On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle halted the Trump Administration executive order  that delayed visas for people from seven countries until there was more vetting to decide whether they were friends or terrorists. The seven countries, identified by the Obama Administration as terror prone, are Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

CNN reports that the order changed the visa waiver program:

The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.

Trump didn’t like it and he let the Twitterverse know it:

Then he stated that a country that can’t decide who comes into its borders isn’t a country:

Trump got his Twitter-machine into gear by saying the judge’s order put the country “in peril”:

Then Trump said that the judge’s order made “bad people” “very happy”:

But it was this one that got him into a scrape with pundits who thought the president was hitting below the belt:

The Washington Examiner reports that the “so-called” descriptor led Senator Ben Sasse to suggest that there’s no such thing as so-called judges any more than there are so-called senators:

“We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and it's important that we do better civics education for our kids. So we don't have any so-called judges. We have real judges.”

But today on Fox & Friends, conservative pundit, author, and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza said checks and balances go both ways:

“There are conservatives who are uncomfortable with Trump challenging these judges, but remember, the checks and balances go both ways. If the federal judges are supposed to be a check on presidential overreach, there’s nothing that says that Trump can’t be a check on judicial overreach.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments from both sides of the dispute, and the case could be elevated to the Supreme Court.

View Comments(3 comments)
@IndiePatriotTrump is being a crybaby by calling this judge "so-called." I wish he would man-up; stop acting like a child and realize that this is how government works. If he has an issue with it, he can take it up with the Founding Fathers. (Oh wait, he might think they're on vacation with Frederick Douglass.)   He's got to learn that this is not a reality show; this is not TV. I wish he'd show some class, maturity and intellect. Just because it doesn't go his way doesn't mean he should demean people, especially federal judges. This juvenille behavior needs to stop. He's the Leader of the Free World, for Pete's sake. Oh well, "you get what you pay for." Glad I spent my coins wisely.
@DroidD'Souza served jail time for a mere "parking ticket" compaerd to treasonous Hillary. D'Souza is brilliant, and he correctly points out the realities of our government. Trump is boldly instituting protective measures for ALL Americans, and strongly fighting lefist political activist "so-called" judges. Robarts is just an activist, as anyone can learn by a quick search of his anti-American activities. Trump correctly and smartly used the phrase, "so-called" to illustrate these realities. WHEN  the next radical musloid terror attack happens in America, it will most likely target a communist/liberal area like California, Washinton, or just about any socialistic city in America, and it will most likely target vulnerable, innocent civilians like at the Pulse in Orlando. WHEN this attack happen, the blood of the victims will be dripping from not only Robarts' hands, but from the hands of ALL people who speak & act out against Trump. He is being very tough, not backing down, and he's showing a tremendous amount of resolve by sticking to his guns and defending ALL Americans, inclussive of the whiny liberals and the terroristic rioters.
John Adams I too refer to Robart as a "so-called judge".  In the EO case, and many  others, Judge Robart is channeling "Senator" Robart and legislating from  the bench.  Has anybody read his recent decision concerning the Amherst  "rapist" from 1/31/17? This guy is often feeling someones pain at the  expense of someones rights.