Judge Watson Validates Conservative Criticism Against Judiciary

written by Mick Staton March 17, 2017

It was pretty much a forgone conclusion that a liberal judge somewhere would issue a ruling against the latest effort by the Trump administration to implement a travel ban from middle eastern countries. With the first ruling we made it easy for them as the administration’s “Ready, FIRE, Aim” strategy applied the ban to Green Card holders and Legal Permanent Residents. That gave the left a nice big legal hook to hang their hat on. The White House, after losing at the appeals court level, wisely went back to the drawing board.

This time, however, the Trump administration did their homework and did it right. They consulted the Justice Department, reviewed the law, and created an iron-clad executive order that reflected the will of the Executive Branch, using powers that have clearly been delineated to the President and have been exercised by Presidents of both parties in the past. The result when brought before the courts again? As expected, another liberal judge provides another ruling against the President.

I won’t go through a detailed analysis of the judge’s ruling. Anyone interested can read TBE’s Dave Webster and his excellent analysis. What concerns me more than the arguments Judge Watson makes to defend his ruling is the fact that Judge Watson’s ruling was a predetermined decision in search of a rationale.

It is pretty clear that Judge Watson had already decided to rule against the travel ban before he had even heard arguments. You don’t produce a 43 page opinion mere hours after hearing oral arguments if you haven’t already made up your mind ahead of time. The weakness of his reasoning confirms that he was looking for any excuse to back up his predetermined decision. This goes to the heart of the liberal philosophy to the judiciary, which views the courts as a way to make policy and advance political causes instead of interpreting the law.

Article III of the Constitution provides the foundation for our judicial system and envisions their power as neutral arbitrators, not rule makers. Their role is similar to that of a baseball umpire, or football referees. They are not the ones who create the rules by which the game is played. They are simply there to make sure the players follow the rules as they are written. Conservatives are generally comfortable with this “follow the rules” role of the judiciary. Liberals, on the other hand, are not. Liberals believe that a judge should use their power to “change the world.” They want judges to make the laws conform with their own political beliefs. They believe social and political changes that were unable to win popular support at the ballot box and with the elected legislatures, can instead be implemented by a “progressive” judiciary. The inherent danger to our Country is that they are not wrong.

Contrary to popular belief, a judge is not limited on how they can rule. Oh, we like to think that judges are limited by the law, or constrained by precedent. Legally, however, there is almost nothing that prevents a judge from ruling exactly the way they want to, no matter what the law says. With a lifetime appointment and nearly zero oversight, the only thing that constrains a judge in their rulings are their own character (or lack thereof), and the philosophy that governs their beliefs. Simply examining the ruling of Judge Watson against the Trump travel ban proves my point. His grant of standing for the state of Hawaii in this case is ludicrous. His rationale for declaring this order to be a Muslim ban relies not on the text or actual effect of the order itself, but on unrelated campaign statements. Judge Watson’s entire ruling is based on irrelevant and incorrect stances, but he doesn’t care. For Judge Watson, this is not about the law. It is about stopping a political opponent. It’s about building up his liberal credentials the next time a Democrat becomes President and is looking for a potential Appeals Court or Supreme Court nominee.

The only real danger a judge faces is being overturned on appeal, but that is a risk any activist judge is always willing to take. In the case of Judge Watson’s ruling, the case goes back to the loony 9th Circuit which has already ruled against the first Trump travel ban, and shows every indication they will do so again. The 9th Circuit itself is the epitome of judicial activism. Dedicated to handing down rulings that advance liberal causes, the 9th has had more decisions overturned than any other court of appeals in the country.

This lack of respect for the law shown by Judge Watson and the 9th circuit validates every criticism Conservatives have ever leveled at the left and their judicial activism. It has caused people to lose trust in an impartial legal system, and that lack of trust is a very dangerous thing when civil society depends on respect for the rule of law.

There needs to be a real reform of the federal judiciary. Congress has the power to determine the scope and reach of any of the courts below the Supreme Court. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The power, jurisdiction, and terms of office for federal circuit and appeals courts come from Congress, and Congress can change them if they so choose, and the first thing that should change is an end to lifetime appointments.

I don’t believe we should have judges stand for election. That would completely politicize the judiciary that has already become far too political, but I do believe a lifetime appointment is far too long. I believe a term of office of 10 years or so, similar to the FBI Director of the Chairman of the Fed, would be preferential. It would help level the playing field between the three branches of government, giving the Executive and the Legislative Branches a chance to review the decisions of judges and replace ones that do not adhere to the role of neutral arbitrator.

