The Seattle judge’s order suspending Trump’s immigration ban also explains how the US government works
Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the Wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches. That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches. The work of the Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution.
Who Is Judge James L. Robart And Why Did He Block Trump's Immigration Order?
In granting a temporary restraining order, the judge essentially had to decide that the plaintiffs (the states of Washington and Minnesota):
were likely to succeed at a later date
that people in those states could suffer irreparable harm if the ban continued
that blocking the President's order was in the public interest.
In other words, he decided there was more harm letting the ban continue than there was blocking it until the full case could be heard.
Judge in Seattle halts Trump’s immigration order nationwide; White House vows fight
Originally published February 3, 2017 at 3:48 pm Updated February 4, 2017 at 8:11 am
By Jim Brunner , Jessica Lee and David Gutman
Seattle Times staff reporters
Meanwhile, a contradictory decision came earlier Friday from a federal judge in Massachusetts, who sided with the Trump administration.
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton ruled that the president had the authority on national-security grounds to bar citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, according to The Boston Globe.
The disparate rulings may eventually be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Seattle judge blocks Donald Trump’s immigration ban nationwide
Airlines are now allowing people to enter the US from the affected countries
Justin Carissimo New York @JstnMchl Saturday 4 February 2017
“Every President over the last 30 years has invoked this authority to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of certain aliens or classes of aliens, in some instances including classifications based on nationality,” the brief reads, according to the Seattle Times. The brief also claims that foreign nationals do not have the constitutional right to enter the country.
NHKがうまく要約している。
ワシントン州の訴えは
ワシントン州が憲法違反だとして即時停止を求めた裁判では、ワシントン州は訴状の中で「住民や経済に回復不能な損害を与え、公共の利益にも反している」と訴えの理由を説明しています。
特に、経済面については「ワシントン州にはマイクロソフトやアマゾン、スターバックスなどがあり多くの移民や難民が雇用されているが、高い専門性を持つ労働者が確保できなければ世界での経営に痛手となる」などとしています。
また教育の面についても、ワシントン大学にはイランやイラク、シリアなど大統領令があげている７か国から１００人近い移民が通っていることをあげるなどしながら「こうした学生は大統領令によって教育や研究などで回復不能な損害を受けるし、大学は将来にわたって学生を失う危険性がある」などとしています。
これに対して大統領令の即時停止を命じる仮処分の決定を出した連邦地方裁判所は、その理由について「大統領令は雇用や教育、経済活動に悪影響を与えており、被害は重大で、今も続いている」と説明しています
さらにイスラム教徒の団体や人権団体は、南部バージニア州、東部ニューヨーク州、東部マサチューセッツ州などで同様の訴えを起こしています。このうちマサチューセッツ州の連邦地方裁判所は、３日、大統領令の差し止めを求める仮処分の申し立てを退ける決定を出しました。
追加すると、マサチューセッツ州の方は、大統領には、安全上の理由から、外国人を入国させない権限がある、としたわけですね。
地方によって判断が分かれるから最高裁にいくだろう、と。
この裁判官、かっちょいいんだよね。ブッシュに指名された保守系裁判官だというが、
Meet James Robart, the judge who halted Trump’s immigration ban
Trevor Hughes , USA TODAY Published 3:51 p.m. ET Feb. 4, 2017 |
In his testimony, Robart said he saw the law as a way to help people who feel they’ve been wronged, or that the odds are unfairly stacked against them. As part of his firm’s commitment to providing free legal services, Robart said he often assisted Southeast Asian immigrants with legal problems at no cost.
“Working with people who have an immediate need and an immediate problem that you are able to help with is the most satisfying aspect in the practice of law,” he told the Judiciary Committee in 2004. “If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the Senate, I will take that experience to the courtroom with me, recognizing that you need to treat everyone with dignity and respect, and to engage them so that when they leave the courtroom they feel like that had a fair trial and that they were treated as a participant in the system.”
During a hearing last year, Robart strongly criticized the Seattle police union after citing FBI statistics showing that blacks were disproportionally killed by police officers: "Forty-one percent of the casualties, 20% people of the population… black lives matter," Robart said, sighing and shaking his head, according to a video recording of his ruling.
Robart criticized the police union for rejecting a new contract because officers felt they weren’t being paid enough to follow new rules intended to make their conduct less racially biased and more constitutional.
“This court, and the citizens of Seattle, will not be held hostage for payment of increase compensation and benefits to be afforded protections guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States of America,” Robart said. “I don’t know how to be any more direct than that.”
U.S. News
Seattle judge derided by Trump known as conservative jurist
"The importance of this issue to me is best demonstrated by the news," he said, shaking his head and sighing heavily. "According to FBI statistics, police shootings resulting in death involve 41 percent black people, despite being only 20 percent of the population living in those cities. Forty-one percent of the casualties, 20 percent of the population: Black lives matter."
Robart donated to the state Republican party and to GOP candidates before becoming a judge, but was picked for the bench with the help of a bipartisan selection panel. He helped lead his law firm's efforts to provide free legal services to those who couldn't afford them, and he served as president of Seattle Children's Home, which offers mental health services and special education for at-risk children.
And as U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., noted during his confirmation hearing, he and his wife had fostered six children themselves.
実子でない子供を６人、育て、弁護士時代は、東南アジア系の移民のために、無料で弁護することもしばしば、黒人デモ裁判では、黒人は人口の２０％しかいないのに、警官による殺害の４１％は黒人だとして、黒人の命は大事だ、という黒人デモ隊の標語で締めくくった、と。
司法府の仕事は、行政や立法のように、政策を立案したりすることではなく、また、行政府や立法府がが推進している政策を評価することでもなく、これらが法律に従っているか、憲法に違反していないか、吟味することであり、また、法律は不正を受けたと感じる人達を救うためにある、と。
尊厳と尊敬の念をもって人々に接し、裁判所をでるときには、公平な裁判を受けたな、おれも、制度に参加する一員として認められているんだな、という感想をもってもらいたいのだ、と。
粋な裁判官というのは、ときどきアメリカのニュースになっていて、
Moment inmate meets his baby for first time after judge makes exception in court | Daily Mail Online via kwout
被告人にまだ抱いたことのない自分の子供を抱かせてあげる
ズボンも、生理用品を提供されていない、と弁護士から苦情に、即刻、対処、
被告になったかつての同級生、一番いいやつだった、と・・・泣き崩れるかつての同級生
