The Constitution and Judicial Fiat…

Go ahead, make my…

So now we’ve got Sally Yates in “judicial drag” as you might say, in the form of Judge James Robart of Seattle, a judicial ingrate (if that’s the word) appointed by Bush 43. ‘Democans’, ‘Republicrats’, what does it all mean anymore when a federal District Court political hack on the far west outskirts of the nation, can arbitrarily go counter to the Constitution and impose of his own volition, a court ordered temporary restraining order by fiat because he doesn’t like the content of a presidential Executive Order?

In the immortal words of Douglas MacArthur, “The enemy is in front of us, the enemy is behind us, the enemy is to the right and to the left of us. They can’t get away this time!”

And while I think of it concerning the Constitution, let’s throw Chief Justice John Roberts into the mix with his ridiculous spaghetti-bowl manipulations in June of 2012 of mangling the ‘Affordable Care Act’ between a penalty, a tax, not a tax, a fee, a fine, dhimmi, or whatever other shape of pretzel he could visualize.

As Breitbart and other journals reported it at the time: “Virtually no legal scholars, academics, or political pundits predicted SCOTUS would come to this conclusion, and critics of the decision quickly pointed out that the ruling effectively gives the federal government the authority to force Americans to engage in or refrain from any activities the government sees fit as long as the failure to comply results in a “tax,” as opposed to a “fine,” “fee,” or some other form of punishment.”[end]

James Robart’s fifteen minutes of fame constitutes a judicial coup against President Trump and the executive branch.

That a District Federal judge like Robart has this much power in overriding the Constitution is unconscionable and the fact that he has been a Lefty from the get-go (or has allowed himself to be swayed by the Left) is more than enough to remove him from his judgeship. In what way is his behavior any different from that of Sally Yates?

As I mentioned the other day, in “Yates, party line politics, & Sedition”: “This is not new, by the way. Go back just a few years in the middle of the Obama administration, when the people of California (twice, I believe) overwhelmingly approved Prop. 8, which preserved the definition of marriage. Yet the liberal governor and attorney general refused to defend the people’s vote because they simply didn’t like it. Strangely, even though a huge majority of blacks voted for Prop 8, the liberals’ refusal to defend it wasn’t deemed racist. (There’s that Democrat Party hypocrisy again, that I highlighted with Chuck Schumer yesterday).”

“Another example is Obama’s Justice Department, who stopped enforcing Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act because it didn’t agree with the liberal lawyers’ personal morality. Once again, even though blacks disproportionately reject the idea of homosexual and transgender unions, no one called Obama a racist.”[end]

This is the last refuge for Leftist Democrats to rule by fiat and not the Constitution. Having failed to win a majority in the legislative arenas of House, Senate, and Executive branch, they now pursue their agenda through the judiciary. It’s an anti-Constitution move, as was the Sally Yates grandstand, and you can be sure to expect we’ll see more of it.

We the People are getting tired of judicial tyranny. In too many instances, federal judges are clearly over-stepping their authority and need to be reined in. The nation very recently voted against globalism, and we can’t have a bunch of unelected, globalist judges with life-time appointments deciding that they know best how to run the country. President Trump should continue the temporary ban and ignore this judge. Or fire him, as with Yates.

This temporary restraining order will be stayed, then overturned, it’s just a matter of time. The Trump administration is hamstrung because of no Attorney General. The DemoMarxist Senators knew what they were doing thanks to turncoat Republicans Murkowski and Collins; the fact that there’s no Jeff Sessions in place yet is entirely because of those two. The ultimate blame for delay however, in getting Trump’s DOJ in place belongs to Mitch McConnell who after all, supposedly ‘runs’ the Senate.

Nevertheless, Activist Judges who seek to make law from the bench, need to be removed and made a harsh example of in an inglorious manner, for the whole globalist empire to witness.

America is a Republic subject to the laws and statutes of the Constitution. As Patriot Thomas Paine so aptly expressed it: “Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

*************************

Ed Straker, writing in Saturday’s American Thinker…

Federal district Judge James Robart of Seattle ordered a complete, nationwide temporary restraining order against President Trump’s temporary ban on visitors from seven Middle Eastern countries.  If you read the ruling as I have, you can see this is clearly unconstitutional on its face, and constitutes a judicial coup against President Trump and the executive branch.

1) The standards for granting a temporary restraining order are quite high. The plaintiff must show that he is likely to succeed on the merits, and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.  Here the people from the excluded countries cannot show irreparable harm, only that their entry to the United States would be delayed. And they are unlikely to succeed on the merits, because the President has no obligation to let foreigners into the country.  On the contrary, there may be irreparable harm if the temporary travel ban is lifted, as terrorists may enter the country and kill people.

2) By the way, the plaintiffs here aren’t even the people from the excluded countries.  They are the states of Washington and Minnesota who claim their citizens would be harmed if the temporary ban were not lifted; perhaps Microsoft is being deprived of some cheap labor.  It’s a flimsy argument at best.  This ruling has no substantial effect on states’ residents, contrary to what Judge Robart has said.

Continues to the end in American Thinker…

See also today’s new Ed Straker commentary

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *