Federal Judge James Robart has issued a stay on the President’s travel ban, and incredibly stated there have been no arrests of foreign nationals from ANY of those countries (Sudan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, and Somalia) since 9/11.

Federal Judge James Robart has issued a stay on the President’s travel ban, and incredibly stated there have been no arrests of foreign nationals from ANY of those countries (Sudan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, and Somalia) since 9/11.

What rock has this man been living under? Another question is: did Michelle Bennett, a lawyer from the Department of Justice, make any preparations for the hearing? Even though she was from the “civil justice” department, why would she go into an immigration hearing not knowing about crime rates and acts committed by “refugees” and immigrants?

It seems to me the justice department is trying to make immigration a civil matter, which perhaps it is to a point, but the law still says you cannot enter into the United States except through legal and lawful channels. That’s why it is called “illegal” immigration — not just undocumented, though that is a proper term for the millions now in this country illegally.

The national media stands guilty of colluding with the justice department in downplaying or simply not reporting on the incidents of crime caused by illegal immigrants. It’s not just acts of terrorism that are done, but other criminal acts including robbery, murder, rape, extortion, prostitution, drugs, etc. No one knows exactly how many arrests have been made of “foreign nationals” from these countries because no one is counting them — not the Department of Justice, and certainly not the liberal press. But it is clear there have been many, and they continue even today.

Apparently some refugees don’t heed the advice of the re-location organizations when they are told “just keep out of trouble and you can stay in America for as long as you like.”

Now an unknown federal judge has decided he has more wisdom than the President and all of his advisors. He may be basing his decision on precedents and case law, but the fact is he is making provision for people who are not citizens of this country and who I believe do not have the privilege of the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans.

Furthermore, where is his loyalty when it comes to protecting American Citizens? Did his oath of office include honoring and protecting the Constitution? Does he believe he knows better than the majority of people what is good for America?

Ed Straker, an attorney who attended law school with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, says Judge Robart “has clearly usurped his authority.” Writing in the American Thinker, Straker said:

“The case clearly has no plaintiffs with standing or any kind of validity... At most, Judge Robart should have stayed his decision pending appeal to circuit courts. His radical injunction smacks of a judicial coup, of a single federal district judge asserting his authority over the entire executive branch. His arguments for doing so are unconstitutional, as is his manner of issuing the order. We are living in a time when judicial ayatollahs are usurping the power of our elected officials, and it is very much like a judicial coup.”

Judges at any level should not make law, but interpret it. As history progresses, the tangled web of case law adjudicated by “activist judges” is making it more and more difficult for virtuous judges to make right decisions. That’s why it’s important for us to encourage our president and other elected officials to place people in the courts that have not only wisdom but also a moral foundation that gives them a guide between right and wrong.

As voters we have no less a responsibility to vote for local judges with the same quality.

Myron Blaine has lived in Hannibal since 1987. He is married and has two sons. The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Courier-Post.