Friday, July 14, 2017


Once again, a bleeding heart liberal Judge from a U.S. District Court has gone beyond his pay grade, ie, Constitutional authority, to define the parameters of President Trump’s travel ban.

Derrick Kahala Watson, appointed to the bench in 2015 by Barack Obama, is the same judge who instituted a restraining order against Trump’s revised travel ban, before getting unanimously slapped down by the Supreme Court in June. 

Watson, (again ignoring the separation of powers and the powers granted exclusively to the executive branch), has erroneously decided his court alone can define the extent of “bona fide  applicants”, expanding the relationships to include “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.”

Via the Wall Street Journal:  

“Judge Watson said the Trump administration’s ban implementation after the high court ruling tilted the scale too far in its favor and against those travelers with U.S. family connections. He ordered that the ban not apply to “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.”

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members,” the judge wrote.

Judge Watson also loosened some Trump administration restrictions on what type of U.S. relationships qualify to exempt refugees from the ban. The judge said refugees aren’t subject to the ban if they are covered by a formal admissions agreement between the U.S. government and a refugee resettlement agency.

Lawyer Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii in its challenge to the Trump travel ban, on Twitter called the ruling a sweeping victory.”

So the Judge, [Watson], inserts his own "common sense" by expanding the admissions to include not only grandparents, but also basically anyone related to them in defining the exemptions, an argument three conservative supreme court justices have already stated is not the business or right of the courts: 

"Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented on the exemptions. They argued that the court has no business or right interfering with the president’s foreign policy and that the “relationship” standard is so vague that it will spawn thousands of litigations." 

It appears Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were entirely correct in their dissent---as once again, a lower court judge fails miserably to understand any President's right to set foreign policy standards---Constitutionally granted by our legislature. Hopefully, before Christmas, Watson, (and lawyer J. Noble Daggett-Katyal), will understand how the President's executive power is exclusively protected. 

No comments:

Post a Comment