Forcing judges to defend their decisions in order to hold onto their jobs for another term would take away some of the incentive on the left to engage in judicial activism. Men and women looking to hold onto their power and position would think twice about ignoring the law in their rulings if they knew they could lose that gavel and those black robes for taking the law into their own hands.

The lifetime appointment was designed to free judges from basing their rulings on the pressure of politics. Instead, it has provided cover and protection for the worst kind of political activism, and it is high time that protection was stripped away, and judges were held accountable to the people for their actions.

Mick Staton

Devoted husband and father of five, Mick is a recovering politician who now works in the software development field. He has spent most of his life involved in politics, starting out working for his father's Congressional campaigns in WV when he was 8 years old. Since moving to Loudoun County Mick has served as a precinct captain, district chairman, Loudoun County YR Chairman, and was elected to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in 2003.

Chad Davis

Congress could also break up the liberal 9th Circuit. Here in the 4th, I wouldn’t mind if we moved Maryland to the 3rd Circuit either.
Tyler Pieron

Excellent points and well written. I agree completely.
Mies Rohe

Why express astonishment at the decisions, which are preliminary pending full hearings and full decisions. Let’s walk through it:

POTUS acted with unconstitutional religious animus as evidenced by his mouth and Guliani. Both say POTUS sought a Muslim ban. If so, he acted without constitutional authority because our US Constitution prohibits religious discrimination.

Better you should ask why Trump worded his goal in a fashion prohibited by the US Constitution than that you should display ignorance about the speed of the written decision, which comes no doubt courtesy of cut and paste and advanced preparation (it’s not as if there hasn’t been advance warning of cases like these).

Who knows? Perhaps he or his staff may be working on a law review article on the topic. While the decision carries his name, it is no doubt the product of his staff with his aid and final judgment in drafting.
- Warmac9999
  
  There is no exception to the presidential immigration powers based on religion.
  - Mies Rohe
    
    The exception is that you swore to uphold the constitution and the law! You cannot seriously defend the argument that POTUS (or any American, especially so a govt official) may ignore the constitution in discharging the duties of office. It is an absurd contention and indicates a degree of desperate contortion that is pitiable, the refuge of Kings, Queens and royalty — what we left behind, the boot of the Crown!
- Dave Webster
  
  Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you Mies that campaign statements can be used to strike down an executive order. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/324336-to-block-trumps-ban-hawaii-judge-uses-psychoanalysis-not-legal
  - Mies Rohe
    
    I might even agree with that, depending upon the arguments presented. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a stay pending hearings and briefings on the issue. I believe that Dershowitz suggested it is a novel issue without a known outcome at the US SupCt, which supports a stay pending the creation of a full record for appeals courts to peruse.
- Warmac9999
  
  Your first sentence applies only to American citizens who,have a constitutionally defined right. It does not apply to people who are not citizens and are not in the USA.
  
  It is obvious that the decision was pre-decided and nothing Trump,could have written would have withstood what is an unconstitutional judicial decision without foundation in American law.
  - Mies Rohe
    
    American citizens expecting visitors, especially family members, or lecturing scholars (amongst others) may assert their rights in this regard, so the issue is real.
    
    Yes, pre-decided by POTUS’ statements that constitute motive. It will be interesting to see what weight is accorded them.
    
    This matter should receive a hearing and the development of a full record for the appeals courts to consider. In the meantime, a conservative judge will do the conservative thing and preserve the status quo.
- Mick Staton
  
  1. In order to be able to sue, you must first have standing. To have standing, you must show an irreparable harm that a legal order or ruling could remedy.
  
  2. The possible loss of tourism revenue for the state of Hawaii DOES NOT constitute standing as Hawaii does not have a right to a certain level of tourism revenue from visitors from the six countries on the travel ban list. If it did, then North Carolina should sue the NCAA and NBA for pulling their tournament games and All Star Game out of the state over the bathroom issue.
  
  3. Ismail Elshikh, mentioned by Dave W. in the comments, does not have standing because he already has a visa. His family members do not have standing because they do not have a right to a visa.
  
  4. A temporary restraining order is only meant to be given when a. The harm is immediate, b. The harm is irreparable, and c. The plaintiff’s case is strong enough that it would win on the merits. This case meets none of those criteria because, a. There is no harm, b. The supposed “harm” is temporary (only 4 months in length), and c. The plaintiff’s have no legal rights to what they are claiming is a harm.
  
