Althouse: "Hours before it was to take effect, a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order on Tuesday blocking, for now, President Trump’s third attempt at a travel ban."

October 17, 2017

"Hours before it was to take effect, a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order on Tuesday blocking, for now, President Trump’s third attempt at a travel ban."

"It would have indefinitely stopped almost all travel to the United States from seven countries, including most of the Muslim-majority nations included in his original travel ban."

(NYT.)

61 comments:

David Baker said...: That judge lives to stick to Trump.; 10/17/17, 2:54 PM
PB said...: I think, that unless impeached and removed by Congress, this jerk's blind hatred can be exercised over and over again. Every time the appeal moves up to the Supreme Court where it is swatted aside, he'll do it again.; 10/17/17, 2:56 PM
Nonapod said...: Head clown in the Ninth Circus?; 10/17/17, 2:57 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Isn't it malicious for him to be repudiated by the higher courts and yet to persist?; 10/17/17, 2:58 PM
Oso Negro said...: Time for rule .308; 10/17/17, 2:58 PM
Gahrie said...: I say we immediately place 20,000 refugees from these countries in Hawaii.; 10/17/17, 3:03 PM
Gospace said...: I'm looking for that part of the Constitution that says "We shall henceforth be ruled by judges." and can't find it. It must be in the penumbras and emanations and invisible ink between the lines.; 10/17/17, 3:06 PM
Darrell said...: Rogue judge. Imprison.; 10/17/17, 3:06 PM
Balfegor said...: I wonder if this judge has really thought through this demented strategy carefully . . . how is it going to work when whacko judges in Texas or Alabama or wherever start issuing poorly reasoned opinions enjoining any particular executive order they disagree with on policy grounds?; 10/17/17, 3:06 PM
Static Ping said...: Delightful! Repeated futile naked power grabs by unelected officials will do wonders for the dignity of the Judiciary!; 10/17/17, 3:06 PM
The Bergall said...: Is this another case of Judge shopping? If so who is paying for it?; 10/17/17, 3:07 PM
gspencer said...: To borrow from Reagan, “There you go again.”

Obviously this judge has a personal animus against Trump. He knows he’s gonna get shot down again, but doesn’t care.

"I took an oath to support the Constitution? Get outta here!"; 10/17/17, 3:07 PM
buwaya said...: Interesting.

So if a network of a few judges were to block all executive orders, they could exert automatic veto power over all the acts of a US President?

And they could persist in doing so, on the same matter, even if struck down by the Supreme Court?

This seems to be a fundamental defect in the constitution. It smacks of the ancient and disastrous Polish liberum veto, but with judges in place of Polish noblemen.; 10/17/17, 3:07 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Gospace:

I'm looking for that part of the Constitution that says "We shall henceforth be ruled by judges." and can't find it. It must be in the penumbras and emanations and invisible ink between the lines.

It's the same part of the Constitution that provides for judicial review, i.e. it is 100% made-up by judges, and the rest of us have gone along with it for the past 214 years.; 10/17/17, 3:07 PM
Amadeus 48 said...: The judge is an amusing fellow. You would think that 9-0 (8-1 as to whether a lower appellate court order should be stricken) in the Supremes would tell him something.; 10/17/17, 3:11 PM
tcrosse said...: Yet he persisted.; 10/17/17, 3:12 PM
Todd said...: Bad Lieutenant said...

Isn't it malicious for him to be repudiated by the higher courts and yet to persist?

10/17/17, 2:58 PM

But by nature, he must #persist to #resist!

Balfegor said...

It's the same part of the Constitution that provides for judicial review, i.e. it is 100% made-up by judges, and the rest of us have gone along with it for the past 214 years.

10/17/17, 3:07 PM

I wonder if Trump is just the man to run the counter-action to get that ended? To "restore" the rule of law?!?!?; 10/17/17, 3:20 PM
rhhardin said...: Does he have standing.

subsist L stare = to stand
persist L stare = to stand
desist L stare = to stand
assist L stare = to stand
insist L stare = to stand
resist L stare = to stand
consist L stare = to stand; 10/17/17, 3:28 PM
narayanan said...: is this not the judicial version of the senate blue slip?; 10/17/17, 3:33 PM
rhhardin said...: There's

repudiate L pudere = to be ashamed (cf pudendum)

but no depudiate, perhaps for a brazilian.; 10/17/17, 3:33 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Impeach the District Court Judge!; 10/17/17, 3:34 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "How is it going to work when whacko judges in Texas or Alabama or wherever start issuing poorly reasoned opinions enjoining any particular executive order they disagree with on policy grounds?"

-- Much like most of the more extreme political leftists, they just rely that the right *won't* do things like lock them out of Congress when they write bills or use the IRS to target their grass roots activists.; 10/17/17, 3:34 PM
rhhardin said...: Waco judges in Texas.; 10/17/17, 3:35 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Trump should be able to get an immediate stay at a higher level, but he will have to go to SCOTUS to get it.; 10/17/17, 3:42 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: This is what happens when a Scientific Progressive is allowed to become a federal judge in Hawaii.; 10/17/17, 3:43 PM
Larry J said...: Gospace said...
I'm looking for that part of the Constitution that says "We shall henceforth be ruled by judges." and can't find it. It must be in the penumbras and emanations and invisible ink between the lines.

