Why Do We Obey An Obscure Judge's Ruling?

[Take Down Sicko]

I agree. Those who refuse to obey to up hold our law should be put in jail and removed from office. They are blatantly breaking the law by not complying.

[OneGun]

This thread is got quite a bit of meat on it. Unless my Civics teacher in high school was a complete moron, the founding fathers set-up a system of government of three branches to provide a check and balance system. In this case, the Executive Branch, headed by POTUS can be restrained by either the Legislative Branch with the power to override a veto and the Judicial Branch with the ability to rule against the other two branches of Government. There are other details and capabilities granted by the U.S. Constitution, but I don't want to re-hash a year long Civics course.

One question asked is why to we allow obscure judges to interfere with the designs of the Executive Branch. The more important question to me is that if we abandon the rule of law, we will find ourselves in chaos and anarchy, like Venezuela. Better for POTUS to take the matter to SCOTUS to resolve through the Judicial Branch than to just ignore the Judicial Branch. POTUS could be impeached for ignoring the Judical Branch, the obscure judge can't ignore SCOTUS.

Another issue in this thread had to do with Liberal States enacting laws to violate Federal Laws. Immigration is strictly speaking a Federal mandate, not a state's rights issue. Enacting laws to break Federal laws to establish sanctuaries is akin to initiating the rumblings of a civil war. AG Sessions has sued California and I expect that by the time this judicial question reaches SCOTUS, California's laws will be found unconstitutional and vacated. I truly think the Left wants a either a Constitutional crisis in the name of Liberalism or they want to a civil war. Either way, all Americans will suffer.

The last issue that I have found most disturbing is the weaponizing of the Judicial system to tie-up and block the Executive Branch from carrying out its duties. It seems like the Liberal states file lawsuit after lawsuit to inhibit POTUS. There are two problems. The first is that if and when there is a change in political parties in control of the Executive Branch, the precedent has been set to disrupt Executive Branch with frivolous lawsuits. The second is that the American public is learning that politicians place more value on their ideology than actually accomplishing anything meaningful. The government suffers from legislative paralysis. Note how Pelosi felt that Obama's $40 tax credit was meaningful, but Trump's tax cuts were just "crumbs" It does not help that many of her colleagues want to remove all borders and abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.

By the time Trump completes his 2nd term, we will have a real crisis on our hands in this country, unless some terrorist group attacks the USA worse than 9/11. There is too much hypocrisy and lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law.

[MechAg94]

I was thinking more about the Federal Judge who ruled that Trump had to continue the DACA program when that program was never authorized by law to begin with.

[Scott Farkus]

A judge in Maryland ruled with Trump on DACA.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics ... index.html

So we have conflicting opinions, and the SCOTUS declined to resolve it. I'm not smart enough to know all the legal maneuverings involved but as a layman, I don't understand how we can function this way.

[warnmar10]

How do you square that vision with the concept of "three coequal branches" of government? Is one coequal branch more equal than the other two?

3 coequal branches... and where does that fiction emanate from? (Please say constitution, please say constitution...)

I first heard of the concept in Coach Muldrew's 8th grade American History class. I believe it has its roots in Federalist #51 and #78 but the first three articles of the Constitution spell out the roles of the three branches. Federal courts, save for the Supreme Court, are creatures of Congress.

So where is it written that courts are to reign supreme over Congress and the Executive?

[jmorris]

He's not an obscure judge, he's a member of the federal judicial branch and he's doing his job as the constitution calls for. Even if I very much disagree with his decisions. There have been those federel judges who have called decisions for our side. We've even cheered those decisions here.

[ScottDLS]

We will stop having to put up with the unconstitutional rulings of left wing Federal judges when conservative voters and citizens get our acts together and start electing people at all levels of government that follow the constitution as written. When people start considering the policies of our representatives and how they affect our lives and those of our fellow citizens. When we start and continue voting for people based on their actions, record, character, and morals rather than just voting for the Democrat black guy, because that'll really PROVE I'm not a racist.

