A disgruntled Donald Trump recently took to Twitter his disdain over the decision of one ‘so-called’ judge repealing his executive order, which brings to a halt the refugee admission in the U.S. and temporarily bars visitors from seven Muslim-predominant countries for 90 days.
The POTUS believed that the federal judge has imperiled the country and its citizens. Trump reasoned out that the staying of his highly-contentious order could pave the way for terrorists to gain access in the U.S. He called the lifting of the ban a “terrible” decision in a series of Twitter posts over the weekend.
As expected, the Twitter rant has set off a mixed response from people who either sympathize with Trump or have found a way to despise him even more.
One legal expert, however, offered a rather troubling perspective on why the Twitter attack of Trump against the judge is uncalled-for, CNN wrote. According to ex-U.S. Marshal John Muffler of Gavin de Becker and Associates, such rhetorical assault against members of the judiciary could pose a threat to their lives.
“I have seen a direct correlation between threats and inappropriate communications to judges stemming from the negative rhetoric of public officials,” Muffler said via a CNN report. “It is not an ideal situation as it creates and can ferment negative behavior towards judges.”
The article also cited the speech delivered by Federal Judge Joan Lefkow from the Northern District of Illinois before the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2005. She implored members of the Congress at that time to “publicly and persistently repudiate gratuitous attacks on the judiciary.”
Case in point, Lefkow’s family was killed in the hands of a man whom she had earlier ruled an unfavorable decision against, according to a 2005 Chicago Tribune report.
“It seems to me that even though we cannot prove a cause and effect relationship between rhetorical attacks on judges and violent acts of vengeance by a particular litigant, fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge, or the fringe, to exact revenge on a judge who ruled against them,” Lefkow said.
While Trump is adamant in his belief that Washington Federal Judge James L. Robart has endangered the lives of the Americans by halting his ban order, some believe that the President has, somehow, also jeopardized the safety of the judiciary, in general, with his Twitter outburst against the judge.
Robart, who was an appointee of former U.S. President George W. Bush, decided against the executive order by Trump just a week after it was signed. The decision of the judge effectively stymied the enforcement of “key aspects” of the order barring the entry of refugees and visa-holders from the seven countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
Trump also talked about the repercussion of the suspension of his executive order by the judge in his Twitter posts. He said that if terror activities would happen anywhere in the country, the blame has to be on Judge Robart and the court system, as a whole.
A legal team from the Justice Department has already filed a motion to overthrow the earlier ruling of the federal judge from Washington. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco decided against it and upheld the suspension of the order from Trump.
[Featured Image by Bryan Thomas/Getty Images]