And the word was of judges.
And the judges decided without any reliance on any laws - just because they believed whatever they say was the law, and because they were saying in accord with what was blasting out of TVs and what was chanted by crowds in the streets.
Trump is bad.
Whatever Trump is doing is bad.
Judges - stop what Trump is doing, all of it, because it is bad, because it is being done by Trump, who is bad.
And judges did. Without any reliance on any rule of law.
And in Massachusetts.
And in Virginia.
And in California.
And in New York.
And then, in Massachusetts, there was a change of judge from Judge Alisson Burroughs to Judge Nathaniel Gordon, and a change of ruling.
The new assigned judge in the federal court in Massachusetts, Judge Nathaniel Gordon, ruled not based on the red rag with the words "Donald Trump" on it, but based on the law.
Judge Nathaniel Gordon of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the first judge out of a number of judges who were presiding over similar cases so far, analyzed the law, and said in his decision that there was no legal basis to stop Donald Trump, the president of the U.S., to do what he was doing with his Executive Order on immigration, without regard whether crowds in the street liked it or not.
And THAT was independence of the judiciary and a dispassionate decision based on the law.
But, that was not what the crowd wanted.
So, Judge James Robart, out of another federal court, in Seattle, Washington, cancelled what Judge Gordon said and, in a decision that had no analysis that Judge Gordon's decision said, ruled - no, Trump must be stopped, period. My judicial word is law.
This is the ENTIRE amount of "legal analysis" by Judge Robart, making no analysis of the underlying substantive law whatsoever.
And this is what Judge Robart ordered:
Of course, what judge Robart did, ruling that his order has nationwide application, was illegal and the best way to describe, why, is to draw a square, let's call it "Judge Robart's Magic Square".
Not only Judge Robart forgot about such trifles as "standing to sue" or elementary explanation why he things that plaintiffs have a chance of "prevailing on the merits" when:
1) they have no standing, and even if they had, then,
2) as Judge Gordon ruled in his decision, the applicable test for resolving the problem will be the "rational basis test", which plaintiffs will fail (resulting in dismissal of the lawsuit, possibly with sanctions and attorney fees against those who filed it).
Judge Robart, in his chase of the red rag with Donald Trump on it and in his zeal to appeal to the crowds in the street and in the media, did not even care to consider that, as the "Magic Square" of jurisdictions about shows, Judge Robart was never:
- nominated by the president;
- or confirmed by the U.S. Congress