President Trump knew this was going to happen.
When he signed an emergency declaration in February in conjunction with ending the government shutdown, he predicted that it would be challenged in court.
“We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling and then we’ll get another bad ruling and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will get a fair shake,” he said at the time.
How right he was. The left sued Trump almost immediately, bringing the case against him to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. And it was there that they got the exact ruling that Trump predicted. And who would have guessed it – it came down from Judge Haywood Gilliam, who isn’t just a Barack Obama appointee, but also a monetary supporter of rather intense significance.
“A federal judge who partially blocked President Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the United States-Mexico border previously donated almost $30,000 to former President Obama, other Democrats, and a political action committee,” reports the Washington Examiner. “U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, donated $6,900 to Barack Obama’s debut campaign for president and $14,500 to his reelection campaign, according to federal election records. The same records also indicate he contributed $4,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and, between 2012 and 2015, sent $3,100 to the Covington Burling LLP PAC, which supports candidates from both parties. His contributions totaled $29,000.”
Well how do you like that.
In issuing a national injunction against Trump’s ability to move funds to the wall, Gilliam insisted that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority.
The White House’s claim that they can act without the approval of Congress “does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” he wrote.
“The case is not about whether the challenged border barrier construction plan is wise or unwise,” Gilliam continued. “It is not about whether the plan is the right or wrong policy response to existing conditions at the southern border of the United States. Instead, this case presents strict legal questions regarding whether the proposed plan for funding border barrier construction exceeds the Executive Branch’s lawful authority.”
There is, of course, nothing that fits more squarely into the Executive Branch’s lawful authority than the protection of the homeland. Securing the border and protecting our security is exactly what the Constitution prescribes for the office of the presidency. Any ruling to the contrary is a blight on the Republic that Gilliam references and the only violation of “fundamental separation of powers principles” here is an activist judge (and prominent Democrat donor) writing national policy from a courtroom in California.