  5. The claim of a Muslim ban cannot be construed from the order because there are Muslims that live in almost every country in the world. In order to ban Muslims from entering the country, the President would have had to either establish an actual religious test for entering the country or ban travel from every country in the world. This is a farce.
  
  The judge knows all this, and he doesn’t care. His decision was made before he ever heard arguments. He issued the TRO because he knows that if he didn’t, by the time briefs were written, pleadings were heard, and a trial was scheduled, the temporary ban would be already be finished and the arguments of the plaintiffs would be shown to be the farce that they are.
  - Mies Rohe
    
    You are mistaken. Harms needn’t be irreparable to have standing. You can argue all these points, but only at a full hearing where a record is created regarding these “facts,” proving them to the court. In the meantime, it is conservative and prudent to maintain the status quo until these determinations are adjudged in court after creating a full record under oath.
    
    As regards the TRO and irreparable harm, a lecture, speaker, visitor denied entry often cannot be undone; You first claim it is temporary and then shift to no legal rights (untrue because family members, universities, etc) instead of focusing on the irreparable nature.
    
    That there are members of the class not attacked is not determinative. It could easily be argued that even one person denied on account of their religion violates the constitution, and this has happened. Indeed, there was only Rosa Parks. Your argument here is silly and desperate.
    
    The judge knows nothing until a full record is created under oath. The judge knows only that a serious allegation has been raised and there are bare minimum “facts” (for example, POTUS’ foolish statements) that establish the *possibility* the plaintiff will prevail and suffer irreparable harm in the process. Schedule a hearing and stand down in the meantime. Easy decision to make and understand.
    - Mick Staton
      
      I didn’t say harms need to be irreparable to have standing. What I said was to have standing there has to be an actual harm, and that a favorable judicial decision can remedy that harm. Show me the actual harm suffered by the state of HI.
      
      In order to get a TRO, the harm must be both immediate and irreparable. A temporary travel ban, by its very definition, cannot be an irreparable harm because it is temporary. Lectures can be rescheduled. Travel plans can be changed. Show me the irreparable harm against anyone that would justify the TRO.
      
      If you can’t show immediate irreparable harm, you can’t get a TRO. If you can’t show harm, you can’t get the standing to even ask for the TRO. There are so many violations of law and the rules of civil procedure to make this decision laughable, but again, the judge doesn’t care because his decision was not based on law, but instead on advancing a liberal cause.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        You did write it: “1. In order to be able to sue, you must first have standing. To have
        standing, you must show an irreparable harm that a legal order or ruling
        could remedy.” — that’s cut and paste. It’s easy to read here on this page.
        
        Claims of religious discrimination are indeed irreparable in many ways. They are amongst the very most serious allegations that can be raised in our justice system and for good reason. POTUS and Guliani amongst others evidenced their motive publicly. Bare minimum, there should be a full hearing held with witnesses under oath.
        
        So let’s agree our focus is on the TRO. It’s the judge’s call, reviewable by courts above. I easily understand and comprehend it, whether I agree with it or not. The current CBP procedures can be followed a bit longer, but we may not be able to go back and restore the time before the alleged religious discrimination occurs. This is simply a judgment call. It could go either way, but acting as if it is somehow incomprehensible and evidence of bias and judicial removal is ridiculous. Others judges have agreed and taken the same position.
        
        BTW, I would feel the same way about taking a gun from someone. Absent some showing that there is a clear and present danger, I’d be inclined to have a hearing before I allowed someone to take it away. Second Amendment rights, like First Amendment rights, are not to be violated without witnesses under oath.
      - Mick Staton
        
        I stand corrected on the first part. You do not need to show irreparable harm to have standing, but you do need to show a real harm. I have edited my comment to correct that.
        
        You keep going back to the “religious discrimination” argument. That is the weakest argument of all. First, the state of HI has absolutely no standing to sue on behalf of religious discrimination. The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment bars the state from establishing a religion so there can be no religion for the “state” to freely express, or be denied its expression.
        
        The state is not allowed to act on behalf of other parties, either, because the jurisdiction of Federal courts is limited to an actual dispute between real parties. In addition, Ismail Elshikh cannot bring suit on behalf of family members who are neither citizens nor resident of the United States, and nobody is denying his ability to freely express his religion, so again, there is no harm.
        
