Judges are supposed to interpret the law according to precedents, not legislate or indulge in social engineering from the bench. Here are two stunning examples of the latter from Dan Bongino’s Facebook:
1) When the Supreme Court ruled that the Obamacare penalty was a tax, they ignored Barack Obama himself who had vigorously argued in a nationally televised interview that it was not a tax. So, when it’s a liberal agenda item, the President’s words do not matter.
But, in arguing against the Trump Executive Order on immigration, the left and their judicial allies insist on bringing up Trump’s campaign language about a “Muslim ban” even though the Executive Order says nothing about a Muslim ban. So, when it’s a conservative agenda item, the President’s words do matter.
2) When Arizona passed an illegal immigration law which mimicked federal law, the Supreme Court struck down portions of the law with Justice Kennedy saying , “The State may not pursue (immigration) policies that undermine federal law.”
But, now that liberals dislike the Trump Executive Order and the federal immigration law it is based on, they are vigorously arguing for a state role in national immigration policy and the courts seem more than happy to agree.