It has to be in there along with the basis for Marbury vs. Madison that gave unchecked power to the supreme court.; 10/17/17, 3:46 PM
jg said...: Same judge. How do we remove him?; 10/17/17, 3:46 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Imagine being an Iranian and thinking, "Ya know, today feels like a good day to take a boat ride to Miami. Or Honolulu, maybe, the other way 'round."; 10/17/17, 3:48 PM
Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...: Meanwhile, back at the Batcave, Trump has presented another list of candidates for the federal judge positions. Imagine an army of Scalias?; 10/17/17, 4:01 PM
Curious George said...: "...how is it going to work when whacko judges in Texas or Alabama or wherever start issuing poorly reasoned opinions enjoining any particular executive order they disagree with on policy grounds?"

Well, if Hillary happens to be POTUS they will ultimately commit suicide.; 10/17/17, 4:07 PM
Martin said...: When a Federal judge doesn't care about going against recent Supreme Court decisions, all you can do is impeach him.

As if the congressional GOP-weenies would ever...; 10/17/17, 4:10 PM
Krumhorn said...: I don’t have a federal practice so my tools are a little dull here, but I don’t understand how one district judge can issue an order that is enforceable outside his district/circuit. Something is beyond screwy with that.

- Krumhorn; 10/17/17, 4:10 PM
JackWayne said...: Here’s a hint where judicial review comes from: the Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made and etc. seems pretty straightforward to me. All Cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the US. Since those laws are passed by Congress judicial review is a gimme.; 10/17/17, 4:12 PM
MikeR said...: "Tuesday’s ruling was yet another legal setback..." No, another attempt by a rogue judge to rule by judicial fiat. Sooner or later this will just lead to the Supreme Court stopping local judges from making nationwide injunctions.; 10/17/17, 4:19 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: This continues to be a terrible precedent. Effectively, powers designated solely to the executive branch are being vetoed by the courts. How soon until the courts overrule the president on foreign policy? What power don't the courts have?; 10/17/17, 4:27 PM
n.n said...: Anti-native, Pro--CAIR (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform), Pro-Choice, and a color diversitist, too.; 10/17/17, 4:30 PM
Gospace said...: Jack Wayne said...
Here’s a hint where judicial review comes from: the Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made and etc

And if a judge is going to make rulings on that basis, he should somehow actually refer to the actual words in the Constitution. Which this ruling, as do all the other travel order rulings, do not. I especially like the rulings that determined non-citizens living overseas have standing to challenge the travel bans. Where in the Constitution is that?; 10/17/17, 4:51 PM
cubanbob said...: Trump should threaten to ignore the judge on the grounds that the district court has exceeded it's authority and that the executive branch will no longer pretend that Marbury applies in this case and the matter lies solely with the Supreme Court.; 10/17/17, 4:52 PM
DKWalser said...: Unless the judge would have issued the same ruling had Obama been the author of the executive order, we're no longer a country of laws but of men.; 10/17/17, 5:07 PM
Mark said...: Some judge in some other state needs to issue a ruling that this putz in Hawaii does NOT have jurisdiction in his district.; 10/17/17, 5:15 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: And the Left sucker-punches itself again. I have no doubt Trump is delighted to keep this issue in front of his base. Add an Islamic terror attack and you have electoral gold. Progressives must really, really want Trump to be re-elected.; 10/17/17, 5:16 PM
Gahrie said...: I especially like the rulings that determined non-citizens living overseas have standing to challenge the travel bans. Where in the Constitution is that?

Probably somewhere in the 14th Amendment.; 10/17/17, 6:33 PM
Clyde said...: Somebody needs a drone strike.

Just sayin'.; 10/17/17, 6:34 PM
Daniel Jackson said...: Suppose Congress were to impeach this cracker; could he refuse to step down by imposing a ban on his impeachment?; 10/17/17, 6:36 PM
MaxedOutMama said...: And this is my shocked face.

Balfegor - we should all be somewhat concerned about that issue, but in the end, it will only make people more inclined to vote for the person/party that is less focused on ruling through judges.

One may like it or not, but average voters do have a real aversion to rule by judges. And oligarchs. If we can throw the bums out, that's one thing. If we can't --- what's left of representational democracy? Bad situation, anyway one looks at it.

In no way and in no sense do I wish to have Congressional/Executive power not subject to judicial scrutiny, but that judicial scrutiny should be conducted with deference to the fundamental division of powers outlined in the Constitution.; 10/17/17, 6:54 PM
Fernandinande said...: At least the pitiful, corrupt Philosopher Kings are predictable.; 10/17/17, 6:55 PM
Jupiter said...: buwaya said...

"So if a network of a few judges were to block all executive orders, they could exert automatic veto power over all the acts of a US President?"