I'm not particularly optimistic.

[philbo]

How do you square that vision with the concept of "three coequal branches" of government? Is one coequal branch more equal than the other two?

3 coequal branches... and where does that fiction emanate from? (Please say constitution, please say constitution...)

I first heard of the concept in Coach Muldrew's 8th grade American History class. I believe it has its roots in Federalist #51 and #78 but the first three articles of the Constitution spell out the roles of the three branches. Federal courts, save for the Supreme Court, are creatures of Congress.

So where is it written that courts are to reign supreme over Congress and the Executive?

The myth that the constitution created 3 Co-Equal branches of government is so pervasive that has become an article of faith among many Americans. It's repeated often, and wrongly that this is what the constitution created. Yet, no where does the constitution mention Co-Equal branches or Checks and Balances. If anything, close study of the constitution will reveal that while 3 branches are created by the constitution, the Legislative branch was intended to be the most dominant. There was even fear among the states against passage of the constitution that too much power was granted to the legislative branch and not enough to the idea of Co-Equal branches. Proof of the legislative branches power can be found in their exclusive ability to confirm Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges. Further, only the legislative branch can remove someone from either the executive or legislative branches. This includes judges in district or supreme courts, agency heads, and even the president. Neither of the other 2 branches can touch a member of the legislative branch. The legislative branch was established to be the most powerful, so powerful in fact that it's power was divided into 2 houses, with only one of those originally elected directly by the people. With all due respect for coaches everywhere teaching history, the thought that there are 3 co-equal branches of government created by the constitution is at best an oversimplification of a difficult concept, and at worst, a myth repeated to make a difficult topic more easy for bored 8th graders to recite on their tests.

Federalist 51 speaks of the importance of separating power among the branches. It does a spectacular job of exploring the dangers of factionalism, the possible tyranny of the minority as well as the possible tyranny of the majority that must be guarded against. No where will one find talk of co-equal branches.

Federalist 78 may be the best reference for this thread. It is here that Hamilton addressed what he referred to as the weakest of the 3 branches. The judicial branch posses only the power to judge, not to act, and even its judgments or decisions depend upon the executive branch to carry them out.
This power of Judicial Review is developed at great length by Hamilton in this paper. The courts he felt are the arbiters between the legislative branch and the people; the courts are to interpret the laws and prevent the legislative branch from exceeding the powers granted to it. The courts must not only place the Constitution higher than the laws passed by Congress, they must also place the intentions of the people ahead of the intentions of their representatives. This is not a matter of which branch is superior: it is simply to acknowledge that the people are superior to both. Hamilton in this paper pronounces judicial review as being part of the Constitution. Judicial review is seen by the Federalists as another barrier against too much democracy... just as direct election of the president and the senate were seen as dangerous... hence the indirect election of senators until the 17th amendment and the persistence of the electoral college in the election of the president. This concept of judicial review is championed in this paper. Again, no mention of co-equal branches, but rather a clear foundation on that legal concept of judicial review... something common in the state courts of the times, and taken for granted by a majority of those at the constitutional convention.

In 1803 the Supreme Court explicitly carved out this concept of judicial review and claimed it among the powers of the legislative branch in the case Marbury v. Madison. The reason judicial review has withstood the test of time is due in large part to the writings of Hamilton in Fed 78.

So why do we obey an obscure judge's ruling? Because the power to interpret the laws and judge their constitutionality are the two special functions of the courts, powers not given to either the executive or judicial branch. Continued stability demands an independent judiciary. Hamilton admits that individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts, but he is emphatic in adding that the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter. Those countries lacking a strong, independent judiciary inevitably fall to despotism, or anarchy. It is not and has never been about co-equal branches, but about safe guarding the individual liberties that form this democracy from all forms of oppression. Sometimes that means you have to work within the system, and appeal those decisions you feel are in conflict with the constitution. It's seldom fast, but it has worked more often than not in our history.

