On Saturday morning, the editorial board of the New York Times published a selection of highly critical comments and writings from judges who have been put in the position of having to deal with the more than 400 lawsuits involving Donald Trump.
As the editors noted, "Dozens of judges appointed by both Democraticand Republican presidents have ruled against the administration. And they have often used tough, blunt language."
According to the editors, federal judges have gone where Republican lawmakers, conservative pundits and corporate leaders have refused to tread, calling out the Trump administration for, among other outrages, "vengeful attempts to destroy law firms, forestalled some of his budget cuts and kept him from deporting additional immigrants."
According to Adam Bonica of Stanford University, "Judges from across the ideological spectrum are ruling against administration policies at remarkable rates,” and the selection pulled together from 48 judges by the Times appears to bear that out.
Case in point, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia pointed out, "This is a terrible, terrible affidavit. If this were before me in a criminal case and you were asking to get a warrant issued on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers.”
“In an egregious case of cherry-picking, defendants selectively quote only a fragment of the court’s response here to mischaracterize its position," accused Judge James E. Boasberg, District of Columbia District when it came to deportations of immigrants.
President George W. Bush appointee, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the District of Minnesota, opined, "The court cannot imagine how the public interest might be served by permitting federal officials to flaunt the very laws that they have sworn to enforce.”
In the matter of dealing with refugees, Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the Western District of Washington offered, "The government’s interpretation is, to put it mildly, ‘interpretive jiggery-pokery’ of the highest order. ... It requires not just reading between the lines, but hallucinating new text that simply is not there.”
Trump appointee, Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, District of Maryland, explained, "Defendants have provided no evidence, or even any specific allegations, as to how Cristian, or any other class member, poses a threat to public safety. ... This is a court of evidence.”
Ruling on the Trump administration's battle with New York over congestion pricing, Trump appointee Lewis J. Liman bluntly stated, "That argument is nonsensical.”
Another Trump appointee, Mary S. McElroy, District of Rhode Island, tersely wrote, “In short, the government asks the court ‘to overlook the simplest, most logical explanation’ for what happened. The court declines.”
You can read more scathing remarks here.
