My understanding is that a sitting president is well within his rights to ignore a judicial ruling until the case has been heard by the Supreme Court. Case in point, Judge Watson’s ruling blocking President Trump’s travel ban.

I am not an attorney, but I love to study the law, especially case law as it relates to current political issues of national import.

In my opinion, Judge Watson made an egregious error in his ruling, and by all appearances it was not accidental. It was intentional, it was politically biased, and it stinks to High Heaven! I believe impeachment proceedings should begin for Judge Watson immediately. We need objective, unbiased judges deciding the fate of people’s lives, not partisan political hacks masquerading about in black robes.

There is much precedent for chief executives banning a particular category of traveler to the United States. In fact, every president since and including Jimmy Carter has ordered such a travel ban, which did not become controversial until the order came from President Donald Trump.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today? (1)

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Powdered Wig Society updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Since President Trump’s order the leftist hacks in black robes have embarrassed themselves and the country by blocking the president’s order to protect American citizens. Partisan politics from the bench, plain and simple!

It is good to see that at least one federal judge sees the political ruse for what it is and has declared that President Trump has every right and all the necessary authority to order such a ban.

As reported by The Daily Caller, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday against blocking President Trump’s executive order that called for temporarily stopping the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugee admittance overall.

The decision against the injunction comes after federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order nationwide. The ruling in Maryland is set to be heard before an appeals court in May. These two past decisions keep the order at bay.

Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion that “the President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He said that the executive order makes no mention of religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.