Smith: The “so-called” legal experts

Trump’s troubling response to the 9th Circuit’s ruling

Kevin Smith, Opinion Edtior

Perhaps the most controversial of President Donald Trump’s 12 executive orders, the immigration and refugee ban on seven countries, was put on hold last month by Judge James Robart, one of George W. Bush’s federal appointees. The case, Washington v. Trump, is going to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court upheld Judge Robart’s order to halt the executive order.

      Washington v. Trump presents a threat to one of the Trump administration’s biggest promises, and the futures of many in the United States is depending on the ruling. The case, Washington v, Trump, presents a threat to one of the Trump administration’s biggest promises.

The order caused widespread chaos at airports across the world. Trump’s executive order is said to be Islamophobic because it restricts immigration from several Muslim majority countries, while religious minorities in those countries receive preference to travel to the United States. Some with visas, some who were permanent residents, and others who had valid immigration documents were denied entry to the country.

Aside from the hectic mess that the executive order wrought for a few days, Trump’s response to the court’s ruling is another issue that cannot be glossed over. He attempted to discredit Judge Robart, through his favorite social media platform: Twitter.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” tweeted President Trump.

Trump’s complaints are characteristic of what we know about him so far. He suggests that his opponents, whoever they are, are unstable or somehow untrustworthy, instead of engaging with their argument. This allows people to fully discredit others arguments, even those who are clearly qualified with distinct qualifications, simply because source is branded as hateful, deceitful, biased and untrustworthy. It seems that Trump’s new goal is to discredit the judiciary, making people untrustworthy of respected legal figures who disagree with whatever Trump believes the law should do.

The president’s comments generated a heap of criticism from pretty much everyone who studies and applies laws in relation to the judicial branch. Even Trump’s own nominee for Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat, Neil Gorsuch, expressed his dismay at the president’s attacks on federal judges, calling his tweets “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” Vanderbilt University law professor Suzanna Sherry also criticized Trump, urging the judiciary to ignore the “childish tantrum from someone who didn’t get his way.”

So far, none of the judges involved in either ruling have responded to Trump. Don’t expect one either.

It is an overreach of his power and he disrespects the judiciary simply because he is not getting his way. It is something that he has displayed that he is willing to do time after time; discredit and attack anyone who disagrees with him. Now, it appears that Trump is taking these tactics, and using them against federal judges.

Unfortunately for President Trump but fortunately for Americans, federal judges are sending a strong message: they will not be curved from their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution despite any tweets he may send.

Hillary Clinton tweeted out “3-0” following the unanonymous ruling. Although it is a legal victory for right now, this should not be taken as evidence that the Supreme Court will strike down the travel ban for good. The Ninth Circuit did not fully engage with the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, so the ruling is not necessarily a sign of things to come. Also, it could be nearly a year before we hear the Supreme Court’s opinion on the case, with Gorsuch likely to be confirmed by that time.

In response to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, Trump tweeted in all caps “See you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!”

Echoing Stephen Colbert’s request, would anyone else love to see Trump represent himself in front of the Supreme Court and attempt to discredit nine of the most well reasoned lawyers in our country?