Judicial activism in Trump travel suspension case is dangerous: The federal judiciary has become a swamp, particularly the Ninth Circus.
By James Shott · Feb. 14, 2017
The recent hullabaloo over President Donald Trump’s temporary suspension of travel from seven Middle Eastern countries with ties to Islamic terrorism has dominated the early days of his administration. Trump’s action suspends entry to the country as his administration seeks better methods of vetting potential visitors to the U.S. for national security reasons. This incident has brought to the fore once again the high degree of activism in the federal judiciary.
Judicial activism involves interpreting the U.S. Constitution and the nation’s laws to achieve some non-legal, socially desirable leftist end favored by judges. Politics trumps the law.
The first instance of activism occurred in a federal District Court in Washington State, where Judge James Robart allowed a suit by the state’s attorney general to go forward, despite the fact that Washington State did not have legal standing to sue the federal government over Trump’s executive order. To establish legal standing a plaintiff — in this case, the whole of the State of Washington, not some individuals or some entities within the state — must demonstrate that the travel suspension would cause it irreparable harm. “Irreparable harm” can be defined as “the type of harm threatened cannot be corrected through monetary compensation or conditions cannot be put back the way they were.”
Robarts ruled that a ban on travelers from seven countries “affects the state’s residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel,” and said it also harmed the state’s public universities and tax base.
Read more of this post at https://patriotpost.us/articles/47442