Trump: If something happens—blame the judge
The American president derides Federal Judge James Robart after blocking 'Muslim ban': 'If something happens blame him and court system'; adding that Iran has 'total disregard' for America and revived his criticism of the 2015 nuclear deal struck by his predecessor.
As for the new sanctions, Trump said, “just starting.”
On Monday, the government has a deadline to justify the executive order temporarily barring immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries and the entry of refugees after a federal judge in Seattle blocked it with a temporary restraining order on Friday.
The uncertainty caused by a judge's stay of the ban has opened a window for travelers from the seven affected countries to enter the United States.
Trump has reacted with attacks on the federal judge and then the wider court system which he blames for styming his efforts to restrict immigration, a central promise of the Republican's 2016 presidential campaign.
Democrats, meanwhile, sought to use Trump's attacks on the judiciary to raise questions about the independence of his Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco over the weekend denied the Trump administration's request for an immediate stay of the federal judge's temporary restraining order that blocked nationwide the implementation of key parts of the travel ban.
But the court said it would reconsider the government's request after receiving more information.
The government has until 5pm on Monday to submit additonal legal briefs to the appeals court justifying Trump's executive order. Following that, the court is expected to act quickly, and a decision either way may ultimately result in the case reaching the US Supreme Court.
As a candidate, Trump had criticized federal judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was overseeing a case against his Trump University—arguing Curiel could not be impartial because of his Mexican heritage and Trump's vow to crack down on Mexican immigrants.
But by lashing out at James Robart as president, Trump's anti-judiciary stance takes on new importance: it hits at the very heart of the checks and balances system meant to protect the country from government abuse of power.
His critics have said the measures are discriminatory, unhelpful and legally dubious.
On Sunday, Trump broadened his Twitter attacks on Judge Robart, who issued the temporary stay on Friday. A day earlier, Trump derided Robart, who was appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush, as a "so-called judge."
"Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril," Trump tweeted on Sunday. "If something happens blame him and court system."
Trump did not elaborate on what threats the country potentially faced.
It is unusual for a sitting president to attack a member of the judiciary. Vice President Mike Pence defended Trump, even as other Republicans urged the businessman-turned-politician to avoid firing such fusillades against the co-equal judicial branch of government, which the US Constitution designates as a check on the power of the presidency and Congress.
A graduate of Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington, and Georgetown University Law Center, Robart spent 30 years in private practice at the law firm now known as Lane Powell, before being appointed to the bench by Bush in 2004.
Douglas Adkins, a private equity investor and former investment banker who has known Robart since childhood, said Robart and his wife have no children but have been foster parents to several immigrant children over the years, primarily from Southeast Asia. Robart could not be reached for comment.
The judge served in the past as the president of the Seattle Children's Home and was a former trustee of the Children's Home Society of Washington, according to his official biography on the federal court website. Those organizations provide mental health services for at-risk youth and help troubled families.
"His involvement with children may have helped contribute to his understanding of the people impacted by this ruling but would not have shaped his interpretation of the rule of law," said Paul Lawrence, who was one of the attorneys who filed an amicus brief backing Washington State in the immigration case.
