Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii has evidently decided that the Constitution doesn’t apply anymore. That’s are the only conclusion that I can draw from his latest ruling that Deanna wrote about here. It’s very clear that Judge Watson doesn’t like any bit of this so-called travel ban. 

A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order on Wednesday halting President Trump’s second ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world, dealing a political blow to the White House and signaling that proponents of the ban face a long and risky legal battle ahead.

There are so many problems with his ruling that legal scholars are going to have a field day on this for YEARS. Understandably President Trump wasn’t pleased.

My first thought upon hearing the news?

My second thought was, we are in deep trouble if these activist judges throw aside the law in favor of political gain! Make no mistake, that’s exactly what Judge Watson did.

He didn’t issue his ruling based upon the text of the Executive Order itself or laws such as federal immigration law Section 1182(f) that apply:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate (emphasis added).

Nope, he ruled on FEELINGS and campaign rhetoric.

1. The plaintiff in the case is an American citizen of Egyptian descent who has the SADS because of the EO. Judge Watson ruled in favor of a guy who would NEVER be affected by the stay!
2. The ruling completely fails to take into account and ignores the realities that the 6 countries involved are the most terror prone in the world.
3. This temporary immigration stay was put in place for our national security. Judge Watson willfully ignores that reality.
4. As pointed out here, the judge repeatedly discusses his personal feelings about why he ruled this way. FEELINGS have ZERO place on the bench! Period.
5. But… Muslims are sad!! Judge Watson again willfully ignores the fact that 43 other Muslim countries are NOT excluded. Why? Oh gee, perhaps its because none of THOSE countries are state sponsors of terror and aren’t letting ISIS run amok?
6. Using campaign rhetoric whether President Trump’s, Rudy Guiliani’s, or anyone else’s as justification of your ruling is well…stupid
7. But that stupidity didn’t stop Judge Watson from ruling on what he believes President Trump intended to do, not on the Executive Order itself.
8. Kick the Constitution to the curb! Seriously, he stated outright that the Constitition bars religious discrimination against foreigners. Has he READ the 1st Amendment or the Constitution itself lately?? That document doesn’t apply to foreigners…period.

If intent and "context" is now a justification for striking down laws, rather than the laws themselves, we have a whole lot of laws to gut.

— Nick Pappas (@NickAPappas) March 15, 2017

Folks, what Judge Watson did was wrong. He put thoughts, feelings, campaign rhetoric, and personal animus ahead of the law. He basically set fire to our Constitution and threw it in the gutter.

Even prominent legal scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz is not thrilled with Judge Watson’t ruling. He reaches the following conclusion:

In my opinion, that high threshold has not been reached in this case. So I predict the Supreme Court, if it gets the case, will find the new executive order constitutional.

The Executive Order issued was completely and utterly within the constitutional powers ascribed to the President. What we are seeing is the democrats and the left offering up a fundamental challenge to all that is great about this Republic. This ruling along with the previous rulings demonstrate that judges are willing to set aside the law, set aside judicial ethics, and in fact abuse the law in order to stop President Trump.

Because of Judge Watson and other activist judges; we are heading for a Constitutional confrontation. One that we’d better be ready to win.