This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A renowned constitutional expert, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, has called out a list of federal judges for inserting politics into their judicial rulings, which are supposed to be following the Constitution and the law, not necessarily the Democrat party.
Turley, whose commentary is valued online and in publications, by Congress where he has testified as an expert, and even by members of Congress who have chosen his representation, cited a recent opinion from William Young, who recently released his ruling about the pursuit of the administration of President Donald Trump to secure America's borders.
His opinion, finding the administration "in violation of the First Amendment over visa denials," was "bizarre," Turley concluded.
"With all due respect to Judge Young (who warrants considerable respect after his remarkable career), the captioning and conclusion are improvisational, impulsive, and injudicious. The court injected a political dialogic element in an opinion with sweeping implications for our constitutional system."
Young, relying on a quote from former Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, a Joe Biden appointee, said that the speech of illegal aliens in America, and those who may be pursuing entry into the United States, is protected by the First Amendment.
The Trump administration had sought to enforce deportation orders against those non-citizens radicalizing American college campuses with their pro-Palestinian riots.
Young also quoted his own wife as an authority, as she claimed Trump "seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead."
The judge claimed that "perfectly captures" Trump's public approach to power.
He found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio "deliberately and with purposeful aforethought" used immigration powers to chill noncitizens' free speech.
The ruling undoubtedly will end up before at least one appellate court before it is concluded.
The judge claimed that his decision now "limits the government's ability to use deportation threats to stifle speech and reinforces academic freedom on U.S. college campuses."
And he wasn't finished, insisting on another hearing when he will purport to decide a "remedy."
But he stepped over the line, Turley explained.
"The bizarre captioning and conclusion in this case is another such example. It only served to undermine the opinion itself and the legal points raised by the court. It may have been cathartic, but it was also tedious and prejudicial. It has a certain chest-pounding element that is neither necessary nor compelling for a court to insert into an opinion," he explained. "Judge Young would be wise to issue a corrected opinion without the novel captioning and conclusion . . . and simply send a postcard to this curious penpal."
It was because the judge, in his opinion, included an image of a scrawled, disjointed question, "Trump has pardons and tanks.. .. What do you have?" which purportedly was from that "penpal."
The judge responded to "Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous…" with a comment about having the Constitution. Then he finished his opinion with an invitation to stop in at the courthouse to see where "burns the lamp of liberty."
Turley cited other political judges.
"Take District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who had previously presided over Trump's election interference case. Chutkan was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters 'were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.' She added then, '[i]t's a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.' That 'one person' was still under investigation at the time and, when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go," he explained.
Then she took politics further into her courtroom, insisting in a proclamation that the pardons from Trump for January 6 protest offenders could not change the "tragic truth" of those events.
"Chutkan's colleague Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump's actions, writing, "[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement," he said.
Those comments, and the rants from "other judges," have been undermining "the integrity of the court system," he warned.
In fact, there have been multiple cases in which judges have given every appearance of being in cooperation with the prosecution against Trump, such as Arthur Engoron in his help to New York Attorney General Letitia James in her failed fraud case against Trump and his companies.
Engoron delivered a $500 million penalty to Trump at James' insistence, a decision that has been thrown out by an appellate court because it violated the Constitution.
Ironically, James herself now is under federal investigation for mortgage fraud. She's accused of lying on federal forms in pursuit of special, lower, interest rates for her own loans.
