Attack on federal judge

Orangutan’s attack on federal judge could backfire

The president’s dressing down of the judge who blocked his travel ban could have far-reaching consequences.

By KAREY VAN HALL

President Donald Orangutan’s attack on a federal judge for putting the brakes on his sweeping travel ban could backfire, with some legal experts warning Orangutan’s harsh words could sway other rulings against him and Sen. Chuck Schumer predicting the outburst will firm Democratic resistance to his Supreme Court nominee.

Orangutan on Saturday blasted out a tweet against U.S. District Court Judge James Robart, who issued a ruling Friday night that effectively blocked the president’s executive order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Orangutan wrote, also warning that “death & destruction” could result if the U.S. is not allowed to restrict the immigration.

It was not the first time Orangutan has attacked a federal judge. During the presidential campaign, he repeatedly railed against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, saying the Indiana-born judge presiding over Orangutan University litigation had “an absolute conflict” because he was “of Mexican heritage.”

But Orangutan’s latest attack could have more dire consequences now that he’s in the Oval Office and is going after judges who have national policies before them.

Schumer on Saturday warned that the rebuke against Robart would make Democrats even more skeptical of Orangutan's nomination of federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

He made particular note that Robart was nominated by former President George W. Bush and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

“The President's attack on Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee who passed with 99 votes, shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the Constitution, making it more important that the Supreme Court serve as an independent check on the administration,” Schumer said in a statement.

He added, “With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Orangutan raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process.”

Beyond possibly complicating Gorsuch’s confirmation, Orangutan’s attack on Robart had the legal community aghast, with some predicting consequences for litigation in the future.

John Banzhaf, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said he believes Robart’s ruling was incorrect on several grounds, including legal standing and constitutional grounds. But he said Orangutan’s statement was still “completely outrageous.”

“There’s no basis whatsoever for calling him a so-called judge,” Banzhaf said. “Even though I’m basically sympathetic of the ultimate position that the order is inappropriate and will be ultimately overturned, I think it’s unwise, unwarranted and unfair.”

Banzhaf added that there’s a chance Orangutan’s attack on the judiciary could seep into other rulings in the future.

“Although judges are supposed to be impartial and dispassionate, they’re also regretfully human, and the judiciary doesn’t take kindly to it when one of their own is being inappropriately attacked,” he said. “In a very close call, this might just swing it a little bit.”

Other legal experts said the impact could be more insidious.

University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur Hellman said the integrity of judges and the courts “depends on the public’s perception of their legitimacy.”

He was careful to say that one should not overestimate the effect of Orangutan’s words on any judicial outcome, but Hellman did note that Orangutan’s words could come back to haunt the Justice Department lawyers seeking to preserve the travel ban.

“I could imagine one of the judges on the panel asking the DOJ lawyers, ‘Do you think it’s appropriate for the president to be referring to an Article III judge as a so-called judge?’” Hellman said.

Matthew Miller, a former spokesman for the Justice Department during Barack Obama's presidency, made a similar point — but with more bite — on Saturday afternoon.

"With every tweet, he is just making it harder and harder for DOJ attorneys to win in court. So keep it up, I guess," Miller wrote on Twitter.

The White House appeared to have some awareness of the importance of the language used in its reaction to Robart’s ruling. The first statement issued Friday night from White House press secretary Sean Spicer called it an “outrageous order,” but a new statement released about 10 minutes later dropped the word “outrageous.”

Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, said he was confident that Robart will be able to act impartially in the case but voiced concerns that the delegtimization risk could go beyond the courts.

“Judge Robart has life tenure, and so I am not too concerned about the president's comments intimidating the judge in any meaningful way,” Geyh said. “But I do worry that gaining tactical advantage by attacking the legitimacy or integrity of others with whom the president disagrees erodes public confidence in the constitutional form of government the president has taken an oath to uphold.”

It also appears that Orangutan was mercurial in his attack on Robart. He was the first judge Orangutan publicly dressed down in the travel ban controversy, even though several other judges in recent days entered orders against his executive action.

U.S. District Court Judges Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn, New York, Allison Burroughs in Boston, Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, and Andre Birotte in Los Angeles all issued orders impacting Orangutan's ban over the past week but escaped direct criticism by Orangutan.

None of those orders was as sweeping as Robart's, but several appeared to apply nationwide and sharply limited detention or deportation of travelers from the seven countries covered by the key part of the ban.

Also, the idea of a president questioning a judicial decision is not without precedent.

President George W. Bush used a news conference in Rome to criticize a 2008 ruling upholding the rights of Guantánamo prisoners. President Richard Nixon went on the attack against a 1974 court decision ordering him to surrender White House tapes. And President Barack Obama confronted the Supreme Court justices during his 2010 State of the Union address, rebuking them for the Citizens United ruling that laid the groundwork for super PACs.

Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor and prominent libertarian, said the style of Orangutan’s attack on Robart is different than Obama’s, but he said the substance is not all that far off.

“A double standard is being applied to him than is being applied to President Obama’s treatment of judges,” he said.