[philip964]

Not just a judge. A duly elected District Attorney or Attorney General brought a suit.

I just wish damages could be accessed for the delay, especially for citizens killed by illegals.

Seems only fair.

[thatguyoverthere]

An interesting perspective from Thomas Jefferson:

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Jarvis, 1820:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. ... and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time & party it’s members would become despots...

https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 01-02-1540

[The Annoyed Man]

How do you square that vision with the concept of "three coequal branches" of government? Is one coequal branch more equal than the other two?

3 coequal branches... and where does that fiction emanate from? (Please say constitution, please say constitution...)

I first heard of the concept in Coach Muldrew's 8th grade American History class. I believe it has its roots in Federalist #51 and #78 but the first three articles of the Constitution spell out the roles of the three branches. Federal courts, save for the Supreme Court, are creatures of Congress.

So where is it written that courts are to reign supreme over Congress and the Executive?

The myth that the constitution created 3 Co-Equal branches of government is so pervasive that has become an article of faith among many Americans. It's repeated often, and wrongly that this is what the constitution created. Yet, no where does the constitution mention Co-Equal branches or Checks and Balances. If anything, close study of the constitution will reveal that while 3 branches are created by the constitution, the Legislative branch was intended to be the most dominant. There was even fear among the states against passage of the constitution that too much power was granted to the legislative branch and not enough to the idea of Co-Equal branches. Proof of the legislative branches power can be found in their exclusive ability to confirm Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges. Further, only the legislative branch can remove someone from either the executive or legislative branches. This includes judges in district or supreme courts, agency heads, and even the president. Neither of the other 2 branches can touch a member of the legislative branch. The legislative branch was established to be the most powerful, so powerful in fact that it's power was divided into 2 houses, with only one of those originally elected directly by the people. With all due respect for coaches everywhere teaching history, the thought that there are 3 co-equal branches of government created by the constitution is at best an oversimplification of a difficult concept, and at worst, a myth repeated to make a difficult topic more easy for bored 8th graders to recite on their tests.

Federalist 51 speaks of the importance of separating power among the branches. It does a spectacular job of exploring the dangers of factionalism, the possible tyranny of the minority as well as the possible tyranny of the majority that must be guarded against. No where will one find talk of co-equal branches.

Federalist 78 may be the best reference for this thread. It is here that Hamilton addressed what he referred to as the weakest of the 3 branches. The judicial branch posses only the power to judge, not to act, and even its judgments or decisions depend upon the executive branch to carry them out.
This power of Judicial Review is developed at great length by Hamilton in this paper. The courts he felt are the arbiters between the legislative branch and the people; the courts are to interpret the laws and prevent the legislative branch from exceeding the powers granted to it. The courts must not only place the Constitution higher than the laws passed by Congress, they must also place the intentions of the people ahead of the intentions of their representatives. This is not a matter of which branch is superior: it is simply to acknowledge that the people are superior to both. Hamilton in this paper pronounces judicial review as being part of the Constitution. Judicial review is seen by the Federalists as another barrier against too much democracy... just as direct election of the president and the senate were seen as dangerous... hence the indirect election of senators until the 17th amendment and the persistence of the electoral college in the election of the president. This concept of judicial review is championed in this paper. Again, no mention of co-equal branches, but rather a clear foundation on that legal concept of judicial review... something common in the state courts of the times, and taken for granted by a majority of those at the constitutional convention.

In 1803 the Supreme Court explicitly carved out this concept of judicial review and claimed it among the powers of the legislative branch in the case Marbury v. Madison. The reason judicial review has withstood the test of time is due in large part to the writings of Hamilton in Fed 78.

So why do we obey an obscure judge's ruling? Because the power to interpret the laws and judge their constitutionality are the two special functions of the courts, powers not given to either the executive or judicial branch. Continued stability demands an independent judiciary. Hamilton admits that individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts, but he is emphatic in adding that the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter. Those countries lacking a strong, independent judiciary inevitably fall to despotism, or anarchy. It is not and has never been about co-equal branches, but about safe guarding the individual liberties that form this democracy from all forms of oppression. Sometimes that means you have to work within the system, and appeal those decisions you feel are in conflict with the constitution. It's seldom fast, but it has worked more often than not in our history.

