In the first case, Washington state United States District Court Judge James Robart waved the magic wand and his decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, by far the most liberal and overturned appellate court in the nation. That was early February and now, in mid-March, a second rogue judge, United States District Court Judge Theodore Chuang in Hawaii, issued a similar ruling on a revised executive order. Maryland, another very liberal state, did the same thing in District Court there shortly thereafter.
In the Hawaii case, Judge Chuang was seen meeting for dinner with former President Obama a mere two hours before the ruling was released. Is that a coincidence? You be the judge, but one thing is not a coincidence. Judge Chuang was a friend of Obama in law school and he also served as a special legal adviser to the Democrats during the Benghazi disaster. He worked hard for the State Department to keep the full details out of the hands of those who wanted to know. And, not surprisingly, it wasn't long before he was appointed by Obama to his current District Court judgeship.
The bottom line issue, however, is what does this mean to the American jurisprudence system? Well, first, it means that we are in the process of relegating the Presidency to a position of near irrelevance unless a lower level federal court agrees with his actions even though they are clearly legal. There are ninety-four District Courts in the land, so why would we allow a judge overseeing legal issues in one particular area to dictate to the rest of the country? We clearly should not. And so the President, responsible for the safety and security of all Americans, not the whims of an ideological judge who uses absurd arguments that the best legal minds in the nation publicly denounce, becomes neutered from doing his job. Such liberal standout legal minds as Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz found the judgement wanting and even CNN's own legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, said it was woefully inaccurate. And five sitting members on the Ninth Circuit, appointed by Administrations of both parties, found it unlawful.
But there's even more that is wrong about it and it is in the current application of the appeal process. The practice of "judge shopping", selecting a judge with a biased view to handle the case, is a travesty of justice, not an aid to it. This allows for a single judge to stymie a legal action just because he doesn't like it and, sadly, the liberals use this tactic as their principal means of stonewalling a desired action. It has only gotten much worse since the lower level courts were packed by liberal appointees following Harry Reid's change of Senate Rules. And the Senate, a former home of extensive debate, has become a laughingstock as members on both sides of the aisle prefer their internal buddy system to doing the people's work. Too bad they don't realize that the Constitution is more important than their self-absorbing rules. The result in this case is a complete bastardization of the American system of jurisprudence and the will of the people.
This must stop or it will be the death of our democratic republican experiment that has served us well since the late 1700s. If this experiment ends, can tyranny be far behind? Well, there are those who think we are already in a stage of soft tyranny and it frankly looks that way. But if it morphs into hard tyranny, which it will if not checked, the pain and suffering will be immense in many ways.
Need a comparison? Look to our south at Venezuela. A beautiful land, replete with vast riches, but one which has in one generation become a "living hell", with the average citizen scouring garbage dumps for food as well as, of all things, toilet paper. And it's all because of socialism. I remember just a few years ago, Barack Obama was glowing with praise for the government of Hugo Chavez, now deceased and replaced by someone he mentored. Chavez was the patron of what Venezuela would ultimately become. Is that what we want? Ponder that question if you are serious about freedom.
H/T Powerline Blog