A Definition Of "Judicial Overreach"

Or, Judge Watson's (of Hawaii) Ruling On President Trump's Latest "Travel Ban"


At some level of understanding we all know how the legal system is intended to work. An impartial judge hears two sides of an issue. Based on the evidence presented, the judge analyses the evidence as to the law and renders a verdict.

A federal court in Hawaii has ruled against President Trump's latest attempt to curb an influx of people from terrorist-prone countries.

Of particular note is that the specific judge in this case, US District Court Judge Derrick Watson, heard and reviewed the evidence presented and rendered a 43-page ruling within 2 hours of hearing the case. You can read his ruling Here

Now, his ruling is complete with Constitutional and other law-related references.

Let me ask a question. Can you or anybody you know write a 43-page, heavily footnoted, and detailed document in under 2 hours? I know I can't.

It seems logical to assume that to produce that level of paper, with proper references, one would have had their mind made up as to the result long before hearing evidence. OR, ...

So much for the unbiased intent of this judge!

Now, as to the legitimacy of President Trump's Executive Order (EO):

US Law seems very clear on this. 8 U.S. Code 1182(f) states the authority of any US president as to restricting entry into our Nation:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

This judge does, indeed, cite the above in his ruling; but only stipulates that the current EO is in excess of the President's authority - without justification or substantiation.

Further, the judge cites US Law 1185(a). The first line of this law states: "Unless otherwise ordered by the President, ...". Well, that seems fairly clear to me.

A goodly portion of this judge's written ruling deals with the prior EO on the same basic subject. That particular EO is moot at this point and has no relevance to the current EO.

Much of this judge's "written opinion" focuses on 2 main themes:

1) The judge's assumed intent of Trump in issuing the EO

and

2) The violations this EO makes are against the US Constitution

Let's take each separately.

Assumed Intent of President Trump

From my reading of this judge's ruling, he seems to have strongly considered Trump's campaign rhetoric regarding Muslims - No matter that trump clarified and refuted any/all comments that seemed to indicate a ban on all Muslims. It's as if this judge is saying, "Never mind what the EO says, I know what Trump really was thinking." Who does this judge think he is, "Carnak"?

Stating an opinion, I think, is still OK in the good ole USofA. But, I must be wrong here.

And, stating an opinion is NOT the same as advocating law. In fact, should such a law against admitting Muslims actually be passed, it would suffer two immediate problems.

First, as an example, prove YOU are NOT a Muslim. You can't do it. So, is someone supposed to just believe the statement "I am not a Muslim."? As the principles of Taqiyya and Kitman, among others, are part of the Islamic culture, of course, simple trust in what one says is not viable.

Second, such a law would violate discrimination laws already "on the books".

The violations this EO makes are against the US Constitution

The statements in this ruling citing Constitutional violations with this EO are ludicrous on their face.

There are several. However, the citing of the Establishment Clause, i.e., dealing with freedom of religion, seems blatantly out of context. Neither this EO nor the one that preceded this one mentions a religious aspect in any way.

The ruling cites "The Winter Test", specifically, "(2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted." Of course, this "Winter Test" ruling comes from another "non-constitutional-opinioning" court, The 9th Circuit.

As a short aside here, The 9th Circuit Court has an 80% failure rate for all its cases adjucated by the Supreme Court. That's how good they are - NOT.

Think about this "opinion". A Plaintiff may be due relief if just the "possibility" of irreparable injury exists! One can easily conceive of millions of things that could "possibility" result in injury.

As I mentioned above, there are several Constitutional objections to this EO mentioned. I will address one more before my final word on this. The ruling cites the Due Process Clause (i.e., "..no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."). What citizen or resident - legal or otherwise - would be denied "Due Process" by this EO? NONE!

And now to my final word on this topic.

This judge and this court seem to adjudicate issues with a severe lack of understanding of our Constitution. OK, what do I mean by that?

The United States Constitution guarantees rights to all US citizens, non-citizens who reside here legally, and, to a large extent, to those living here illegally. It does NOT convey rights to citizens of other Nations. Nor should it. Other nations have their own laws. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or any US Law stipulating that anyone and everyone MUST be admitted into our Country. We, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, via our representatives in our government, have the right to admit or not admit any person or group of people we desire.