Larry Klayman
March 20, 2017
Impeach Obama's hack Hawaiian judge!
Larry Klayman takes aim at jurist who TRO'd Trump executive order
Facebook Twitter Google+
By Larry Klayman

Thanks to yet another runaway hack federal judge, now all of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims have a constitutional right to enter the United States – unrestricted at any time. That is the shocking but preposterous ruling of Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii v. Trump, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) against President Trump's rewritten executive order temporarily suspending travel from the world's most dangerous terrorist countries, to allow time to devise a strict means to vet potential terrorists. As even the Honolulu Star Advertiser is cynically reporting, Judge Watson was a classmate of President Barack Hussein Obama at Harvard Law School. "Quel coincidence," as the French would say sarcastically.

Thanks to Watson's disgraceful, corrupt ruling – not based on the four corners of President Trump's clearly constitutional executive order but on comments The Donald made during the presidential campaign, as well as alleged injury to Muslims – any Muslim on the planet can now find some willing mosque in the United States to claim that their religious sensibilities are insulted by not allowing him or her to wander freely through our country. Judge Watson's nationwide TRO is based in part on the ridiculous claim of discrimination against Ismail Elshikh and his mosque. Elshikh is the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. His mother-in-law is a Syrian national with a pending application for a visa, who last visited the family in Hawaii in 2005 (and is therefore eligible for a waiver under the new executive order).

Therefore, under Watson's analysis, there is no Muslim who would not be eligible – because some Muslim U.S. citizen or resident somewhere might be offended by President Trump's executive order. In short, Watson has effectively given all the world's Muslims constitutional rights by claiming that their family, friends, or co-religionists in the USA would not feel good if a foreigner isn't allowed to visit.

It may not jump out on a quick reading by a non-lawyer, but the critical factor of the TRO is Judge Watson's refusal to accept that there is danger from the six "failed states" – including the hostile and designated terrorist state Islamic Republic of Iran – to the national security of the United States. But the federal courts have neither the competence nor jurisdiction to second-guess the president's core constitutional responsibility and authority. When the commander in chief, armed with classified intelligence not routinely available to courts, determines that people from a terrorist hotbed present a danger, the courts have no place substituting their "infinite wisdom" for his.

But, obviously biased by his affection for former President Obama's and his own leftist bent, Judge Watson argues that because there has been no evidence shown of a national security threat – which is simply false – the only remaining explanation one can arrive at is religious discrimination against Muslims.

Subjective feelings toward any Muslim violate the Constitution, according to Watson. Elshikh's mosque claims to be injured by the executive order because they are "deeply saddened by the message that [both orders] convey – that a broad travel-ban is 'needed' to prevent people from certain Muslim countries from entering the United States." Elshikh is also afraid – with no reason whatsoever – that his mother-in-law might not – although she might – be granted a visitor's visa to visit her family. Such speculation is never sufficient for standing, or injury, when a conservative brings a public policy lawsuit. Elshikh's Syrian mother-in-law is eligible for a waiver under Trump's new executive order. Under normal legal rules, there has been no injury until she has been refused a waiver and refused a visa. Furthermore, feelings are not the basis of a constitutional right.

But normal rules don't apply for hack leftist judges like Watson, who are "results oriented," not "the law oriented." For those who understand the Muslim theology of dhimmitude – the subjugation of non-Muslims to the caliphate – if our country had already surrendered to subjugation by the Muslim world, would our government be doing anything differently than what they have been doing under the former President Obama – himself of Muslim descent?

Of course, the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this lawsuit. But let me give you a quick, real-world law school lesson on this judge's invented fiction of "standing." If you are a leftist filing a lawsuit, you have "standing" to bring a lawsuit against the government or for some public policy purpose. If you are a conservative trying to preserve our Constitution, the rule of law, government accountability to the people, or transparency, then you don't have standing.

Given all of this, it is hardly surprising that the TRO was pre-written. Only two hours after the hearing in Hawaii v. Trump, Judge Watson issued a 43-page, very detailed legal opinion. Just reciting the facts alone, with precise citations to the court record for each point, would take many hours – with many more needed to analyze, stop and think, and arrive at a reasoned decision. It is clear that Watson prejudged the case and rushed to issue his decision before even hearing the case.

Many thought that we were safe with Trump's March 6, 2017, tweaks of his original Jan. 27, 2017, executive order. Sadly, the American people are starting to see how corrupt, both intellectually and politically, many who preside over our nation's courts have become. Today, no American is safe while a federal judge like Watson is on the loose.

We at Freedom Watch have been seeing these problems for decades, including when I earlier founded and ran Judicial Watch. Our universities and then our public K-12 schools have veered away from common sense, logic, and any connection with reality. But the same leftist degradation has been destroying other institutions in our country, including the courts.

President Trump needs to immediately send legislation to our spineless Congress to take away jurisdiction of our federal courts to second-guess the national defense or national security decisions of the commander in chief. Most people do not realize that Congress can regulate what cases the federal courts are allowed to consider. Federal judges serve "during good behavior" – not "for life" – under the Constitution. But Congress has sat by and allowed leftist faculty-lounge activists to run our country in black robes.

Finally, Freedom Watch and I will be intervening in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on behalf of President Trump's wholly constitutional executive order. We will prevail, but this illegal and outrageous TRO by a politically corrupt federal judge underscores why we need independent judges on the bench. To this end, Freedom Watch's Judicial Selection Strike Force Coalition is designed to recommend honest and qualified jurists to the president, as there are now over 100 vacancies to be filled. If America has a chance of being made great again, We the People do not need any more political hacks like Watson on the federal bench, judges who frankly should now be impeached, convicted, and removed from the federal judiciary! See www.judicialselectionstrikeforce.org.

© Larry Klayman

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Larry Klayman: Click here

More by this author