Judge Leonie Brinkema, of the Eastern District Court in Virginia, had a problem—one that, as it happens, is becoming increasingly common in a country run by Donald Trump. The Commonwealth of Virginia, joined by other plaintiffs, had come to her courtroom with arguments that a Trump executive order, or “EO,” keeping people from seven Muslim-majority countries and all refugees out of America, violated various parts of the Constitution, and it brought evidence of specific harm that the order had already done to Virginians, several of whom it listed by name. In response, the Trump Administration had offered nothing—no logical rationale, no indication, even, of a “deliberative process” behind the order. Brinkema wrote her opinion on Monday, granting a partial preliminary injunction against the order, because “the defendants have responded with no evidence other than the EO, which they have defended primarily with arguments attacking the Commonwealth's standing to oppose the EO and emphasizing the authority of the president to issue such an EO.”
Brinkema's reading of the Administration's opinion of its power and of its obligations to the Constitution is, if anything, an understatement. When Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser for Trump, was asked, on “Face the Nation” on Sunday, about the legal challenges to the order, he said that it was “crazy” that a judge should have a say. Then, with a disquieting gaze, he offered this credo: “Our opponents, the media, and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the President to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”
Read Full Article »