A little judicial overreach, anyone?

As most of you should know, a Seattle federal district judge, James Robart, has issued a stay against the Trump administration immigration ban on travel from seven countries that pose a threat of terrorist infiltration.  That this same judge recently decreed in his court that "black lives matter" couldn't possibly lead one to consider that there just might be some liberal politics at play in a Seattle judge's decision, now, could it?  That's almost like saying "California judge" or "New York judge" – know what I mean?

But here we have a federal district judge with no access to any of the classified intelligence that likely went into implementing the ban decision, yet he considers himself supremely qualified to overrule the commander-in-chief of our armed forces on this national security matter.  That, folks, is precisely the kind of judicial overreach and judicial activism that we elected Donald Trump to do away with, because we, the people who have to live with the real-life consequences of such a unicorn judiciary, are sick of it and want our nation to be free of it.

That this judge is a George Bush appointee just adds to the argument that none of these turkeys needs to be appointed for life, because their comfortable lifetime sinecures lead many of them to come to see themselves as beneficent dispensers of broad social justice remedies rather than the civil and criminal matters they are appointed to deal with.  The old argument that appointing federal judges for life puts them beyond the reach of temptation or undue influence is horse puckey.  The list of corrupt federal judges may not be long, but there damned sure is one.

But what is worse is the socio-political corruption that occurs with too many supposedly conservative federal judges after they have become accustomed to looking down on the world from their lofty, high-minded perches.  They become comfortable with the idea that they have the power and authority to change society itself.

Hey, it's fine to hear and rule on civil rights cases, but to issue nationwide stays directly challenging national security policies of the sitting administration is purely and simply judicial overreach.  We need to be done with it.