A well reasoned and detailed explanation, but it leaves out something......

An interesting perspective from Thomas Jefferson:

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Jarvis, 1820:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. ... and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time & party it’s members would become despots...

https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 01-02-1540

Essentially, what Jefferson is saying here is that the federal judiciary is every bit as capable of becoming venal, politically toxic, and acting unconstitutionally as are elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they serve for life. That gives them decades to pour their toxins into the nation’s political bloodstream - if they are so inclined. In other words, they have the actual power to destroy the country, and to do it perhaps more quickly and thoroughly than either the legislative or executive branches, and to do it with very little accountability. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? Impeachment? Not bloody likely, for any offense less than having been caught “mid stroke” on film, having their way with minor children in a flophouse somewhere......and even then, it being Washington DC, that judge would still have his supporters telling you to look the other way. Let’s say that the House actually grew the stones to impeach a sitting federal judge....would the Senate likely convict him? No, it would be extremely rare. They would have to admit that they had made a mistake during their “advise and consent” proceedings. Plus, some of those senators surely have SCOTUS as the next item on their checklist if not POTUS. They’re not going to poison the well for themselves by convicting a federal judge. So the truth of the matter is that the odds of impeaching a federal judge for derailing a president’s mandate for purely political reasons is nonexistent. Out of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of federal judges who have been appointed since the founding, only 15 have ever been impeached.

Here is a list of the 15 federal judges removed from office during our history, and why (source):

1803
John Pickering of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire

• Nominated: By President George Washington in 1795.
  Charges: Mental instability and intoxication on the bench
  Convicted: By the United States Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.

1804
Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court of the United States.

• Nominated: By President George Washington in 1796.
  Charges: Arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials
  Acquitted: By the United States Senate on March 1, 1805.

1830
James Hawkins Peck of the United States District Court for the District of Missouri.

• Nominated: By President James Monroe in 1822.
  Charges: Abuse of the contempt of power
  Acquitted: By the Senate on January 1, 1831.

1862
West Hughes Humphreys of the United States District Courts for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Tennessee.

• Nominated: By President Franklin Pierce in 1853.
  Charges: Refusing to hold court and waging war against the United States government
  Convicted: By the Senate and removed from office on June 26, 1862.

1873
Mark W. Delahay for the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

• Nominated: By President Abraham Lincoln in 1863.
  Charges: Intoxication on the bench
  Resigned: From office December 12, 1873, before a trial in the Senate.

1904
Charles Swayne for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

• Nominated: By President Benjamin Harrison in 1889.
  Charges: Abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office
  Acquitted: By the Senate on February 27, 1905.

1912
Robert Wodrow Archbald of the United States Commerce Court.

• Nominated: By President William Howard Taft in 1910.
  Charges: Improper business relationship with litigants
  Convicted: By the Senate and removed from office on January 13, 1913.

1926
George Washington English of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.

• Nominated: By President Woodrow Wilson in 1918.
  Charges: Abuse of power
  Resigned: From office November 4, 1926, at which time impeachment proceedings were dismissed.

1933
Harold Louderback of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

• Nominated: By President Calvin Coolidge in 1928.
  Charges: Favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers
  Acquitted: By the Senate on May 24, 1933.

1936
Halsted Lockwood Ritter of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

• Nominated: By President Calvin Coolidge in 1929.
  Charges: Favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge
  Convicted: By the Senate and removed from office on April 17, 1936.

1986
Harry Claiborne of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

• Nominated: By President Jimmy Carter in 1978.
  Charges: Income tax evasion and remaining on the bench following a criminal conviction
  Convicted: By the Senate and removed from office on October 9, 1986.