        Your argument about taking a gun away from someone without a hearing falls flat, too. States all over this country are taking away gun rights even after the Heller decision affirmed an individuals right to keep and bear arms. This is another example of the liberal judicial activism I’ve been talking about.
        
        Finally, I find it highly ironic that liberal judges are arguing religious discrimination when they have absolutely no issues with discriminating against Christian businesses who do not want to take part in gay weddings.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        Respectfully, Mick, judges do not make these arguments. The advocates make the arguments. Judges rule on them. Where religious discrimination is alleged and there are motive and mechanism in evidence there should be a full hearing. Absent good reason to the contrary, conservative jurisprudence maintains the status quo in the meantime.
        
        Again: Trump should have said nothing about banning Muslims. His loose lips sink ships.
        
        You apparently misread my point re: guns, which is that I feel the same way if there is an Executive Order to strip people of their guns. For you to cite others who feel or rule differently doesn’t deny for a moment that I feel that way, and that my feeling is consistent with my feelings on this issue, both of which allege violation of the First or Second Amendment. Maintain SQ w/TRO until full hearing, full record.
        
        I am done discussing your continued misunderstandings as regards standing. Let’s leave that to lawyers and judges who practice in these areas, and admit, too, that these are also issues subject to a full evidentiary hearing.
      - Mick Staton
        
        Respectfully, you are totally missing the point. Judges are supposed to follow the law and the rules of procedure. This judge is not. This judge is inventing standing in order to justify his desired outcome. This judge, and other liberal judges around the country, habitually bend and twist the rules and the law to achieve their desired outcome.
        
        That is the entire point of this piece. Liberal judges like Judge Watson are re-writing the constitution and the law to fit their purpose. Then liberal appeals courts uphold those rulings. Simply because one judicial activist upholds another judicial activist does not make it right. That is why lifetime appointments for judges are a bad idea and should be ended. Judges should be held accountable for their decisions.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        Mick: If they fail to follow the law and/or the rules of procedure, they are quickly overturned. This judge — while you disagree with his decisions — is following what he believes to be the law and the rules of procedure in this cast.
        
        He would say you are inventing standing rules (e.g., the state cannot sue in Federal court!) and attempting to bend and twist the rules (standing requires a showing of irreparable harm) and the law (POTUS can ignore the constitution) to your desired outcome. The difference between you: He has extensive legal qualifications (Harvard Law) and was approved unanimously by a Republican senate.
        
        When you make the same argument repeatedly but get the same result, you might acknowledge your interpretation may deserve reconsideration.
        
        Regardless, there is going to be a full hearing and if the stay does not dissolve in the meantime we will continue with our existing policies as regards these countries, a policy of extensive vetting before visas are issued.
        
        It is conservative to preserve the status quo pending a decision. An activist changes things with their own judgment without awaiting a full hearing.
      - Mick Staton
        
        Show me the law that guarantees the right of a state to provide an education to non-citizen/non-resident aliens.
        
        Show me the law that guarantees the right of a state to employ non-citizen/non-resident aliens as professors, or invite non-citizen/non-resident aliens as lecturers in their universities without any interruption.
        
        Show me the law that guarantees the right of a state to receive uninterrupted tourism revenue from non-citizen/non-resident aliens from anywhere in the world.
        
        Show me the law that guarantees the right of a citizen to demand the grant of a visa to a non-citizen/non-resident alien, much less to demand it without any delay.
        
        Show me the law that allows a court to consider facts not in evidence in order to determine a ruling.
        
        Show me the law that allows the court to consider campaign statements as facts and evidence to demonstrate harm (I would love to see this one so I can sue Barack Obama for his, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” lie).
        
        Unless you can provide ANY statutory support for any of these points, you cannot demonstrate any harm or standing for either of the plaintiffs in this case. If you cannot provide evidence of harm or standing, you cannot argue that either there is an immediate, irreparable harm or that plaintiffs will most likely prevail based on the merits of their arguments, and both of those points are required to issue a TRO.
        
