Donald Trump woke up on Wednesday and began shaking a tiny fist at the judiciary.
But in this case, there’s an eensy issue with Trump’s tweet other than just it’s open disdain for the third branch of the government.
A San Francisco judge barred enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order withholding funds from so-called sanctuary cities that fail to comply with federal immigration demands by shielding undocumented immigrants.
Yes, Judge William Orrick does happen to be in San Francisco. No, he’s not on the Ninth Circuit. This was a United States District Court ruling. It hasn’t even gone to the appeals court. Trump didn’t just attack the judiciary, he attacked the wrong part.
But Trump didn’t stop with the misdirected tweet. The White House also issued a statement that renews Trump’s ongoing attack on the judiciary and “unelected judges.” It’s part of a pattern in the Trump regime that runs from distrust of a “Mexican judge” to Jefferson Session whining about “a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific.”
From the White House office of the press secretary …
Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation. …
Once again, a single district judge -- this time in San Francisco -- has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country. This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father's arms. San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands. This San Francisco judge's erroneous ruling is a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element in our country, empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and putting thousands of innocent lives at risk. ...
This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system and raises serious questions about circuit shopping. But we are confident we will ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court, just as we will prevail in our lawful efforts to impose immigration restrictions necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States.
First an “unelected judge,” then “a single district judge” then all together for “a single, unelected district judge.” Is that pushing that button hard enough? At least the statement does note that it was a district judge, before mentioning “circuit shopping.”
The Ninth Circuit — the largest court of appeals in the nation, representing almost 20% of the population — is a regular subject of attack for conservatives. Not only does it have more judges that were appointed by Democratic presidents than Republicans, it’s headquartered in (gasp) San Francisco. So the court’s rulings regularly come in for a load of oh-those-horrible-liberal-judges.
Sessions’ backhanded dismissal of the nation’s fiftieth state as “an island in the Pacific” also came as part of an attack on that court.
"We've got cases moving in the very, very liberal Ninth Circuit, who, they've been hostile to the order," Sessions said. "We won a case in Virginia recently that was a nicely-written order that just demolished, I thought, all the arguments that some of the other people have been making.
Republicans point out that 61 percent of rulings by the Ninth Circuit are reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court, implying that the “liberal” San Francisco court gets things wrong more than half the time. That’s a huge distortion of the truth. The Supreme Court chooses to review less than two tenths of one percent of the cases that come before the Ninth. The percent of cases it overrules from the Ninth Circuit is actually smaller than of other districts.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit may well be next to get a swing at Trump’s sanctuary city ruling. If so, there are good reasons to think they will keep in place or extend the injunction issued by District Judge Orrick.
As America’s Voice noted, despite Trump and Jeff Sessions’ legally questionable threats and claims, “sanctuary cities are safer than cities that aren’t as friendly to immigrants. This is because cities with pro-immigrant policies see better relationships between immigrant communities and the police. Immigrants aren’t as afraid to report crimes.”
The justification used in issuing the executive order have no basis in fact, and the sanctuary cities have sound reasons for their policies. Unfortunately for Donald Trump, that unelected judiciary is likely to rule in favor of both justice and common sense.