Alan Dershowitz nails judicial tyranny

I mean he hits this out of the park!

Via Mediaite:

Alan Dershowitz said on Fox News this morning that because court rulings against President Trump‘s travel ban are bringing up his own past rhetoric, the argument is basically, “If Obama had issued the very same order with the same words it would be constitutional, but if Trump issues it it’s unconstitutional.”

Here is the video

Judicial Tyranny on display

Judge Derrick Watson put a hold on President Trump’s new travel ban, which is, by law a power every president holds. But, Judge Watson decided that rule of law, and the separation of powers are silly things when compared to his feelings. After all, this is the age of feelings, so things like laws should not be allowed to interfere with Judge Watson delicate feelings. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist lays out a lengthy and sound refutation of Judge Watson, abuse of power. Here is a sample

Trump said the temporary travel restriction was needed for national security. In issuing his temporary restraining order, Watson said Trump’s order was a result of nothing more than religious animus against Muslims. The judge’s order is predicated on what he thinks Trump wants to do, not the order itself.

Throughout the ruling, Judge Watson concedes there’s nothing about the executive order that would be problematic if not for his interpretation of Trump’s statements made in the months and years prior to issuing it. He repeatedly states his feeling that Trump had a bad motive in issuing the order.

Judges using campaign rhetoric to infer intent instead of plainly evaluating the law as written is a dangerous development. Also because the public can witness the selective use of this trick, it undermines confidence in the judiciary at a time when the judiciary can’t afford too much erosion of trust.

So, here we are. Any judge can abuse his authority to block executive orders, or maybe even legislation, not based on concerns over the constitutionality of those laws or EOs but based upon the judges suppositions. If the judge supposes, that the intent of the law or EO might not be altruistic enough, them that judge can simply wave their magic Wand of Feelings and poof, it is blocked? Oh Hell no! That is not the role of the judiciary. Hemingway looks at where this could lead

Imagine, for instance, if judges ruled that the Obama-era Health and Human Services mandate forcing nuns to pay for birth control and abortifacients against their religious will was motivated by President Barack Obama’s religious animus, since he had made derogatory comments during his campaign about people bitterly clinging to God. Judges have ruled against powerful mandates such as that one for much better reasons than a parsing of Obama’s campaign rhetoric or political speeches.

Or remember when the Supreme Court saved Obamacare by ruling it constitutional because the individual mandate — the penalty people had to pay for not buying health insurance — could be considered a tax? They ruled that way despite the fact that President Obama repeatedly maintained that the mandate was not a tax.

Again, not the constitutional role of judges, not at all. Over The Right Scoop, Mark Levin’s thought on this are very clear, and stresses an excellent point about the judicial branch’s power grab

The fact is this man has no business being a judge. He has no respect for our laws or constitution, and should be removed from his office immediately!