Donald Trump is under fire for calling the judge who blocked his 90-day travel ban a “so-called judge.” Obviously, this implies that the judge, in this case James L. Robart, is illegitimate, and that’s a serious charge.
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017
But what if Judge Robart is acting more like a lawmaker than an arbiter, in this case or any other? Is it possible that he is “legislating from the bench” and therefore overstepping his authority?
Now it looks like whether or not Trump’s executive order is constitutional will have to be decided by a higher court. In the meantime, however, LifeZette has looked into this judge’s background and found some interesting information:
Robart, who was nominated to his position by former President George W. Bush in 2004, said the phrase “black lives matter” during a court hearing for a case in August 2016 concerning the Seattle Police Departments potential use of excessive force in a racially charged situation. The Obama administration filed the lawsuit after an investigation concluded the SPD “had engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force” that “could have a disparate impact on minority communities.”
During a court hearing, Robart became “deeply personal,” as the Seattle Times noted, when he pointed to FBI statistics.
Now, there are a few troubling issues here.
First, the idea that any judge would get “deeply personal” should raise concerns. How is a defendant going to receive a fair trial if the judge is being “personal” instead of impartial?
Secondly, on the matter of FBI crime statistics, it could be argued that this judge was being selective.
A closer look at the statistics shows that, contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the number of whites killed by police is actually higher than the number of blacks.
Furthermore, as reporter Matthew Palumbo points out:
Robart has also done pro bono legal work for refugees in the past (from Southeast Asia), so it’s needless to say that he has sympathy for refugees, which also could’ve influenced his decision regardless of the actual constitutionality of the executive order.
Instead of focusing on Trump’s tone and choice of words, in the interest of balance it would be helpful for his critics to look at some of this judge’s past words, too. If this were a conservative judge, you can believe this would have already been done.
Source: Allen B. West