This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, February 6, 2017:
James Robart, Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, may have been pre-selected to rule in lawsuits brought by the state of Washington (later joined by Minnesota) against Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.” Adam Winkler, a Constitutional scholar at UCLA, explained the concept: “The idea is that you pick a judge that’s friendly, go to court, and stop a big government program before there’s been a trial, or before the judge even has an evidentiary record.”
Consider the evidence. Robart, a George Bush appointee, has been providing pro-bono legal counsel to refugees for years. He is sensitive to their situations and circumstances and no doubt some of them are here illegally. Second, in a ruling in a Seattle Police Department reform case, he clearly expressed his anti-police worldview in final remarks available on YouTube (see Sources below). He told the court in August 2016: “Police shootings resulting in deaths involved 41 percent black people, despite being only 20 percent of the population.” He repeated the phony statistic, and then ended by saying – to the surprise of those in the courtroom – “Black Lives Matter.” The statistic is phony because blacks in inner cities cause most of the crimes. Police arrest them, and sometimes are forced to defend themselves, not because they are black but because they are criminals.
Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence to suggest that Robart was “shopped” is that, in the event his ruling is challenged, the appeal goes directly to the most liberal circuit court in the country: the 9th Circuit Court. This is a court that has distinguished itself as having the highest number of reversals by the Supreme Court of any of the other 13 circuit courts. As Carol Williams a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times noted in reviewing the 9th Circuit’s record in July 2011: “It was another bruising year for the liberal judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as the Supreme Court overturned the majority of their decisions, at times sharply criticizing their legal reasoning.”
The 9th Circuit Court provides nearly 30 percent of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, and they are surely in line to hear this one. Shorthanded by one – waiting for the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch – it would take five votes of the eight Supremes to override the 9thCircuit Court’s affirmation of Robart’s ruling on Friday.
The White House, in issuing its executive orders concerning immigrants and refugees a week earlier, spelled out its case:
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
During the hearing on Friday, before issuing his ruling, Robart confronted one of the Justice Department’s attorneys, Michelle Bennett, asking her just exactly how many of those “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001”? Specifically, he asked Bennett “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11?”
Bennett, unprepared, punted: “I don’t know the specific details of attacks or planned attacks. Robart jumped on her: “The answer to that is none. You’re here arguing we have to protect [the country] from these individuals from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”
Had Bennett been prepared, and had Robart been prepared to allow her the time, she could have enlightened him of his ignorance. She could have gone all the way back to 732 AD when a Muslim army that was threatening Paris was defeated at Tours by Charles Martell.
She could have fast-forwarded through history to 1968 when Robert Kennedy was shot by a Muslim; to 1972 when Muslims kidnapped and massacred Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics; or that same year when a Pan Am 747 was hijacked by Muslims and diverted to Cairo, after which it was blown up on the runway; to 1973 when Pan Am Flight 110 was destroyed in Rome, killing 33 people, with grenades launched by Muslims; to 1979 when the U.S. Embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslims; to 1983 when the U.S. Marine barracks were blown up by Muslims; to 1985 when the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslims; to the hijacking that same year of TWA Flight 847 in Athens and a U.S. Navy diver, who was trying to rescue passengers, was murdered by Muslims; to 1993, when the World Trade Centers was bombed for the first time by Muslims; to 1998 when U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslims; to 2002 when the U.S. fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslims; to 2002 when Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by Muslims; to 2009 when an Iraqi Muslim was arrested for running over and murdering his daughter in an “honor killing”; to 2009 when a Muslim murdered 13 people and wounded another 30 at Fort Hood; to 2011 when another Iraqi Muslim murdered his step-daughter in an “honor killing”; to 2013 when Muslim brothers set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing four people and injuring 264 others; to 2016 when a Somalia Muslim refugee entered a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, dressed as a security guard and began stabbing individuals before being killed by a security guard.
As if to add emphasis to the increasing risks claimed by the president as justification for his executive orders, on Sunday three Muslim brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan, who managed office information technology for members of the House Committee on Intelligence, were relieved of their duties, suspected of serious violations including accessing those members’ computers without permission. And two more Muslims could be involved in the crimes, according to sources familiar with the matter.
On Monday the 9th Circuit Court will hear again from both sides before making its ruling final. Whoever loses is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is likely, by a 4-to-4 vote, to affirm.
This case is also likely to be the opening salvo in the long-awaited legal conversation about immigration policy in the United States, particularly over the role of Congress and the White House in implementing it. That Robart may have been “shopped” only confirms just how high the stakes are in that conversation.
DailyMail.co.uk: Trump administration files appeal challenging Seattle judge’s ‘terrible and ridiculous’ halt on immigration ban ‘that opens up country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart’
The Wall Street Journal: Seattle Judge Used Broad Power to Halt Executive Order
The Wall Street Journal: Airlines Resume Flying Passengers Blocked Under Travel Ban to U.S.