Judge's order to block Trump's immigration travel ban is ridiculous
By Jon Rappoport
The Judge is playing games. He's lying.
He obviously doesn't like Trump's immigration travel ban, so he's cooking up reasons for slapping a temporary restraining order on it.
A freshman in law school could point out holes in those reasons big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through.
On February 3rd, Judge James Robart issued his order: he temporarily restrained the federal government from enforcing Trump's immigration travel ban.
The Judge's order is absurd for several reasons.
First of all, objections to Trump's ban were entered into the court by the States of Washington and Minnesota, as the "injured parties." But Judge Robart announced his decision would affect all States---the whole country---because immigration law must be applied "uniformly" across the board.
Perhaps, but nowhere is it stated that a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a judge must be applied uniformly across the whole country.
Since when is a TRO the same as a law?
Speaking of law, no final legal/constitutional decision has been rendered re Trump's Executive Order on immigration. It's still up for grabs. The Judge is just writing script to suit his bias.
The Judge may not like Trump's ban; clearly, he does not. The Judge may believe the ban will be overturned by a higher court because it is unconstitutional. The Judge may think Trump is committing an immoral act. But all that is beside the point. The only thing Judge Robart was empowered to do was issue a TRO or not issue a TRO. Period.
Why should he have the right to apply his TRO, not a law, to the whole of the United States? Maybe he's a god we haven't been told about. If so, I'd like to see the evidence.
Next point: The judge made a number of comments to justify issuing his the TRO: "The States are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of [my] preliminary relief [restraining order]."
That is absurd on its face. Irreparable harm? This means harm that can never be fixed? Come on. The Judge may as well have said, "I'm biased. I don't like Trump's EO and I don't like him. So when I said 'irreparable', I exaggerated by a few thousand miles. Ha-ha."
The Judge wrote: "The EO [Trump's Executive Order limiting immigration] adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel."
More fluff, nonsense, and outright deception. Does the Judge seriously expect us to believe that the banning of 35,000 more refugees than the 2016 federal cap is going to decimate the States?
(In his EO, Trump wrote: "I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest." An NPR political editor stated: "For 2016, the cap was 85,000." The difference is 35,000.)
Judge Robart wrote: "In addition, the States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage...inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities...as well as injury to the States' operations, tax bases, and public funds."
Same objections as above. Judge Robart is stretching the truth to the breaking point. His definition of "harm" and "irreparable harm" are coming from his private dictionary of exaggerations. He's winging it.
Except it isn't.
A Judge who can take powers not granted to him, who can invent, out of whole cloth, dire consequences where none exist, is hustling the system he's sworn to defend.