On Friday, federal Judge John Bates in Washington, DC, ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s explanation for President Trump’s rescinding of Obama’s DACA amnesty program for children of illegal immigrants wasn’t persuasive enough for him. So he ruled that the phase-out of DACA was illegal and ordered the Administration to reinstate the program in full, with a stay placed until August 23 to give the DHS time to file an appeal.
Now, at this point, you might be wondering a few things. Like, how does one federal judge decide that he has the power to tell the President and the Congress to reinstate a particular immigration program, when the power over immigration policy rests entirely with Congress? And how does he have the power to override a presidential executive order that did nothing but rescind a previous presidential executive order (the creation of DACA), which Trump rescinded precisely because it’s unconstitutional for any other branch of government than Congress to create an immigration program? Maybe you’re thinking, “Isn’t it the job of judges to rule on whether laws or executive orders are constitutional, not to order that unconstitutional executive orders that have been rescinded be reinstated?”
And if that’s what you’re thinking, then you obviously haven’t been paying much attention to federal judges over the past 18 months. Somehow, the moment Trump took office, these unelected egomaniacs in black robes decided that they were the government equivalent of an “As Seen On TV” kitchen wonder utensil:
“Watch as it not only dices, slices, chops and filets the Constitution, it makes immigration laws better than Congress! It enforces national security better than a President! And just watch as it soaks up the powers of Congress AND the Executive faster than a paper towel! It does it all! Yes, there’s no longer any need for expensive, troublesome elections, now that you have the Amazing Ronco Miracle Judge!”
A reminder: Trump rescinded Obama’s DACA order precisely because it’s unconstitutional for anyone but Congress to create an immigration amnesty program. In doing so, he gave Congress six months to pass a Constitutionally-valid replacement, which they failed to do because the Democrats refused to compromise by including his measures to improve border security, so that granting amnesty to this group wouldn’t result in a big rush of new illegal entrants. The left talks a lot about their compassion for the “Dreamers,” but when it came to choosing between saving them or blocking Trump's border wall, they went with blocking the wall.
Meanwhile, the same people who keep accusing Trump of “destroying democracy” even as he keeps following the Constitution by presenting his agenda to Congress and respecting the appeals process, no matter how ludicrous the judicial rulings, have done the following:
Refused to accept the results of a free and fair election, attempted to intimidate electors into not reflecting their voters’ wishes, called for impeaching the President on no stated grounds, openly advocated for assassinating the President, backed a likely unconstitutionally-appointed special counsel as he put a 69-year-old man who hasn’t even been convicted of a crime into solitary confinement, and run to the courts over every policy decision with which they disagreed to ask unelected judges to impose their own personal opinions in place of actions taken by the people’s elected representatives.
Who, exactly, is “destroying democracy” again?
At the link, Michael Walsh explains why the judge’s “reasoning” (that Trump has the power to rescind a previous executive order, but his reason for doing so wasn’t compelling enough for the judge) is subjective, unconstitutional nonsense: as President, Trump has the power to rescind any executive order for any reason he wants, and he doesn’t have to ask some lower-court judge, “Mother, may I?” Walsh makes the argument that it’s time for Trump to just start telling out-of-control judges to go whistle up a rope. Of course, we all know what would happen: he’d be accused of “destroying democracy.” Actually, he would be reasserting it.