There has been a long-standing problem, in my opinion, within our federal judicial system in that, somehow, even though I suspect almost all judges have completed law school, passed a bar exam, and practiced law, legal decisions track politics very closely. In other words, there are left-leaning judges who go with the Left and there are right-leaning judges who go with the Right. And it has gotten to be a fairly reliable pattern. I happen to be an originalist, at least in my own sense of the word, I like the original intent approach to interpreting the Constitution. Scalia was my type of SC Justice and Thomas is even better. The Left likes to change that meaning without going through an amendment process. So how come federal judges can reach such contrary judgements when they are looking at the same Constitution and the same federal laws? When they go before Congress for confirmation of their appointment, they invariably testify that what I’m describing as politics here will not affect their decisions.
The latest,of course, is the federal district judge in Washington state ruling on the President’s temporary immigration ban on seven countries. From all I can find there is not even one thing to support the judge’s ruling, yet it goes into force nationwide as if it were solid. The Constitution says what the executive authority is and immigration is part of it. The President is not in violation of any law that I have seen reported.
Are we stuck with this terrible federal judicial system forever?
BTW, I am not a lawyer but just an interested layman.



A fine question. I understand a choice would be to ignore the order.
I expect Trump and team are waiting for Sessions to come on board and maybe to get Gorusch on the SC.
Meanwhile, if there is a terror attack in the meantime, I expect Trump will act again, this time more forcefully and dare a Judge to stop it.
Once he gets a SC in maybe two to three months, he can move this one along.
I hope he has halted issuing any NEW visas for refugees or anyone from those countries in the meantime.
Any legal minds care to kick in? Not my training, although I have spent enough time with Federal Judges and they are a true mixed bag of nuts and berries.
The judiciary, up to and including the Supremes, are not the ultimate authority, we are. We elected Trump and he should ignore the judge.
I think Trump can do what you say legally but it will be played back as roguish and that should be unnecessary since it is the judge who is the rogue here. Don’t we need to swing and hit home runs occasionally instead of always trying to win on defense. It just seems that all is stacked against the Constitution at present, it has been interpreted as whatever the Left says and that’s not right.
Trump has proved every leftist, and incidentally most of the NeverTrumpers, wrong in their pre-election assertions that he would act like an ignore-the-rule-of-law-for-his-own-ego-tyrant. Trump made a legal EO, the judiciary blocked and even though the legal opinions I’ve seen unanimously declare the blocking without sense or merit, he has not disobeyed that judicial decree. I too think he’ll press to get Sessions in place and try whatever legal means he can to get immigration on the right track. And getting Congress to impeach that judge would not be out of the question.
They may not be able to remove the judge but an impeachment is a good thing to get on his record.
The irony of it all is that he is doing nothing but enacting the laws already on the books and revoking those that were unconstitutional. Even famed liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz admits to this.
You have hit the crux of it. There is little or no recourse to the judiciary.
Over the years, beginning with the 30’s, the constitution has basically been gutted. Congress has no restrictions. The administration has little restriction. And the judiciary has no accountability.
This judge should be impeached. The rules should be set so that ANY judge who rules so blatantly refusing to support the WRITTEN law ought to be sent packing. No job, no retirement, no return to the bench.
We have been inundated by lawyers. They have taken over all aspects of our lives. They intrude in our lives, our government, everything.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_united_states_cannot_survive_as_presently_constituted.html
Some thoughts in this article regarding whether or not this problem is present across all elements of our country
That concept has crept about the nation for a long time. There is a lot of truth in what it says. The question, of course, is which states will go with which nation. So Illinois would want to be with either the East or West Coast. The Carolinas, Georgia, and maybe Florida would want to be with the midsection. ?Think the libs would allow that.
Understand that libs have been fleeing their havens for red states – only to then try to change them to the same garbage they left. Look at Texas. Austin is kind of indistinguishable from Boston in many ways. But the rest of Texas is, well, Texas. Dallas is yet another bastion of leftism. Houston is becoming the same. ?So will Texas stay red or go blue. Interesting question.
What Trump has going for him is that he isn’t particularly limited by what has already been. It would be fascinating to see the SCOTUS take away the case law that trashed the constitution and gave free rein to Congress to do whatever it wanted. Thank you Cardozo and the band of miscreants who set the tone for decades to come. Perhaps Trump can do the same to the SCOTUS in the other direction.