--------------------------
On Feb. 4, President Trump responded to Judge James Robart’s decision to block the travel ban by tweeting, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
While the Gallatin County Bar Association, made up of lawyers from all political parties, respects the president’s right to disagree with (and even criticize) judicial decisions, it is wrong for any sitting president to personally attack a member of the judiciary. Judge Robart is not a “so called judge,” but a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by a Senate vote of 99 to 0 in 2003. (The writer's outrage seems excessive. This judge attempted to legislate from the bench according to his political preferences, therefore is not acting as a judge, so calling him a "so-called judge" seems to be a legitimate criticism.
I'm guessing that the writer had no criticism to offer when Obama criticized the Supreme court when they supposedly "reversed a century of law." And Obama did this in a state of the union address with the Supreme court in attendance!)
As Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska observed, “We don’t have so-called judges, we don’t have so-called senators, we don’t have so-called presidents. We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.” (The author finds a Republican "hero" to bolster his case.)
The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the Constitution and other laws. The judicial branch is independent from the executive and legislative branches in order to hold them in check. (So this begs a question: How is the judicial branch held in check?)
In fact, federal judges are appointed for life so that they cannot be removed by the president or Congress. (This is false. Section II 5 of the the Constitution states, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
And in fact, many judges have been impeached, several for abuse of authority.)
President Trump’s personal attack on Judge Robart questions the legitimacy of the judge’s appointment and the system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches set up by our Constitution. (It does not.)
President Trump’s right to disagree with Judge Robart and challenge the ruling does not support the president’s personal attack on the judge and threatens the independent judiciary necessary for our democratic form of government. (It does not.)
It is now unknown whether President Trump’s executive travel ban will be ultimately be upheld, limited, or blocked. Whatever the outcome, that decision will be made by independent judges who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. (An oath that is violated by judges regularly, and is being violated by this judge. Title 8 United States Code, section 1182(f), of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is entitled “Suspension of Entry or Imposition of Restrictions by President” states:
Matt Dodd
On Behalf of the Board of the Gallatin County Bar Association
On Feb. 4, President Trump responded to Judge James Robart’s decision to block the travel ban by tweeting, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
While the Gallatin County Bar Association, made up of lawyers from all political parties, respects the president’s right to disagree with (and even criticize) judicial decisions, it is wrong for any sitting president to personally attack a member of the judiciary. Judge Robart is not a “so called judge,” but a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by a Senate vote of 99 to 0 in 2003. (The writer's outrage seems excessive. This judge attempted to legislate from the bench according to his political preferences, therefore is not acting as a judge, so calling him a "so-called judge" seems to be a legitimate criticism.
I'm guessing that the writer had no criticism to offer when Obama criticized the Supreme court when they supposedly "reversed a century of law." And Obama did this in a state of the union address with the Supreme court in attendance!)
As Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska observed, “We don’t have so-called judges, we don’t have so-called senators, we don’t have so-called presidents. We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.” (The author finds a Republican "hero" to bolster his case.)
The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the Constitution and other laws. The judicial branch is independent from the executive and legislative branches in order to hold them in check. (So this begs a question: How is the judicial branch held in check?)
In fact, federal judges are appointed for life so that they cannot be removed by the president or Congress. (This is false. Section II 5 of the the Constitution states, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
And in fact, many judges have been impeached, several for abuse of authority.)
President Trump’s personal attack on Judge Robart questions the legitimacy of the judge’s appointment and the system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches set up by our Constitution. (It does not.)
President Trump’s right to disagree with Judge Robart and challenge the ruling does not support the president’s personal attack on the judge and threatens the independent judiciary necessary for our democratic form of government. (It does not.)
It is now unknown whether President Trump’s executive travel ban will be ultimately be upheld, limited, or blocked. Whatever the outcome, that decision will be made by independent judges who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. (An oath that is violated by judges regularly, and is being violated by this judge. Title 8 United States Code, section 1182(f), of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is entitled “Suspension of Entry or Imposition of Restrictions by President” states:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.Trump, like all Presidents, has the express legal authority to act with a broad authority regarding immigration.)
Matt Dodd
On Behalf of the Board of the Gallatin County Bar Association
No comments:
Post a Comment