Typically, The New York Times has a fairly easy time finding experts who will agree with the default-liberal position on…just about anything. After all, it’s not exactly a matter of rocket science to go scouring the country for liberal lawyers who will tell you exactly what you want to hear vis-à-vis Donald Trump being a danger to the Constitution. Someone’s always eager to get their name in the most widely-circulated newspaper in the country, and there’s no shortage of liberals who really do believe that Trump is the antithesis of everything America is supposed to be about.
But it seems the Times ran into a bit of a roadblock this time around. Even they had to rely on legal experts who sharply questioned the basis on which Judge William Alsup ruled that the Trump administration must continue the DACA program for those already enrolled. After all, you don’t have to have clerked for the Supreme Court to realize that Trump has the same power of executive authority as his predecessor, Obama. So if Obama could create DACA with an executive order, it only stands to reason that Trump could uncreate it with the same mechanism.
“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” law professor Samuel Bray of UCLA asked the Times. “Increasingly, legal scholars are concerned about the way national injunctions are transforming the relationship between the courts and the political branches.”
Another professor – Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law – said that he predicted the Supreme Court to overturn Alsup’s decision (as they have with many of his unhinged rulings in the past).
“The justices don’t like the district courts changing national policy overnight,” he told the paper.
In his ruling, Alsup relied on the same bizarre logic that led several courts to rule against Trump’s Middle East travel ban: That because there was a chance that Trump based his decision on racial/religious animus, the order could not stand. But there is no clause in the Constitution that gives the courts this kind of leeway. Trump did not author the executive order with this reasoning, so it’s well beyond the court’s authority to go gleaning that meaning from his campaign speeches, conservative blogs, or whatever extra-legal source it chooses to use. Most likely, their own brainwashed ideological heads.
Judicial activism was a problem long before Donald Trump ascended to the presidency, much like liberal media bias was a problem long before Trump began making war with CNN. But both problems have grown spectacularly out of control over the last year. Donald Trump is the president of the United States, and it’s high time that liberal District Court judges get that into their thick skulls.