Dipwad judge, who simply stepped in to stop Trump EO on immigration, was told by Justice Department that he has no idea what he is doing.
The judge admits as much when he offers no explanation as to what his standing is, or his reasoning, simply stating that he “believes” Trump’s EO to be wrong.
Well, guess again, jerko.
Washington Examiner –
James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump‘s executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried.
Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State’s claims. Indeed, for all except the most partisan, it is likely impossible to read the Washington State lawsuit, plus Robart’s brief comments and writing on the matter, plus the Justice Department’s response, and not come away with the conclusion that the Trump order is on sound legal and constitutional ground.
Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart’s restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president’s constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment” about risks faced by the United States.
Despite the overwhelming strength of the administration’s argument, what happens next — as the case is argued in a liberal circuit and then possibly moves on to a Supreme Court divided evenly, 4 to 4, among liberal and conservative justices — is impossible to predict. But strength of the case does not assure victory. As Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio host who also served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, tweeted on Sunday: “The law is on Donald Trump‘s side. Doesn’t mean that the courts will follow it.”
This is what happens when a dirtbag, wool-hatted, protesting thug happens to pass the bar. Adults have to step in and brainsplain to the addled.
(Ya, ya, this guy is supposedly a conservative… cur from the mold of the most disappointingly “conservative” judges like Anthony Kennedy.)