find federal judges who are willing to ignore the limits on their authority, crap like this will continue to happen:

The decision from U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in federal court in Maryland marks another win for challengers of the president's executive order, which had been slated to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. Earlier, a different federal judge in Hawaii stopped it.

Chuang's order did not sweep as broadly as the one in Hawaii, but he similarly declared that even the revised travel ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims. He said those wanting evidence of anti-Muslim intent need look no further than what the president himself has said about it.

Chuang's ruling won't upend or call into question the decision in Hawaii, instead offering some measure of reinforcement.

"The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban," Chuang wrote.

The Justice Department had said that it strongly disagreed with the ruling in the Hawaii case, and that the executive order Trump issued "falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our nation's security."

The government's next legal step is unclear.

At a rally in Nashville on Wednesday, Trump said he was prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court. He also mused a return to his original executive order, which imposed a more sweeping ban than the second.

"Let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way," Trump said. "The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear."

Trump might have a chance at success with either order, once he can get Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court. As it stands right now, there's no reason to think any Obama- or Clinton-appointed Justice would overturn any of these rulings, and you'd need a 5-4 majority to do it.

In case any of you #NeverTrumpers still don't understand why the Supreme Court alone was reason enough to support Trump over Hillary, let this situation be a humbling reminder to you. The left is prepared to weaponize the courts in order to make them, in effect, a kill switch on anything a Republican president or Congress tries to do. This is why left-wing judges are so dangerous. They absolutely do not care what the limits of their power are, nor do they care what the clearly enumerated powers of the other branches are. All they have to do is come up with a rationale for striking down a policy, however flimsy, and they'll issue the ruling.

This case is actually a perfect example. The wording of the actual order can in no way justify the description of it as a Muslim ban, yet Judge Chuang claims that because Trump supposedly once said he wanted to ban Muslims, that must be his real goal, and therefore that must be what this is.

Think about the implications of that: A man runs for president, and says (or is portrayed as having said) he wants to do something that is controversial. He is elected, and once in office, he does something that falls far short of the controversial thing he supposedly wanted to do. Yet because it was thought he wanted to go much farther, a judge takes license to strike down the much tamer action that is not actually the controversial idea at all.

GDP growth for Obama's final year? A measly 1.6 percent

That is what these two Obama-appointed judges have done. They've completely ignored the letter of the order, as well as Trump's clear authority to issue it, and have instead decided that because Trump once said something they don't like, the order as it's actually written cannot stand.

That is so far afield from the authority of an actual judge, I hardly know where to start in attacking it. But the left doesn't care. They only care about getting their way. And if the only refuge they have left is federal judges who are willing to simply do whatever they feel like doing, that's fine with them.

If you want to understand why it's so difficult so solve problems in this country, this is the first place you should look.

Dan's new novel, BACKSTOP, is a story of spiritual warfare and baseball. Download it from Amazon here!