Carlos Caso-Rosendi

Just a few days ago, Judge James Louis Robart, a US federal judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, ruled blocking one presidential executive order that temporarily halted the flow of certain refugees from seven countries in the Middle East. The language of the presidential executive order is quite clear and can be read here in the White House official site.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano commented on the ruling of the Appellate Court saying:  “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”  Napolitano also said: “I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president.”

Some say the language of the executive order is almost inviting the judiciary to intervene. I don’t see anything of that sort in the document text, perhaps the presentation of the executive order was politically taunting. The truth of the matter is that one judge reacted and halted the execution of the order. Later a Court of Appeals unanimously allowed the judge’s measure to stay.

In the process of appealing, the lawyers working for the executive branch made several mistakes, like forgetting to bring documentation proving that refugees from the affected countries had committed acts of terrorism in the US contrary to the assertion of Judge Robarts, etc. I find that very hard to believe. There has to be a motive for that blatant sloppiness and I think I know why the lawyers acted that way. In my mind this is nothing less than political bait for the Liberal judiciary and they have swallowed it whole.

Allow me to explain: I think this is going to reach the Supreme Court and the offending executive order will be allowed to stand. To begin with, the executive order is almost inconsequential. President Trump could have achieved the same objectives without making any noise by simply implementing the long standing US immigration law. Even today he can simply hurry and implement a policy that will in effect be indistinguishable from the executive order or even harsher. The President can do that without interference from the courts. Why did he do this in the fist place? I believe he wanted the Liberal judiciary to take the bait.

Right now the travesty of lower court judges – making laws out of thin air – has reached the media forefront because they think they are winning. In reality it will be a moot victory that will be transformed in a resounding defeat once the matter reaches the Supreme Court.

They are going to lose because it is simply impossible for the Supreme Court to rule against the Constitution on something that explicitly concerning  only to the executive power. That would be the equivalent of the FBI arresting a Supreme Court Justice so he cannot render a ruling. It would be war between the constitutional powers and they know it. They are not Judge James Robart, they are walking the halls of History and they don’t want to be remembered like that Roger B. Taney that washed his hands on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, [60 U.S. 393 of 1857] thus facilitating the American Civil War.

Once the Supreme Court rules against Robart et al, Trump with Congress can then drop the other shoe: they will proceed to review all the nonsense that has been polluting US jurisprudence, like Roe v. Wade mainly, the Dakota Pipeline rulings, and many other judicial interventions like the infamous potty for perverts regulations that Obama was pushing last year.

In my opinion this is only a small skirmish designed to call the enemy’s attention towards one flank while attacking them from the other. Mark my words. Trump is too smart to make the “mistakes” he has done too far. This is political bait. If I am wrong President Trump can still use this opportunity to address the nuisance of judges legislating from the bench and put an end to it.

Post post: please read this excellent article by Patrick Buchanan.