In a press release given first to The Tennessee Star, the America First Federation has announced a national campaign to impeach three judges who issued unconstitutional orders aimed at stymieing President Trump's executive orders on immigration and national security.
“The three judges are Judge James Robart of Washington State, who overruled President Trump’s Executive Order 13679 on February 6, Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii and Judge Theodore Chuang of Maryland who issued separate temporary restraining orders on March 15 blocking the nationwide implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order 13780,” AFF said in the statement released to The Tennessee Star.
“We are organizing in several states, beginning with Tennessee, Florida, and Texas, to ask Republican members of the House of Representatives in those states to file articles of impeachment against all three of these judges (Robart,Watson, and Chuang), individually, in the House of Representatives, and to ask the Judiciary Committee to commence impeachment hearings,” Mark Skoda, founder of AFF, said in the statement.
“None of these three judges addressed the statutes and Constitution pertaining to the legitimate authority of the Executive Branch to regulate immigration,” Skoda wrote in a commentary published on Monday at The Star.
In each of these cases, we find that the opinions of the court reflected the political perspectives of Left wing ideologues, Democrat campaign operatives if you will, as they entered campaign rhetoric as evidence prior to Trump gaining the presidency. In all cases, the opinions did not address the underlying statutes, but instead dealt with the “mindset” of the government as developed through Trump’s campaign comments.
“James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried,” Skoda noted, then quoted National Review’s Rich Lowry, who said this of Robart’s decision:
“Judge Robart is trespassing on a core executive responsibility,”
Skoda also noted our friend Hans Von Spakovsky’s withering critique of the decisions by Watson and Chuang.
“Both judges based their decisions on a supposed violation of the Establishment Clause that bars religious discrimination, even though both judges acknowledge that the actual language of the executive order does not discriminate,” Von Spakovsky wrote at the Daily Signal:
Watson admits that it “is undisputed that the Executive Order does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion, or for or against religion versus non-religion.” Nevertheless, Chuang claims (as does Watson) that “the history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban.”
These conclusions make no sense. As the government pointed out in these cases, the revised order explicitly explains its national security purposes and provides detailed information on why these six countries were chosen.
According to Chuang, the government asserted that “there is a heightened chance that individuals from the designated countries will be ‘terrorist operatives or sympathizers’ because each country is ‘a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones,’ and those governments are therefore less likely to provide necessary information for the immigrant vetting process.”
All of which is just plain common sense—except to these two liberal judges.
“Many who fail to recognize the existential danger the actions taken by these three federal judges pose to the very survival of our republic will suggest that these acts of judicial tyranny be stopped through the proper channels of the courts,” Skoda writes in his commentary:
However, the 9th Circuit has been problematic as one of the most overturned courts in U.S. history. The President could appeal to the Supreme Court as well, however, the current 4/4 Court could push this back to the lower courts. And of course, there is the matter of time.
In essence, the American public becomes a spectator. But that is not what we should be about given the obvious politicization of the judiciary and the actions of the Deep State.
As American citizens, with rights, privileges, and courses of action spelled out in the Constitution, we can and should pursue a more aggressive set of actions.
Mark Skoda and the patriots of the America First Federation have it exactly right.
We urge the House of Representatives to immediately prepare articles of impeachment against Judges Robart, Watson and Chuang and to hold hearings at the earliest possible hour. The public needs to know exactly how his blatant partisanship and anti-constitutional behavior has jeopardized our national security and intruded upon the clear constitutional prerogatives of the Congress and the President.
Mr. Skoda and the America First Federation will initially focus on communicating this message to Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in Tennessee and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) in Texas, and you can help by contacting one of them, or your own Representative.
The Capitol Switchboard is (1-866-220-0044) we urge you to call your Representative and demand the immediate impeachment of Judges Robart, Watson and Chuang.