"One unelected judge in Seattle cannot remake laws for the entire country"

[FairHearing]

Trump seems to be facing judicial mafia, too.

White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller on 12 February 2017:

Well, I think that it’s been an important reminder to all Americans that we have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many case a supreme branch of government. One unelected judge in Seattle cannot remake laws for the entire country. I mean this is just crazy, John, the idea that you have a judge in Seattle say that a foreign national living in Libya has an effective right to enter the United States is -- is -- is beyond anything we’ve ever seen before.

They obviously haven't seen New Zealand.

P.S.

Robart's restraining order absolutely lacks any reasons, fails to cite the parties' arguments or alleged facts, fails to even mention the law Trump's order was based upon (8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f)), and contains only arbitrary, superficial and conclusory "findings of fact & conclusions of law".

[golfa]

Trump seems to be facing judicial mafia, too.

White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller on 12 February 2017:



They obviously haven't seen New Zealand.

P.S.

Robart's restraining order absolutely lacks any reasons, fails to cite the parties' arguments or alleged facts, fails to even mention the law Trump's order was based upon (8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f)), and contains only arbitrary, superficial and conclusory "findings of fact & conclusions of law".

Kinda like a NZ Family Court decision then ? Actually, it's a lot like NZ Supreme Court decisions too.

[FairHearing]

It turns out there was another judgment from another judge who upheld Trump's order, which wasn't reported (if at all) by MSM as prominently as Robart's ruling.

A couple of interesting quotes. First:

Still, Judge Robart’s order left many questions, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.

“Does the executive order violate the equal protection of the laws, amount to an establishment of religion, violate rights of free exercise, or deprive aliens of due process of law?” Professor Blackman asked. “Who knows? The analysis is bare bones, and leaves the court of appeals, as well as the Supreme Court, with no basis to determine whether the nationwide injunction was proper.”

Second:

But Judge Robart took action and Judge Gorton refrained from taking action. It is Judge Robart who needs to identify a legal basis for interfering with another branch of government. How is it that Gorton gave us a 21-page opinion explaining the doing of nothing and Judge Robart interfered with the actions of the executive branch without putting legal reasons in writing?

[Q. C.]

Trump seems to be facing judicial mafia, too.

...They obviously haven't seen New Zealand.

P.S.

Robart's restraining order absolutely lacks any reasons, fails to cite the parties' arguments or alleged facts, fails to even mention the law Trump's order was based upon (8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f)), and contains only arbitrary, superficial and conclusory "findings of fact & conclusions of law".

FairHearing: Who are you suggesting when you say "They obviously haven't seen New Zealand" - Trump or the US Judge(s).

Surely you cannot mean the US Judge(s) as some of them appear to model their decisions after NZ Judges decisions - as can be seen by the US Judge's decision, which absolutely lacks any correct reasons, fails to cite the parties' arguments or alleged facts, fails to mention the law concerned and contains only arbitrary, superficial and conclusory "findings of fact & conclusions of law" - A mirror image of many NZ Judicial decisions, the US Judges have obviously seen what NZ Judges get away with, and many copy them.

And why wouldn't those US Judges copy NZ Judges misconduct! - NZ is "perceived" to be the least corrupt country in the world, because (unknown to the US Judges and the world at large) our Judges are not investigates nor prosecuted nor removed from Office for such misconduct.

[FairHearing]

FairHearing: Who are you suggesting when you say "They obviously haven't seen New Zealand" - Trump or the US Judge(s).

I was referring to Stephen Miller: "I mean this is just crazy, John, the idea that you have a judge in Seattle say that a foreign national living in Libya has an effective right to enter the United States is -- is -- is beyond anything we’ve ever seen before."

I meant to say, Trump administration obviously isn't familiar with the crimes against the law and justice NZ judiciary routinely commit. Otherwise, Miller would've said: "...it is precisely what profoundly corrupt New Zealand judiciary do in their pseudo-democratic country, but we will not tolerate it here in the United States".

[FairHearing]

On a side note - an article and interesting comments to it: US Supreme Court Justice: "If Trump Wins, It's Time To Move To New Zealand"