        For that matter, show me ANYWHERE that gives the states or a private citizen any standing on matters of immigration. The Supreme Court has already ruled that immigration is an issue that is wholly in the control of the federal government.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        You’ve lost it! Completely! Freedom is the answer, and there need be no statutory support for freedom. Besides, statements are statements, whether made on the campaign trail or not — a novel question for the court to decide. Facts not in evidence? There needs to be a full hearing to bring them into evidence, thus the decision. Your list of questions demonstrates only your ignorance. You’ve gone off the deep end. Is there a statute that says you can rant and rant and go off the deep end in pursuit of your claim? Of course not, and yet I would defend to the death your right to do so just as you do here, statute or no stature. Freedom!
      - Mick Staton
        
        I’ve lost it? You are proving my point for me. We are taking about a court of law, where the rules and the law HAVE to be followed in order to insure a fair, just, and impartial ruling. Your argument boils down to the idea that a judge can ignore all laws and rules, because…FREEDOM!!
        
        What freedom is being denied to any citizen or legal resident of the US by this temporary travel ban? What citizen or legal resident is being denied the right to practice their religion as they see fit?
        
        Freedom is a God given right, but the guarantee of freedom in this Country comes from the Constitution. The Constitution provides the framework for the laws we create to promote a civil society. In order to maintain that civil society, we need judges to fairly and impartially rule on disputes of the law, When liberal activist judges ignore the law and rule the way they want, because (FREEDOM!) then they are no better than tyrants and threaten respect for the rule of law, which then risks a breakdown of our civil society (which is the overall point of this blog post).
      - Mies Rohe
        
        We do not require permission in the form of statutes to exercise our rights.
        
        I did not suggest for a moment that a judge has freedom to ignore the law. That is your crazy strawman. I said clearly that if they do they are overruled on appeal; That is how the system is designed to work.
        
        Our freedoms are God-given, the US Constitution defends them and is clear: We need no statutory authority to exercise our freedoms, despite your ranting to the contrary.
        
        I repeat: I did not suggest for a moment that any judge is free to ignore the law (although, curiously, the suggestion to the contrary is that POTUS is free to ignore the constitution).
        
        Open your mind to the possibility that the constitution’s protection of religious belief applying to our citizens guarantees our citizens, their universities, the states the benefit of immigration policies applied without regard to religious belief, that are rooted instead in just cause and equal application of the law.
        
        Conservative means, in part, we oppose rushing into change. This judge did just that. Said stop, let’s have a full hearing and consider these claims with evidence adduced under oath. Prudent.
        
        Only an activist would force change upon the system without full consideration, the course you seem to counsel. Shame on you. This matter needs a full hearing prior to implementation and only a liberal would rush headlong into change without consideration of the consequences.
        
        BTW, the first judge who blocked the first attempt is vindicated by just that approach. We’ve discovered in hindsight the mistakes of that first attempt — one military interpreter from Iraq was wrongly denied entry, for example — and its mistake of canceling visas and green cards. Fortunately, that judge sent us back to the drawing table.
        
        Perhaps this judge, too, is doing us another favor. We shall see. But let’s acknowledge it is conservative and not liberal behavior to measure twice, cut once.
      - Mick Staton
        
        You write, “Open your mind to the possibility that the constitution’s protection of religious belief applying to our citizens guarantees our citizens, their universities, the states the benefit of immigration policies applied without regard to religious belief, that are rooted instead in just cause and equal application of the law.”
        
        I asked you before to show me where the state or citizens have any say over immigration laws of the United States. You didn’t answer. Furthermore, show me how a 4 month temporary ban on the entry of non-citizen, non-resident, non-visa holding individuals from 6 specific countries has the effect of banning individuals of a certain religion from entering the United States. You can’t, because as I stated before:
        
        “Muslims live in almost every country in the world. In order to ban Muslims from entering the country, the President would have had to either establish an actual religious test for entering the country or ban travel from every country in the world.”
        
        It is not conservative to replace the lawfully created and established laws of the land, and the lawfully created rules of civil procedure with the opinions of one man simply because he doesn’t agree with them. That is what has happened here. Any attempt to claim otherwise is just excuse making to defend an outcome you support.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        Didn’t answer? I pointed specifically to Texas v US, a 2015 case where the Fifth Circuit upheld standing for Texas to sue over the immigration laws of the US. Did you answer? No.
        
        No one said it had the effect banning people of a certain religion. Another of your strawmen. The claim is that the decision is based on religion, making it wrong, a claim that deserves a full hearing. Let’s await the outcome of a full hearing, maintaining the status quo for now.
        
