About Those Federal Judges Blocking Trump

Think they're doing it out of principles?

Think again.

Most are just activist Democrats.

I thought activism in the judiciary was supposed to be, like, you know...bad.

Here's a great article at Lawfareblog covering this behaviour by the judges challenging a democratically elected official:

"...But there’s also another meta-legal discussion to be had here. And it’s a discussion that connects directly back to a piece we wrote recently on what happens when people—including judges—don’t take the President’s oath of office seriously.

To put the matter bluntly: why are so many judges being so aggressive here?"

"...The legal disputes are both interesting and important. But this meta-legal question strikes us, at least, as far more important and far-reaching. And we think the answer lies in judicial suspicion of Trump’s oath. The question goes to the manner in which we can expect the judiciary to interact with President Trump on this and other issues throughout his presidency. It goes, not to put too fine a point on it, to the question of whether the judiciary means to actually treat Trump as a real president or, conversely, as some kind of accident—a person who somehow ended up in the office but is not quite the President of the United States in the sense that we would previously have recognized."

"...We don’t mean here to do an exhaustive legal analysis of either court’s work. But suffice it to say that you don’t have to be a Trumpist to have questions. The Maryland opinion seems significantly stronger than the Hawaii opinion, but both have substantial holes.

"...For one thing, at least some of the standing analysis seems off. Judge Watson, for example, found standing for a man on grounds that his mother-in-law might not be able to visit him and his wife because of the ban, though she had not yet even sought a waiver of the ban’s applicability to her; in other words, it’s totally unclear that she will even be meaningfully impacted by the new version of the policy. In fact, the EO specifically lists visitation of a close family member who is also a U.S. citizen or resident as possible grounds for a waiver. Similarly, a standing analysis that made sense the first time around by a state—that its university would be adversely affected—seems at least a little premature without knowing anything about how many people associated with that university will actually be kept out of the country. This time around, after all, student study is listed explicitly as possible basis for a waiver. There may well be standing here, but the opinions are hasty on the points.  

"...Our point here is not that the district judges are clearly wrong. It’s merely that they are not clearly right—on a whole lot of points. And in the face of real legal uncertainty as to the propriety of their actions, they are being astonishingly aggressive. It is not, after all, a normal thing for a single district judge to enjoin the President of the United States nationally from enforcing an action that the President contends is a national security necessity, much less an action taken pursuant to a broad grant of power by the legislature in an area where strong deference to the political branches is a powerful norm. And it really isn’t a normal thing for multiple district judges to do so in quick succession—and, moreover, to do so in the face of substantial uncertainty as to the actual parameters of the constitutional and statutory law they are invoking and powerful arguments that they are exceeding their own authority.

So what’s going on here? "

It goes into fascinating details about how the judges arrived at their (clumsy I argue) rulings. It raises more eyebrows than anything. Prior to this article I observed that this was likely part of the overall belief that a certain segment of Americans believe 'Trump must be stopped at all costs because crazy and not my President'. 

This article revealed once you get past the legal reasoning of it - which is clumsy to say the least - my initial hunch of this being more a case of challenging the 'man' in the office and less about the office itself. All the more so given that some of these judges are known to be activist Democrat judges; which the article seems to overlook for some reason. I would think this kinda plays a part in one of the conclusions presented. 

Not good because now you've opened the door for the other side to do the same even though there's nothing wrong with the person in power. At that point, why have elections if you're not going to respect the wishes of the people?

The actions are so severely short-sighted that they'd rather make an emotional stink over a temporary ban because  of someone they don't like at the expense of the long-term health of the Republic. 

In other words, to be blunt,  if you accept this, then don't be fucken surprised when it's done to your guy.  At which point, the same people cheering this on will be the first to cry when it happens to them.

Not good.

Not good at all.