To the surprise of no one, an Obama bundler sitting on the 9th Circuit has enjoined Section 9(a) of President Trump’s executive order targeting sanctuary cities. Just like the federal judges who blocked previous, eminently Constitutional executive orders tackling this problem, this one used the non-textual statements of the President as justification for his actions. For those of you who would like a more detailed explanation of why using speeches, statements, and other non-statutory words by lawmakers and the executive branch to make law is such a bad idea, I’d recommend reading the late Justice Scalia’s A Matter Of Interpretation.
Suffice it to say, this is another political decision from the the federal judiciary. To understand just how politicized this process has become, it’s worth looking at this tweet in response to Professor Laurence Tribe. The idea that what President Trump is doing, vis-a-vis immigration, is unprecedented is an absurdity. Regardless of what you think of the The President’s public critiques of his judicial antagonists-personally, I think they’re counterproductive-his administration’s immigration policies are completely reasonable. The only reason they appear unusual to the commentariat is because they are accustomed to a President encouraging illegal immigration. The fact that open borders activists are no longer pushing against an open door has to be deflating. Almost as much as realizing that our sovereignty is in the hands of a group of far-left, open borders dogmatists who can’t be voted out of office.