        Your last paragraph is humorous because that is what the plaintiffs in this case claim POTUS is doing. That the judge says it should await a full hearing is a conservative, prudent course of action. Only an activist would rush to change the law of the US. You sir are that activist.
      - Mick Staton
        
        1. You didn’t respond to me, so I didn’t see it.
        
        2. Mr. Webster has responded quite succinctly to that argument. Furthermore, the DADA statute and its companion DACA, act in clear contravention of established federal law, while the travel ban is clearly within the rights of the executive, and has been exercised just so by presidents of both parties.
        
        3. The plaintiffs are claiming through statements not present in the EO that the goal of the temporary travel ban is a “Muslim Ban.” There is no evidence to support such a claim. You can’t make a claim of religious discrimination if you are allowing people of said religion to enter the US, but not allowing anyone of any religion to enter the US from certain countries. It just doesn’t work.
        
        4.The plaintiffs are not making the argument I made in my last paragraph. They are claiming the president does not have the power to place a temporary hold on travel to the US from any specific country, and they are flat out wrong, both in statute and in precedent.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        2. Standing for Texas, but not Hawaii? Precedent supports standing for states to challenge Federal immigration policy. There are lots of things a govt official or POTUS may ordinarily do that become illegal if violative of constitutional guarantees, especially religious freedom.
        
        3. A. Statements made by the executive may evidence intent. B. It is silly to argue that the possibility of more claims of Muslim discrimination precludes a solitary claim of Muslim discrimination. It would be wrong if it were even one single person from one single country if the intent were proven it was done to discriminate against someone based solely on their religious beliefs. It is anti-American to discriminate based on religious beliefs. We do not do that.
        
        4. We shall see. If the president does this with provable intent to discriminate on religious belief, it is reviewable. He shouldn’t have evidenced publicly his desire to do what the plaintiffs claim he did, but he did do that, unmistakably so.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        Mick: Here is the argument of the conservative State of Texas through its conservative governor and attorney general in their 2015 brief in Texas v US (15-674) on why they think states have the right to sue the federal govt over immigration executive orders:
        
        “Plaintiffs Have Standing.”
        
        “A party has Article III standing when it establishes a “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014).”
        
        “The plaintiff States submitted multiple declarations detailing the millions of dollars in costs that DAPA will impose on them. These are quintessential Article III concrete injuries that give the States standing under principles applicable to any litigant.”
        
        “But States are not ordinary litigants; they are due “special solicitude” in the standing
        analysis. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 520, quoted in Ariz. State Legislature
        v. Ariz. Indep. Redist. Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2664 n.10 (2015).”
        
        “The plaintiff States do not need special solicitude for standing here, but the Court would have to overrule Massachusetts to deny their standing.”
        
        You asked for an example of where states have any say over the immigration laws of the US. Here’s one from 2015 that is directly on point. The Fifith Circuit granted Texas and other states standing to sue. The Sup Ct heard the case but has not ruled.
        
        Why Texas et al but not Hawaii et al, Mick? And given that a conservative state with conservative officials has asserted its right to standing on immigration executive orders, are you ready to concede that this is not a leftist, liberal, activist judge plot?
      - Dave Webster
        
        The judge is clearly inventing standing rules. He knows the First Amendment freedom of religion rights do not apply to visa applicants. The Supreme Court “has long held that an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/519828/his application.” Landon, 459 U.S. at 32; see Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762. So he solves this problem by stating Muslim Americans have hurt feelings because their fellow
        Muslims overseas are being discriminated against. This outrageous ruling this confers standing to EVERY Muslim in America whose feelings are hurt. Judge Watson has effectively overturned the Supreme
        Court precedent I cited. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/519828/
      - Mies Rohe
        
        If you are correct the judge(s) will be overturned and you have nothing to fear. On the other hand, rights and especially religious rights are popular with conservatives and liberals alike. Roe was decided by a 6-3 Republican-appointed court. We shall see what transpires in the judicial process, but it should surprise no one that a prudent, conservative judge wishes to preserves in the meantime the status quo instead of racing off as a liberal activist acting without benefit of a full hearing and evidentiary admission.
Warmac9999

Juridical dictatorship favoring globalist interests. Nothing constitutional or American about this decision. It is the equivalent of a coup by the judicial left and the obama holdovers in the congress and bureaucracy.
Dave Webster

By the way, I didn’t mention all the standing arguments in my article because I like to keep my articles short but here are more ridiculous ones propagated by Judge Watson. Plaintiff Ismail Elshikh asserted his mother in law in Syria might not be able to obtain a visa (even though she hasn’t completed the application process and the new Executive Order allows for exceptions for family members.)

