Gabriel Olsen/Getty Images
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.