Byron York nails federal judge James Robart

Posted on by

Who, as it turns out, knows next-to-nothing about the state of immigrants in America.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

by Byron York

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.

“A judge is just a lawyer who curried favor with a politician.”
— Russell Baker, NYT columnist

True, as you get to become a federal judge by being nominated by a senator from your individual state. In the Ninth DCA, remember, covering California, Oregon and Washington, you’re getting six Demorat senators who are going to do nothing but nominate Demorat judges. Can I get a “duh” from the audience?

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.

Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?”

“Your Honor, I don’t have that information,” said Bennett.

Who does? Judge Robarts swears he does but he either 1) knows nothing, or 2) simply pulled the figure out from his judicial arse.

“Let me tell you,” said Robart. “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you’re here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

No support for that? ISIS has, in fact, said time after time that it insinuates members into refugee streams throughout all the European nations. The Washington Post throws out a number: 60. Byron York writes about Judge Robart’s ruling:

Now, it turns out Robart might not know as much as he let on. Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest analyzed public sources of information, seeking to learn more about people convicted of terror-related offenses. The Justice Department provided the subcommittee with a list of 580 people who were convicted — not just arrested, but tried and convicted — of terror-related offenses between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2014.

But more specifically:

The subcommittee investigated further and found that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born and that an additional 129 were of unknown origin. Of the 380, there were representatives — at least 60 — from all of the countries on the Trump executive order list. And with 129 unknowns, there might be more, as well.

Byron York continues with his original argument:

Perhaps Robart has been briefed by the intelligence community on conditions in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and the rest. Perhaps Robart has received the President’s Daily Brief. Perhaps not.** In any event, the Justice Department argued — reasonably but not successfully — that it is the president, and not a U.S. District Court judge in the Western District of Washington State, who has the knowledge and the authority to make such decisions.

“Your Honor, I think the point is that because this is a question of foreign affairs, because this is an area where Congress has delegated authority to the president to make these determinations, it’s the president that gets to make the determinations,” Bennett said. “And the court doesn’t have authority to look behind those determinations.”

Again I repeat, at the risk of becoming the Department of Redundancy Dept., President Trump’s authority to primarily do as he did is granted under 8 USC 1182.

Please read the rest of Mr York’s excellent article which essentially states this: a federal judge overstepped his bounds. Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in again and thinks the Ninth District Court of Appeals may just reverse Judge Robart and reinstate the executive order as he believes Washington and Minnesota lack the requisite standing.

Also please see my first post about Trump’s travel stay here, where I go into great detail about the executive order, its roll-out and legality.

Finally, Judge James Robart is an odd-duck cipher; a Bush-appointed Republican who goes askew on strange issues. From BlueLivesMatter.com:

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

by Officer Blue

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

Seattle, Washington – U.S. District Judge James Robart on Monday expressed a strong anti-police bias when dealing with a case involving Seattle police union’s contract negotiations. Judge Robart went on a rant about deadly force statistics against black people and proclaimed, “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart is presiding over a 2012 consent decree requiring the city to adopt reforms to address Department of Justice allegations of biased policing and excessive force. The proposed changes will have a major effect on all union members, including discipline being investigated and determined by non-law enforcement investigators. The changes make it faster and easier to discipline an officer if the public believes that the officer was wrong, whether or not that was actually the case.

Continuing to build an image in his mind of being some sort of folk-hero, Judge Robart went on to say that 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population. Judge Robart then declared that “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart’s rant is actually a perfect example of why law enforcement officers cannot be excluded from the process of disciplining other officers. The statistics on police shootings that Judge Robart cited were completely out of context, and ignore the reasons that shooting occur.

Milo Yiannopoulos talks about immigrants and refugees having destroyed Europe.

I don’t believe Americans or Europeans hate immigrants or immigration. What they do dislike is watching their countries — particularly the EU — being consumed from within by hordes of individuals in such numbers as to almost ensure no assimilation whatsoever. Sadly, it is from the EU that we should learn. Again, thank the Atlantic Ocean.

Bottom line? I believe the law is on President Trump’s side. That does not mean there weren’t visual problems with its roll-out and coordination. And it doesn’t mean that judges don’t have axes to grind or agendas to keep.

One interesting note: the judge in Boston who held for President Trump likely has the Boston Marathon Bombing in the back of his mind, has experienced the reality of close terror and wants to ensure we know whom we’re allowing into our nation.

BZ

P.S.

This is England. This could be the United States — beginning with Michigan — shortly. Remember: “demography is prophecy.”

Wise up, America. Educate yourself about Islam.

Finally, this is President Trump speaking about illegal immigrants and the need to follow the rule of law.

Oh wait, sorry. That was Barack Hussein Obama in 2005. My mistake. A black man can say this about illegal immigration but Caucasoids cannot. A grievous error on my part.

 

 Share
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

8 thoughts on “Byron York nails federal judge James Robart”

  1. Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that Roberts was a Republican, or at least leaning that way. He was appointed by Bush and served as legislative assistant to another RepubIican.

    Are you going to do a post on Trump’s latest salvo that there have been many many terror attacks all over Europe but in “many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it.” And going on to say “They have their reasons, and you understand that.”

    I scanned the list the White House issued later (typos and all) and remembered the majority of them – some of them had blanket coverage.

    Not his finest hour!

  2. Hope the 9th U.S. Circuit Ct. App. gets it right and overturns the TRO Judge Robart issued. Just like this election taught everyone something about the Electoral College, this appeal will be a maze of procedure and politics and may even wind up in the U.S. Sup. Ct. Even Prudential barriers, standing issues, etc. should have stopped the Dist. Ct. from even getting to the merits on the TRO, it should fail on the merits anyway since the 4 part test in Fed. R. Civ. P. wasn’t met. Will be interesting to see how this case turns out and what affect it will have long term should the lower Fed. Courts continue to stifle President Trump’s immigration policy and EO’s using TRO’s and Preliminary Injunctions before they can actually hear the suit itself. When, if, and why the US Sup Court will rule on this TRO is a mystery to me at this point, and what they might decide can have a major impact on how the three branches of Gov’t will function during these next 4 years.

    I wonder what the judges in the other 94 Fed Districts are thinking should one of them get to hear a similar case and issue a ruling like this and subsequently make a historical name for themselves by creating a constitutional “crisis” where there isn’t one to begin with. Scary stuff.

    • That’s odd, I was thinking the same thing. Here’s a district judge in the spotlight making a name for himself. And regarding the Ninth? One thing you can COUNT on is that they’ll — most of the time — issue the wrong opinion. They are not the most overturned DCA for nothing. In regard to MY case they affirmed and my case went up to SCOTUS, where they slapped the shit out of the Ninth in their opinion.

      For fuck’s sake, even I beat the Ninth. That’s one reason why I became attuned to how this works.

      BZ

  3. I can explain the Electoral College to someone in a half- hour. Trying to understand this case from a procedural perspective, let alone dealing with the crazy finding and ruling by Judge Robart, is something for the law review crowd to publish on. Like an OJ case for Fed Court/ Fed Jurisdiction buffs like me.

    • All it does is affirm that federal judges are imperial and can issue anything they like from the inner recesses of their sphincters.

      BZ

Comments are closed.