Ismail Elshik’s family members are hurt, confused and sad. “([“My children] are deeply affected by the knowledge that the United States—their own country—would discriminate against individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them, including members of their own family, and who hold the same religious beliefs. They do not fully understand why this is happening, but they feel hurt, confused, and sad.”).
Muslims in general in Hawaii are upset. “Muslims in the Hawai‘i Islamic community feel that the new Executive Order targets Muslim citizens because of their religious views and national origin. Dr. Elshikh believes that, as a result of the new Executive Order, he and members of the Mosque will not be able to associate as freely with those of other faiths.” Second Amended Complaint. ¶ 90. These injuries are sufficiently personal, concrete, particularized, and actual to confer standing in the Establishment Clause context Order p. 25.
I didn’t realize if I was sad and confused that confers standing upon me to eviscerate an Executive Order.
mezurak

Here read this.

https://sy.usembassy.gov/visas/
Franklin Fogle

Unless I’m mistaken, travel bans do not violate anyone’s right to practice religion, or denies them abilities to practice religions of their preference. In plainer terms, disallowing a person to come to the U.S. does not keep them from practicing religion, and does not violate their constitutional rights, since they are neither citizens, nor have constitutional rights unless they are within our borders. Second, for those foolish enough to claim that Trump’s travel ban was “racist”, let’s clear something up: “Muslim” is not a designate of race, but merely a designate of religion. Yes, the rulings against travel bans are edicts searching for justification.
- Warmac9999
  
  Muslim is not a descripion of race nor is it a description of a religion. Islam is a 1400 year old ideology with a religious component. The ideology is based on conquest – and with it the establishment of sharia law, a caliphate form of government, and a culture of suppression of non-Muslims,women, and children. As reducing gan recently said, Islam is at war with the west, the crescent against the cross (although the cross is in much need of repair).
Mies Rohe

BTW, why is it that no one notices Texas led a coalition of states that sued the US in 2015, arguing that it is forced to subsidize drivers licenses for immigrants that the US should prohibit. Why do Texas et al get standing in that decision but Hawaii et al should not when they sue to reduce enforcement?

Standing is standing. For Texas and Hawaii alike, regardless of the direction of their claim. In Texas v USA the Fifth Circuit wrote “Reviewing the district court’s order for abuse of discretion, we affirm the preliminary injunction because the states have standing. …” Just so, goose and gander.
- Dave Webster
  
  In the Texas case they submitted evidence that DACA would require Texas to grant driver’s licenses to those covered by the order, at a cost of millions if dollars, since it granted them lawful presence. In the Hawaii case they presented no such concrete damages evidence. Hawaii speculated, but wasn’t sure, that the order might reduce tourism. Hawaii speculated that if in the future a prospective student or teacher were denied a visa the denial would have an adverse impact on the finances of state owned universities. However, at the present time no one had been denied a visa. The state’s “damages” are completely hypothetical and certainly not concrete.
  - Mies Rohe
    
    Texas’s claim was far lighter because every party stipulated that Texas could charge more for licenses or stop issuing them to non-citizens entirely within their own discretion, so no damage to Texas.
    
    Hawaii and Maryland (more to be heard) claim damage in excess of that self-inflicted by Texas, and First Amendment claims are given deference in this regard. The cases will be heard in full. What should happen in the meantime is the key question here.
    
    Prudent and conservative, especially as regards fundamental rights, to maintain the status quo until the record is more fully developed under oath.
    - Dave Webster
      
      Texas didn’t stipulate it suffered no damage because it could change a law that provided that non citizens lawfully present in the US could apply for driver’s licenses. Why should Texas be forced to change this law? Here is the decision. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C15/15-40238-CV0.pdf. With regard to the First Amendment, the plaintiff has not had his First Amendment rights impaired merely because he and his family are sad and concerned” that fellow Muslims overseas are being discriminated against. If that is the standard every Muslim in America has standing to challenge any executive order which affects a Muslim majority country.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        Texas agreed it could’ve eliminated the harm at will, so what were they attributing to federal action? Again, you trivialize state claims substantiated by direct statements from POTUS. He said it, he did it, should own it. Pretending it isn’t so is running from the facts. We all know what happened and why.
      - Dave Webster
        
