The shadow of former President Obama looms large in the federal district courts, with the latest judge to block President Trump based on nothing but “because I can” having raised $200,000 in support of Obama in 2008. Trump’s EO blocking “sanctuary cities” from receiving federal funds was challenged by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, both of which want to continue flouting federal immigration law.
According to the Daily Wire, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick also raised $100,000 for John Kerry in 2004, and an additional $30,800 for Obama-related groups in 2008.
Orrick is the poster boy for activist judges. In 2015, he blocked the Center for Medical Progress from releasing damning video exposing Planned Parenthood as the baby-part-selling ghouls they are.
Obama brought Orrick onboard in the civil division of the DOJ in 2009, where he became deputy assistant attorney general from 2010-2012. He nominated Orrick for the bench in the Northern District of California in 2012 and renominated him in 2013 when the Senate finally confirmed him. Orrick’s first bench experience was sitting as a U.S. District Court judge.
Now Orrick carries Obama’s and the Democrats’ water, like many liberal activist judges. He formed his opinion not based on facts in evidence and a strict legal review of the scope of Trump’s Executive Order (No. 13768), but using this standard:
And if there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments. The President has called it “a weapon” to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his preferred policies of immigration enforcement, and his press secretary has reiterated that the President intends to ensure that “counties and other institutions that remain sanctuary cites don’t get federal government funding in compliance with the executive order.” The Attorney General has warned that jurisdictions that do not comply with Section 1373 would suffer “withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants,” and the “claw back” of any funds previously awarded. Section 9(a) is not reasonably susceptible to the new, narrow interpretation offered at the hearing.
Next, Obama’s legion of activist lawfare troops will begin citing CNN’s analysis and MSNBC talking heads as justification for stopping Trump from doing what presidents have authority to do. Just because Congress has authorized a budget line item doesn’t mean that the Executive Branch is bound to spend every dime. That’s a ludicrous standard which would obviate the need for even having a president.
Orrick cites the “separation of powers doctrine,” that the EO has caused “irreparable harm” and “constitutional injuries,” “depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights.” And that it caused “budget uncertainty” because San Francisco and Santa Clara County wish to have their cake and eat it too. In reality, this is almost a case of nullification–that a city and county can make their own laws which nullify federal law, and still force the federal government to fork over taxpayer money.
I’m not even a lawyer and I can see what Orrick is arguing here–that San Francisco’s interpretation of what the Fourth Amendment requires overrides Congress’ intent in federal law. But of course, when Congress approves money for San Francisco, the Executive Branch doesn’t get a say in whether that money should be released based on San Francisco’s flouting of the law. Because Trump made public comments, and Sean Spicer said things to the press, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions said some things publicly.
This embarrassing order is nothing more than a “thank you Mr. Obama” letter, a fifth column action on behalf of Democrats who have lost both houses of Congress and most state governments, in order to fight a rear-guard action against the currently serving and duly elected administration.
Congress should clip the wings of the federal judiciary to hear these kinds of cases. They rightly belong in the Supreme Court. And any judge not already bought off should recuse him or herself from making such an order if they’ve raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for political causes. This is corruption worthy of Venezuela or some third world kleptocracy, not the U.S.
But at least now we know the price of a federal judge to whore himself and besot the Constitution.