1988
Alcee Hastings of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

• Nominated: By President Jimmy Carter in 1979.
  Charges: Perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe
  Convicted: By the Senate and removed from office on October 20, 1989.

1989
Walter Nixon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

• Nominated: By President Lyndon Johnson in 1968.
  Charges: Perjury before a federal grand jury
  Convicted: By the Senate and removed from office on November 3, 1989.

2009
Samuel Kent of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

• Nominated: By President George H.W. Bush in 1990.
  Charges: Sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and making false and misleading statements.
  Resigned: From office on July 30, 2009, and articles of impeachment were dismissed.

2010
Thomas Porteous of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

• Nominated: By President Bill Clinton in 1994.
  Charges: Accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury
  Convicted: By the Senate and removed from office on December 8, 2010.

All of the above except for one were removed from office for failings of mental stability or personal morality. The one who wasn’t, was removed from office for literally making war on the United States.

But I’ll ask you this: you mentioned repeatedly above the function of “judicial review” ..... as in, it is their job to review the constitutionality of a thing and issue a ruling on it. What happens if a president simply defies the ruling and proceeds with his agenda? The judiciary can’t order the Security Branch of the DNC (AKA “FBI”) to arrest him. They can’t order Congress to impeach him. They don’t have that power. So what happens if Trump (for instance) ignores the federal judge’s DACA ruling and presses forward with his original decision, orders the agencies under his powers to execute his agenda ...... and Congress refuses to impeach him for defying the judge? What happens then? He’ll hold the president in contempt? Fine him? How do you fine a billionaire into submission for refusing to knuckle under to a possibly illegal court order? Maybe send over a couple of bailiffs to arrest him? Anybody think that the baillifs will get past the praetorian guard of White House security, let alone get cooperation from POTUS’s secret service detail?

What I think would happen is that people would see this and realize that the courts are, to some extent, a paper tiger. We agree as a society to respect the courts’ rulings, so long as those rulings make sense and have a foundation in the rule of law and a due respect for human rights. But to anyone who thinks that the federal bench is infallible, I have two words: Dread Scott. In case after case, the federal bench, including SCOTUS, has either issued rulings that were so egregious on their face that subsequent or higher courts overturned them, or worse yet, they have issued rulings that have allowed great injustices to stand (i.e. Kelo, Roe, and other cases). And too often, the public accepts that a ruling is constitutional simply because the court says it is - even when that ruling defies the plain language of the Constitution. By the way, that includes every single gun law and court ruling that in any way whatsoever infringed on the right to keep and bear arms, without an individual’s right of due process.

I am NOT saying that this is necessarily a good thing as a general rule for the other two branches to ignore the courts, but I can see where it would be a GREAT thing in limited applications - such as when the courts seem very plainly to be blocking a president from doing his Constitutionally mandated job, and for strictly political reasons. It would be hard for me to fault Trump for telling this judge to go pound sand, and for beginning to carry out his border control mandate - especially when that mandate falls squarely in his portfolio of powers as the chief executive anyway, and when that seems to also be the will of the people who elected him.

You may be right that the legislative branch is by all rights the more powerful of the three, but the fact remains that ALL THREE have the power to act despotically, and that is, in my opinion, the case with the judge who ruled against Trump’s DACA policy........even though it is more liberal than the policy it is replacing.

To me, there are some obvious solutions, but they are going to require amending the Constitution, which is a (rightfully) difficult process, and fraught with some measure of danger if it is not handled correctly. To whit: Term Limits for ALL federal positions, elected or appointed. We already term limit presidents. The ONLY reason we don’t have term limits for congress is that they are too dishonest and corrupt to willingly surrender that power.

1. House of representatives to be limited to five two-year terms.
2. Senate to be limited to two six-year terms.
3. Federal Judiciary to be limited to a single ten-year term at any one level.
4. Federal senior management service, including in law enforcement and intellgence agencies, to be limited to a single four-year term, coincident with incoming administrations.

I have some other choice changes I’d like to see made, but draining the swamp requires making it difficult for someone to become a swamp denizen in the first place.

