December 15, 2017

Judges invent an entirely new, and very illegal, “legal standard” for Donald Trump

Image of Donald Trump illustrating post about activist judges

When it comes to Donald Trump, Obama-appointed judges are inventing new legal standards unrelated to the Constitution, statutes, cases, or even facts.

Progressives are very excited that a federal judge in Kentucky has held that Trump can be sued for inciting violence. Perfectly illustrating this excitement is a WaPo analysis carrying the headline, “A judge rules Trump may have incited violence … and Trump again has his own mouth to blame.”

At this point, of course, you may be wondering what words Trump used to madden the mob. Perhaps he said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.” Sorry. My bad. That was Obama.

Or maybe he said that he was actively looking for “whose ass to kick.” Nope. Another mistake on my part. That was also Obama.

I distinctly remember a political type analogizing the maddened marches in January and the mob attacks in February to the Civil Rights movement, “They’ve marched. They’ve bled. Yes, some of them have died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.” That sounds a bit like a call to blood and riot, but it was Loretta Lynch who said it, not Donald Trump.

What Donald Trump actually said was “Get him the Hell out of here. Get him out of here. Throw him out,” in response to protesters who were disrupting a rally:

Classy? Probably not. Incitement to violence? I doubt it. In fact, the only thing we know for certain about “incitements to violence” at Trump rallies is that the Democrat party deliberately planted bird doggers whose goal was to foment violence. (It would not surprise me to learn that those same people, after the election, became “antifa” freelancers, spreading out to places such as UC Berkeley or Middlebury College to use violence against free speech.)

While you and I, and any rational person, understand that “get him out of here” is not a corollary to “beat him to a pulp,” it’s different if you happen to be David J. Hale, a so-called judge whom Obama appointed to the federal district court in Western Kentucky. By the way, I use the phrase “so-called” deliberately because, as was true with the judges who ruled on Trump’s executive orders temporarily halting travel from states the Obama administration identified as terrorist sponsors, this man is a political activist, not a judge.

READ  Not all sex scandals are created equal: breaking down the different types

Here is what Hale had to say on the subject when he allowed a lawsuit against Trump for “incitement to violence” to proceed: “It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get ’em out of here’ advocated the use of force. It was an order, an instruction, a command.”

The judge is sort of right. Trump’s words, understand in the ordinary, non-politicized way, were “an order, an instruction, a command” — that is, they were an order or request to remove disruptive people from the premises. Anything else is a figment of the judge’s imagination, based upon what he imagines Trump actually meant.

And there you have the new legal standard for Donald Trump: Obama-appointed federal judges have given themselves license to go beyond Trump’s express words and their ordinary meaning and, instead, to delve into Trump’s psyche, drawing out what they think he meant (always bad), and then shaping their orders around that imaginary narrative.

We see the same thing in the order that Derrick Watson, a political activist in Hawaii, issued blocking Trump’s executive order regarding travel from terrorist sponsoring countries. The order ignores the straightforward language of the executive order. It disdains turning to substantive statutory authority, case authority, or Heaven forbid, the Constitution itself, all of which grant to the President the authority to issue travel bans from nations that pose a risk to America.

Having disregarded law and fact, Watson instead analyzes Trump’s speeches and concludes that Trump hates Muslims (as opposed to concluding, as I did, that Trump is rightly concerned about Islamist fanatics who have already killed thousands of Americans). Then, based upon that fantasy analysis, Watson hijacks our country’s national security apparatus, taking it from the President and conferring it upon himself.

A judge’s job is to apply the law to the undisputed facts — except when the judge is an Obama appointee and the defendant is Donald Trump. Then, the judge’s job becomes to apply his imagination to Donald Trump’s psyche and, using his rich, partisan, paranoid, hate-filled imagination as a guide, invariably to rule against the President.

READ  WashPo accuses Judge Roy Moore of inappropriate behavior w/teen girls after endorsing Democratic candidate. (UPDATE)

Impeaching these judges seems like an inadequate response to their gross judicial malfeasance. Even worse, I’m certain none of these judges will be impeached.

If there’s one thing that’s as sure as the sun rising in the East, it’s that Leftists invariably get away with their illegal shenanigans. (Which gives you an idea that I doubt that our almost staggeringly incompetent GOP reps will manage to get anything useful done about Susan Rice’s illegal conduct. You can give the GOP reps a chessboard with the pieces set up for a game-ending checkmate in the next move and they’ll still lose.)

Despite the fact that the federal courts have embarked upon a terribly dangerous, liberty-destroying path, that seems them abandoning their duty in favor of using their personal political ideology as a new judicial standard, the WaPo article to which I linked in the opening paragraph of this post reveals an “analyst” who is thrilled with the new standard. I had the analyst’s obvious rapture in mind when I glanced to the top of my screen and saw the WaPo’s new motto:

I know that the bright minds at the WaPo mean it to assure their Progressive audience that they will be shining a light on President Trump’s nefarious schemes. However, reading it in light of the revelations about the Obama administration’s spying, illegal unmasking of names, and even more illegal dissemination of names and facts, along with the decision by the Obama judges to abandon legal standards  . . . well, suddenly the new motto sounds like a game-plan. Yes, indeed. The WaPo is doing what it can to ensure that “democracy dies in darkness.”

About Bookworm 594 Articles

Bookworm came late to conservativism but embraced it with passion. She’s been blogging since 2004 about anything that captures her fancy — and that’s usually politics. Her blog’s motto is “Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.”