Activist Judge Takes Lawfare to New Level in Fight Against Trump

If there was any doubt as to the importance of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees being confirmed, one only need look to a renegade federal judge who aims to be a law unto himself.

Judge William Orrick of San Francisco has shown repeatedly that personal political bias means more to him than respect for the law or the separation of powers. Appointed by former president Barack Obama in 2013, the judge feels it is his prerogative to decide the immigration policies of this nation. He also values covering for Planned Parenthood more than traditional judicial concerns over appearances of impartiality, which once were sacrosanct.

Serving an Agenda

Orrick showed his astonishing partisanship on Oct. 5 when he struck down a law that denied federal safety grants to so-called "sanctuary cities" and ordered the Department of Justice to give California $28 million in federal funding that was withheld after it declared itself a "sanctuary state."

“California expresses the legitimate concern that entanglement with federal immigration enforcement erodes the trust that Latino and undocumented immigrant communities have in local law enforcement,” Orrick said in his ruling.

A judge using terms like "undocumented" when describing people who have illegally entered the United States should give the game away. Orrick is literally ruling that it is unconstitutional for local police officials to be financially prodded to work with federal authorities to apprehend criminals. There is only one word to describe such a ruling: Activist.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's remarks after the ruling was handed down show how closely the judge is tied to the advocates of illegal immigration. Becerra flat-out sees Orrick's decision as a weapon in attempts to fight President Trump. “We will continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s attempts to force our law enforcement into changing its policies and practices in ways that would make us less safe,” Becerra said.

This is the same Judge Orrick who has covered himself in shame with his refusal to recuse himself from the case of David Daleiden, the investigative journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood's horrific role in the selling of aborted baby parts for profit in a series of undercover videos. This partisan judge has issued a gag order on Daleiden's Center for Medical Progress organization, preventing it from releasing more videos that will prove damaging to the pro-abortion goliath.

Orrick is running cover for Planned Parenthood from his seat on a federal bench despite the fact that he served as a board member for years for an organization that houses a family planning clinic run by Planned Parenthood.

Orrick, who was a major fundraising bundler for Obama before being nominated as a judge, is brazenly denying the general public the right to view information that will deeply embarrass the leading abortion provider in America. That he had working ties to that same abortion provider for years does not dissuade him in the least as he does so.

Dangerous Ground

Garth Kant at WND.com skillfully highlighted the dangers of Orrick's partisan judicial thinking in a 2017 article published shortly after the judge had blocked a Trump executive order to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities.

Kant shows how the judge relied on Trump's public political statements about wanting to crack down on immigration rather than the merits of the executive order. In short, Orrick was addressing a president's politics instead of the letter of the law. “If there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments,” Kant notes the judge wrote in his ruling.

Kant also details how other activist federal judges have used the same non-judicial logic in overturning Trump's travel ban on individuals from countries known to pose security risks or sponsor terrorism.

Three federal judges on the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited statements made by Trump while running as a presidential candidate in favor of a "Muslim ban" as a reason to overturn the travel ban. Kant notes the executive order in question made no mention at all of Muslims.

Again, we see renegade judges addressing the political talking points of a president and not the actual legal issues involved in a case. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually stepped in and upheld the travel ban, as any court that relied solely on the law should have done in the first place.

It all goes to show how crucial it is to have sober-minded Supreme Court justices who will rule based on strong Constitutional grounds, which protect us all. By thwarting rogue judges such as Orrick, they will assure that the Trump Resistance cannot hijack the law to further its partisan agenda.