[Grundy1133]

The system is broken plain and simple. It's been broken for decades.

[cirus]

I don't think we'll ever talk or vote our way out of this mess. It'll have to be solved the old fashion way.

[anygunanywhere]

I don't think we'll ever talk or vote our way out of this mess. It'll have to be solved the old fashion way.

[philbo]

Essentially, what Jefferson is saying here is that the federal judiciary is every bit as capable of becoming venal, politically toxic, and acting unconstitutionally as are elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they serve for life.

Hamilton and the other founding fathers would have agreed that individuals can always be tempted by power and be corrupted. The whole design of the constitution was to limit the damage such individuals could do, regardless of which branch they are in. The fact that you could only find 15 instances out of the more than 3,000 judges in over 200 years speaks to the recognition that removal of a judge for anything other than a very serious breach of office is to be avoided. Removal of anyone for office for merely partisan politics is the basest form of factionalism.

The life sentence for our federal judges serves two purposes as explained by Hamilton in Fed 78: First, Permanency in office frees judges from political pressures and prevents invasions on judicial power by the president and Congress. One more attept to remove politics as much as possible from the judiciary. Second, Hamilton cites one other important reason for judges to have life tenure. In a free government there are bound to be many laws, some of them complex and contradictory. It takes many years to fully understand the meaning of these laws and a short term of office would discourage able and honest men from seeking an appointment to the courts; they would be reluctant to give up lucrative law practices to accept a temporary judicial appointment. Life tenure, modified by good behavior, is a superb device for assuring judicial independence and protection of individual rights.

But I’ll ask you this: you mentioned repeatedly above the function of “judicial review” ..... as in, it is their job to review the constitutionality of a thing and issue a ruling on it. What happens if a president simply defies the ruling and proceeds with his agenda?

This question has already been answered. In 1832 SCOTUS held a Georgia state law unconstitutional - Worcester v. Georgia is the case. The paper tiger of the courts was exposed when President Jackson refused to uphold the courts decision and purportedly said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it," A truly proud moment in our history that evolved into the Trail of Tears. One example of ignoring the rule of law.

So what happens if Trump (for instance) ignores the federal judge’s DACA ruling and presses forward with his original decision, orders the agencies under his powers to execute his agenda ...... and Congress refuses to impeach him for defying the judge?

At the point the grand experiment is over. The Rule of Law will be replaced by a despot, because if he will not protect the constitution, or worse asks that we give up a little of our freedom for the illusion of safety, then the illusion of a government is gone and what we have left is a dictatorship. At that point, armed insurrection will occur.

Every decision by a court is to some extent a political decision. Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education were judgments based on judicial review. Their decisions were political in their application, but they served the very important purpose of the safety valve for a society that moved slowly to accept change. Dredd Scott in 1857 reflects a society that was unwilling to accept a former slave as a person with the rights of citizen. It would take a civil war and the 13, 14 , and 15th amendments to overturn that decision. Plessy in 1896 reflected a society that was unwilling to accept equality of races. A popular decision at the time, but one that led to the spread of Jim Crow, the KKK and all those other institutions of intolerance that grew until SCOTUS shocked the nation in 1954 by striking down Plessy and forwarding the civil rights movement, a movement that is at best a work in progress. If Eisenhower had decided not to enforce the Supreme Courts unanimous ruling, what might have happened?

Now people are upset because some obscure judge issues an injunction against Trump's travel ban, immigration policies, etc. And why were the injunctions issued? The only justification for the injunctions issued have been time and again simply that their stated purpose (protection of US interests, etc) did not match up to the actual intended purpose as espoused by the trump in his own tweets... ie, whatever their intended purpose, their real purpose was not what was stated.... You'll find the term arbitrary and capricious used over and over when these injunctions are issued. You want the courts to support the president? Then start with POTUS, because that's where the problem lies. If you truly belive that the majority of lawyers and judges are liberal, then you need to get out and meet a few more. I've found the opposite to be true in my experience.