How anyone can say our judicial system is not politically tainted is beyond me.
Look no further than yet another Clinton/Obama appointed judge halting a Trump administration immigration policy.
They Did It Again
Recently, the Trump administration created an order that would allow states to individually decide if they wanted to continue to accept refugees or not.
Texas was the first state to take advantage of the new order, shutting its borders down to refugees.
Liberal refugee activist groups immediately balked, claiming the new order was a way for the Trump administration to ban refugees on a state-by-state basis.
Church World Service, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and HIAS teamed up to take the administration to court over the legislation, rolling the dice they would get a liberal judge to help them out.
Well, they were right, because the case landed before Judge Peter J. Messitte.
Messitte is the senior judge on the Maryland District Court and he was appointed by Bill Clinton.
In his ruling, Messitte stated, “By giving States and Local Governments the power to veto where refugees may be resettled — in the face of clear statutory text and structure, purpose, Congressional intent, executive practice, judicial holdings, and Constitutional doctrine to the contrary — Order 13888 does not appear to serve the overall public interest.
“Granting the preliminary inductive relief Plaintiffs seek does.
“Refugee resettlement activity should go forward as it developed for the almost 40 years before Executive Order 13888 was announced.”
The Reaction
Needless to say, the Trump administration was furious when yet another district judge overruled the president.
White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham stated, “Another lawless district court has asserted its own preferred immigration policy in place of the laws of the United States – and, in so doing, robbed millions of American citizens of their voice and their say in a vital issue directly affecting their communities.
“President Trump rightly and justly recognized that your communities are unique, and while some cities have the resources to adequately support refugees and help them be successful, not all communities can sustain the substantial and costly burden.”
Mark Hetfield, the CEO of HIAS, on the other hand, was ecstatic over the stay being put in place.
He stated, “This ruling shows the country how this administration was wrong to attempt a state-by-state refugee ban.
“Judge Messitte found it likely that the executive order is unlawful, and we are grateful for the clarity of this injunction.
“An overwhelming majority of governors and municipalities have already expressed their desire to continue welcoming refugees.
“To those few who have not, we say not only is it unkind and un-American to ban refugees from your states and towns, but it is unlawful.”
My question would be that if an “overwhelming majority” of governors are opening their arms to these refugees, why force them on the states that do not want them?