Re: Trump’s executive order
Consistency was a longstanding feature of the constitutional rule of law in America. Judges were to apply the law objectively to a set of facts in evidence and rule thereon, leaving their personal and political preferences aside. However, over time the federal judiciary has morphed into an ideological entity. The law is either ignored or twisted into a pretzel to reach a desired outcome.
In 1995, California sued the federal government over reimbursement for Medicaid and incarceration costs associated with illegal immigration. A Carter-appointed federal district court judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that there was no legal precedent for a state to sue the federal government for failing to fully enforce immigration laws.
California appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals claiming that the United States had violated its obligations to protect the state from invasion under the Constitution’s Article IV Invasion and Guarantee Clause by failing to stop the intrusion of illegal aliens across the state’s borders. The court found California’s claim to be a “nonjusticiable political question.”
More recently, an Arizona law allowing police officers to verify the citizenship of anyone otherwise lawfully arrested was held (in part) unconstitutional by a federal district court judge. Once again the 9th Circuit agreed, holding that federal law likely preempted Arizona from implementing their law. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently ruled on appeal that the Arizona law had created “an obstacle to carrying out the purposes and objectives of federal immigration laws.” Once again immigration was held to be a matter for the federal government, not the states.
That brings us to the current dust up over President Donald Trump’s immigration order pursuant to Section 1152 of U.S. Code. The state of Washington filed suit to block implementation of this action claiming “irreparable harm” to that state’s economy and universities. They forum shopped the local judiciary and found a compliant federal district court judge who issued a restraining order. Due to geographical jurisdiction, the government had to file their appeal with (wait for it) the 9th Circuit.
And, sure enough, the nation’s most leftwing court magically found a right for states to be heard on immigration without mentioning one word in its ruling about the plenary power of the president or the relevant federal statute upon which the Trump ban was based.
If this isn’t tyranny by judicial fiat, one wonders what would qualify as such.