You say that like it's a hypothetical.; 10/17/17, 7:09 PM
Dude1394 said...: So what is the recourse when the judicial systems decides to go Game of Thrones Sparrows on the country?

I mean a CHICAGO judge just declared the entire country a sanctuary city for goodness sakes.; 10/17/17, 7:18 PM
Dude1394 said...: Someone said this:

"I think, that unless impeached and removed by Congress, this jerk's blind hatred can be exercised over and over again. Every time the appeal moves up to the Supreme Court where it is swatted aside, he'll do it again."

Sounds like a very, very good plan. This judge is a disgrace.; 10/17/17, 7:18 PM
Dude1394 said...: " Blogger Gahrie said...

I say we immediately place 20,000 refugees from these countries in Hawaii."

That also sounds like a plan, ship them directly from the border to hawaii. They should love it there.; 10/17/17, 7:19 PM
Dude1394 said...: "Blogger Balfegor said...

I wonder if this judge has really thought through this demented strategy carefully . . . how is it going to work when whacko judges in Texas or Alabama or wherever start issuing poorly reasoned opinions enjoining any particular executive order they disagree with on policy grounds?"

Well they would never do that because the Hillary Clinton for President National Review and nevertrumpers would tut-tut if they did.; 10/17/17, 7:21 PM
mockturtle said...: I knew we should never have admitted Hawaii to the Union.; 10/17/17, 8:06 PM
Snark said...: Hawaii is bound to be difficult. I mean it's an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water.; 10/17/17, 8:25 PM
James Pawlak said...: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
CONCERNING LIMITING JUDICIAL ACTIONS: A. Any judicial decision limiting or overturning an act of the Congress as executed by the President is limited to the judicial district or circuit in which it was made until confirmed by The Congress or The Supreme Court Of The United States; B. Any decision of The Supreme Court Of The United States may be reversed or nullified by a two-thirds vote of the House Of Representatives; C. All decisions of the courts of the United States shall use the intent of the authors of Constitution, its amendments and the Laws of the United States as the basic authority and source for such actions. (These provisions return constitutional power to the People and their democratically elected representatives as taken from them by individual or small groups of unelected judges.); 10/17/17, 8:59 PM
The Godfather said...: With respect to nationwide injunctions, this issue has been discussed on Volokh, most recently by Prof. Sam Bray (a terrific name for a lawprof, don't you think?), who says: "The national injunction could be ended by the Supreme Court or Congress. It should be." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/14/finally-a-court-defends-the-national-injunction/?utm_term=.281cd6d4f12b

@James Pawlak: The idea of a Constitutional amendment mandating originalism in interpreting the Constitution is appealing (no pun intended), but if we can't rely on the courts to follow the existing Constitution, how can we rely on them to follow the amendment? And the best originalist thinking today focuses not on the subjective "intent of the authors of the Constitution", but on the original public meaning of the language in question, i.e., what the people most likely thought the provision meant when they ratified it.; 10/17/17, 9:32 PM
Achilles said...: The left will never stop. They hate the rule of law. They hate the constitution. They hate the republic. They destroy every society they infest. This crap works everywhere else.

The US is unique. A correction comes.; 10/17/17, 10:19 PM
Murph said...: This, from the judge's "summary":

"EO-3 [me: the most recent executive order] suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor: it lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” a precondition that the Ninth Circuit determined must be satisfied before the Executive may properly invoke Section 1182(f). Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 774."

Think about that for a few minutes. "...lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries...." How many people we got in this country? Some 300+ million? So, can anyone with 1/2 a brain doubt that adding half again that number by importing MENA nationals would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States"?

I won't waste my time reading the full opinion if this is the type of crap thinking that makes it into the summary.; 10/17/17, 10:56 PM
Murph said...: Oops, I forgot. Here's the link to Somin's piece at Volokh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/17/federal-court-blocks-enforcement-of-trumps-travel-ban-3-0/?utm_term=.ed1113b514f3; 10/17/17, 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...: There are two possible remedies to this situation. One is the passage of new legislation assigning original jurisdiction concerning presidential executive orders to either the Circuit Courts or the Supreme Court, removing the court shopping at the district level.

The other option is a Trump Twitter war on the judges responsible if something should happen to go wrong as a result of their interference. Much as I don't like that option, I also don't like judges inserting themselves into policy, particularly that which is beyond their competence (i.e. judges don't see the national security info seen by the legislative or executive branches).; 10/17/17, 11:24 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/18/17, 1:29 AM
n.n said...: The refugee crises/trail of tears, district gerrymandering, and welfare profits, cannot be sustained without an incentive for social justice adventures (e.g. elective wars) and redistributive change (e.g. Libyan oil, Somalian uranium). Perhaps the judge believes that Obama's policies will remain the status quo, and that disruption and disenfranchisement of Americans, as well as open abortion fields for men, women, and children left behind, is the lesser evil.

Then again, the judge may simply be a rabid advocate for diversity, who judges people by, and finds comfort in, the "color of their skin".; 10/18/17, 1:31 AM