Presidents and the Rule of Law

Once again, the Obama administration proves that it has no respect for the rule of law.  [emphasis added]

The Justice Department [DOJ] is resisting a judge’s order to provide ethics training for its lawyers and is objecting to turning over to the court the names of illegal aliens who were granted what amounts to administrative amnesty (“deferrals”) in stark violation of an injunction issued by the court. …

Given the extensive evidence that [Judge] Hanen cited in his order of the misrepresentations made by the government lawyers, as well as the extensive opportunity he gave the DOJ to present its side in the briefs it filed with the court, the claim that the DOJ was somehow unfairly judged or unable to present its defense is extremely dubious.

The DOJ also claims that the “sanctions imposed exceed the court’s authority.” Given the severity of the violations of the code of professional conduct that govern lawyers, including government lawyers, this is another problematic claim by the department.

Given that the judge could have imposed even more severe sanctions, such as dismissing the defensive pleadings filed by the government (which would have caused them to lose the case) or making the government pay the attorneys’ fees of the states, the sanctions imposed seem almost mild. …

The strangest claim made by the Justice Department is that Hanen’s order to produce a state-by-state list of all of the illegal aliens unlawfully granted deferrals would “breach the confidence of these individuals (and of others who submit information to USCIS) in the privacy of such records.”

An affidavit filed by León Rodriguez, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the Department of Homeland Security, claims this would violate the internal privacy policy of DHS even though he admits the federal Privacy Act “does not applyto non-U.S. persons.”

Not only does the Privacy Act not apply to “non-U.S. persons” (Illegal aliens), but federal law (8 U.S.C. §1373) specificallyrequires the federal government to provide “citizenship or immigration status” information on any individual in response “to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency.” And this requirement applies “notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law.”

Thus, states are statutorily entitled to this information and the DOJ’s claim that it is confidential has no basis in the law whatsoever.

The DOJ and Barack Obama (since this is his DOJ, after all) ignore or deliberately flout laws they do not want to follow, despite that the law, the Constitution, and the judges say that they must follow the law and any legally promulgated judicial orders. At the same time, the DOJ and Obama apply laws to illegal aliens, whom these laws specifically do not protect, all at the expense of U.S. citizens and the sovereign states!

Obama and his DOJ have been flouting, ignoring, misinterpreting, and deliberately rewriting laws from the beginning of his administration. But suddenly, the mainstream media, the progressives, and anti-Trumpers of all stripes are near hysteria contemplating a Trump presidency. They laughably fear from Trump what we have already been experiencing under Obama for nearly eight years!

Consider this story. Below is a list of what these people claim to fear from a Trump presidency. These are direct quotes from the story. They fear …

Trump’s “views on presidential powers.”

That Trump “seems to think he can do whatever he wants and disregard rules and conventions that constrain other political candidates.”

That Trump “would act unbounded in the presidency, in a way that doesn’t follow the law.”

That Trump “would give military officers unlawful orders and expect them to comply.”

How Trump has “repeatedly given indications he has no appreciation for the rule of law.”

That Trump’s “personal criticism of a judge undermines judicial independence.”

The last complaint about Trump’s personal criticism of a judge (not as a president, mind you, but as a defendant in a lawsuit overseen by a judge he believes is biased) is particularly amusing, and hypocritical.

The media and the Democrats have their panties in a wad about Trump’s completely valid criticism of Judge Curiel, a Hispanic-American. Trump, as everyone knows, is under attack by pro-illegal-alien activists because of his support for building a wall along the border with Mexico and for strictly enforcing our laws against illegal immigration. Trump’s views, by the way, are supported by the vast majority of U.S. citizens, much to the dismay of the media, the Democrats, and many of the elite in the Republican Party.

As a party to the litigation, Trump is certainly within his rights as an American citizen to question the judge’s potential conflicts of interest.

Consider that Judge Curiel is associated with a segregated “Latino” legal association (San Diego La Raza  Lawyers Association, aka SDLRLA) which itself is associated with a radical Hispanic-supremacist, separatist organization (La Raza, which is a part of SDLRLA’s “community”); that Judge Curiel sat on a committee that awarded scholarships to illegal aliens; that Judge Curiel “mistakenly” released the “sealed” names of witnesses who were subsequently quoted in the media and by Hillary Clinton to politically damage Trump ahead of the California primary; and that Judge Curiel appointed a legal team to represent plaintiffs in the Trump case who have paid $675,000 to Hillary and Bill Clinton!

However, the media and the Democrats persist in ignoring these valid complaints about Curiel and instead redefine the issue as simple racial or ethnic bigotry on Trump’s part. They falsely report that Trump accuses Curiel of bias solely because he’s Mexican-American. The complicit media prefer to paint Trump as a bigot, in any way possible, ignoring the facts, for purely political reasons. Why? Because they’re puppets of global progressivism.

Consider the hypocrisy of the media and Trump’s opponents, who claim to believe that because Trump criticized a federal judge in public, that proves that Trump has no respect for judicial independence and would have none as president.

Do they remember this moment in history?

Yes, it’s 2010. Obama’s very first State of the Union address, wherein he criticized the decision of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. As president. To their faces. Humiliating them.

So much for respect. So much for undermining judicial independence. So much for respect for judicial independence.

We currently have a president who has expansive (and wrongheaded) views on presidential powers; who seems to think that he can do whatever he wants and who disregards rules and conventions that others must follow; who acts in an unbounded way that doesn’t follow the law; who (arguably) gives military officers unlawful orders; who repeatedly proves that he has no appreciation for the rule of law (or for those who are charged with enforcing it); and who undermines judicial independence.

Why, then, are the media and progressives so worried about Trump? Do they suddenly realize the precedent that has been set by Obama? Do they comprehend now what we’ve been screaming about and warning them about for the past eight years:  The reality that someday that guy in the White House may not be “their” guy? Chickens coming home to roost. The shoe may be on the other foot now. Too bad.

It’s a little too late for them to worry about the Constitution and the rule of law. They should have joined us in the beginning, when Obama first flouted the Constitution. They should have joined us when we first asked him, while he was still a candidate …

#####