        What Texas actually alleged was that it would suffer millions in damages if forced to issue the driver’s licenses and if it was forced to change its laws to avoid that result a forced change itself provides standing. “Such a forced change in Texas law would impair Texas’ sovereign interest in ‘the power to create and enforce a legal code.” With regard to the campaign statements of Trump Supreme Court precedent bars the use of those statements to strike down an executive order. As the DOJ noted, [t]he Supreme Court has declined to rely even on press statements and other informal communications by incumbent government officials, recognizing that they may not accurately reflect the government’s position. See
        
        Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 623-24 & n.52 (2006); see also Professionals& Patients for Customized Care v. Shalala, 56 F.3d 592, 599 (5th Cir. 1995). Afortiori, statements by private persons cannot reveal “the government’s ostensible object.” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 859-60; see Modrovich v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397, 411-12 (3d Cir. 2004) (declining to rely on position of nongovernment parties); Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017, 1031 (10th Cir. 2008) (same); Glassman v. Arlington County, 628 F.3d 140, 147 (4th Cir. 2010) (same). Using comments by political candidates to question the stated purpose of later action is particularly problematic. Candidates are not government actors, and statements of what they might attempt to achieve if elected, which are often simplified and imprecise, are not “official act[s].”McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862.” DOJ Brief, pgs 43-44.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        Texas et al had standing as do Hawaii et al. Now that we agree a state showed standing to sue over immigration this interpretation in this case shouldn’t be seen as so very shocking.
        
        What precedent do you cite precluding consideration of Trump/Guliana’s public statements? It’s a novel question, likely circumstantially interpreted.
        
        It will be interesting to see what the hearings bring. I have no idea which way I would go once there is evidence, but until we have a record and evidence I am for the cautious, conservative prudent path of maintaining the status quo.
      - Dave Webster
        
        I already explained why Hawaii’s standing was speculative at best whereas the standing of Texas was not. I also provided the precedent why campaign statements may not be used to interpret executive orders.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        When you read Texas, standing for Hawaii is easy: They don’t get the money they would otherwise get. That’s all it takes if you read Texas, and Texas was even a tougher call because it is observed that Texas has it within its power not to issue the drivers licenses it claims cost it money. Obviously, Hawaii’s claim is not within its control to remedy.
        
        Your claim for your citation exceeds what it actually represents. It is certainly colorably different from this example, where the specific statement is allegedly tied to the act.
        
        What we have in conclusion is an interesting case, not so cut and dried as you pretend, and certainly not so absurd as you played to the crowd here on TBE.
        
        In fact, Hawaii, Maryland, others seek neither more nor less than the other side of the discussion has demanded and achieved: Standing to sue with regards to immigration policy. Texas’ brief in support of its standing is a compelling read that makes obvious a financial interest is more than what is needed to get standing, which is simply a real interest in the outcome, with special preference for state claims (after the ruling in Mass v EPA).
        
        Your claim that that is all crazy and without precedent and the product of activist leftist judges is truly no different than the actions of conservative Rick Perry’s attorney general in right-wing Texas.
      - Dave Webster
        
        Texas provided concrete evidence that if DAPA was not suspended, Texas would suffer concrete damage now. Hawaii asserted that maybe at some point in the future in might suffer damages. There is clearly a difference. Hawaii wasn’t even sure if its tourism had suffered yet Judge Watson decided the potential downturn in tourism is cause for standing. With regard to the campaign statements, if the Supreme Court refuses to admit evidence of press releases from a current administration, it surely won’t admit a campaign statement made over a year ago.
      - Mies Rohe
        
        Apparently, money equals standing. And we shall see what the Sup Ct will rule. Which is the point: We need to wait and see, which is the prudent thing to do.
Edward N Virginia

WE SHOULD ALSO PROPOSE other changes:

Anyone presented for appointment to judge or justice roles should be required to disclose 5 to 10 years’ past tax returns to appropriate committees – not necessarily to the public – AND all candidates for President and Vice President should be required to do FOR THE PUBLIC.

10 year term limits sounds reasonable for judges; how about 20 years for a justice of SCOTUS? AND WHAT ABOUT each President with ONE TERM – of 6 years – ONLY! and EVER?
- Rocinante
  
  We have the opportunity to exercise Term Limits every election. We try to insulate judges from politics — this usually works with men of high moral character… but when you start with a lawyer…

Judge Watson Validates Conservative Criticism Against Judiciary

Your life will be better if you click one of these