President Trump attacks another federal judge

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

President Donald Trump on Saturday again attacked a federal judge whose decision he disliked, criticizing Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who temporarily stopped his controversial travel ban Friday night.

President Trump’s attacks quickly drew objections from Democrats, who said he was attacking an independent judiciary. And by Saturday afternoon, President Trump was openly accusing Robart of potentially allowing “many very bad and dangerous people” to flow into the US and warning of dire consequences if the executive order is not enforced.

He also said, “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into the U.S.?”

Shortly after 8 a.m. ET, the President tweeted, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned.”

The tweet was one of several President Trump issued Saturday morning in which he defended his executive order on immigration, which bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.

“When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security – big trouble,” President Trump next tweeted.

“Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it’s death & destruction,” he added, though he didn’t name any countries.

Saturday afternoon, President Trump resumed his criticism, tweeting: “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?”

He followed up with, “Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision.”

It is highly unusual for a President to publicly criticize a federal judge, but during the campaign, President Trump memorably railed against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University. President Trump said Curiel, who was born in Indiana, was unable to fairly preside over the lawsuit because of his “Mexican heritage.” President Trump had introduced plans to build a wall along the Mexican border and take a hard stance on immigration.

Democrats pounced on President Trump’s criticism of Robart, with Democratic senators flatly saying the President’s comments will factor into the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

“Attack on federal judge from POTUS is beneath the dignity of that office. That attitude can lead America to calamity,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee tweeted Saturday.

“The President’s attack on Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee who passed with 99 votes, shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn’t always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the Constitution, making it more important that the Supreme Court serve as an independent check on the administration,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

“With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process.”

Vermont. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said President Trump’s “hostility toward the rule of law is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous.”

“We need a nominee for the Supreme Court willing to demonstrate he or she will not cower to an overreaching executive. This makes it even more important that Judge Gorsuch, and every other judge this president may nominate, demonstrates the ability to be an independent check and balance on an administration that shamefully and harmfully seems to reject the very concept.”

Robart’s order on Friday was a significant setback to President Trump’s ban and set up the nation for a second straight weekend of confusion about the policy’s legality.

The White House said Friday the Department of Justice will challenge the decision. In a statement, White House press secretary Sean Spicer initially called Robart’s order “outrageous” before quickly issuing another statement that dropped that word.

Robart has presided in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington state since 2004. He assumed senior status in 2016.

6 comments

  • Opinion8d

    Howe about when Obama ripped the SCOTUS (conservative members)???? I think it was a State of the Union address. Where was the ‘outrage’ then?!?! The media continues to try and push an anti-Trump story all day long, which just goes to show they have no understanding of why Trump was elected!

  • Cecelia

    Hey Fox, now I know why I stopped watching your broadcast. How about taking less of an anti-Trump tone in your reporting and just provide solid information? Maybe something like this about Robart’s background would be fair and balanced reporting……Whether or not the executive order is actually unconstitutional will be decided by higher-level courts. In the meantime, it is worth noting that Robart’s political biases are left of center. Robart has also done pro bono legal work for refugees, 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. Either way, we have a system of checks and balances in America for a reason, and it keeps both sides in check. If this is nothing more than a political move by Robart, a higher level court will soon overturn his decision. Shame on you Fox6. You lack integrity and are an embarrassment to your trade.

  • Huh !

    F.Y.I…….The Constitution of the United States of America is the basis for an American Citizen’s Rights (Civil rights), not visa holders !
    A visa is just permission to enter the U.S. for a specific time, for a specific reason such as a student, tourist or for business ! A green card is permission to live here as a guest and is referred to as a path to citizenship, and as such grants certain rights, such as getting a job or buying a home but is not citizenship ! Human rights are an agreed upon set of rights as determined by agreements/treaties with other countries, these are the guiding rules that govern refugees and their ability to conditionally enter another country !

    • Home of the Free

      HUH! Interesting you mention treaties,our own country does not respect its own treaties within its own borders ie; 1851 Treaty with the Dakota Indians!

Comments are closed.