A Setback for Trump’s Executive Order and Raison D’être for US Justice Department

Published in JoongAng Ilbo
(South Korea) on 6 Feb 2017
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Myung Jeon. Edited by Rachel Pott.
A U.S. federal district court’s ruling on Feb. 3, 2017, which blocked President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order, is refreshing. The temporary restraining order suspended the enforcement of the president’s immigration ban, which barred entry for refugees and other visitors from a list of seven predominantly Muslim countries, reminding us of the raison d'être for the U.S. Justice Department. The key initiative pushed by Trump’s presidency, which is less than a month old, was invalidated as the judiciary remained committed to the rule of law.

The ruling is particularly noteworthy because it is based on the judge’s independent judgement, without any political consideration or ideological inclination. The court considered whether Trump’s travel ban violated the First Amendment, and Judge James Robart of the Federal District Court in Seattle recognized that the president’s executive order violates the First Amendment’s ban on laws that abridge the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly. Judge Robart, a conservative appointed to the federal bench during President George W. Bush’s Republican administration, did not turn his attention away from the Constitution and toward other variables, and for doing so he was hailed a hero – he proved that no partisan logic can intervene before the law.

Meanwhile, President Trump was deeply shocked by the court’s decision. He made a personal attack against the federal judge who had halted his immigration ban by referring to him as a “so-called judge” and rebuking him with a tweet, which reads, “If something happens blame him and court system,” only to be dismissed by the Washington state attorney general who said, “No one is above the law, not even the president.” The state attorney general’s remark evokes the greatness of America, where the democratic principle of checks and balances remains undiminished.

Contrary to the U.S. judicial branch, which operates independently of political pressures, the Korean judiciary is not completely free from outside influences. It is particularly worrying that judicial independence in South Korea, in conjunction with President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment trial, is being threatened by the pro- and anti-impeachment supporter groups. By calling for the detention of certain individuals, putting pressure on the constitutional court to make a swift decision, and denying the constitutional rights of special prosecutors, they are harming the rule of law in this country. Despite their obligation to protect the law, some politicians are caught up in this hysteria, causing Koreans to raise their eyebrows.

Article 103 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates, “Judges shall rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and laws.” The rule of law prohibits anyone from interfering with the courts in any fashion, and it must prevail in this nation to curtail the current political chaos.


트럼프 행정명령 제동과 미 사법부의 존재 이유

트럼프 대통령의 반(反)이민 행정명령에 제동을 건 미국 법원의 판결은 신선하다. 이슬람 7개국 국민의 입국을 금지한 행정명령의 효력을 잠정 중지시킨 연방지방법원의 결정은 미국 사법부의 존재 이유를 각인시켰다. 출범 한 달도 안 되는 ‘살아 있는 권력’이 밀어붙인 핵심 정책은 무력화됐다. 미 사법부가 트럼프 정부와 충돌을 각오하고 법과 원칙을 고수한 것이다.

이번 결정은 정치적 고려나 이념적 성향이 배제된 채 법관의 독립적 판단에 따라 이뤄졌다는 점에서 평가받는다. 법원의 기준은 수정헌법 1조 위배 여부였다. 즉, 행정명령이 ‘종교, 표현, 언론, 집회의 자유를 제한하는 법률을 만들 수 없다’는 대원칙을 침해했다고 봤다. 헌법 이외의 다른 변수에 눈 돌리지 않은 로바트 워싱턴주 시애틀 연방지방법원 판사는 영웅으로 떠올랐다. 로바트 판사는 공화당 정권이던 조지 W 부시 전 대통령 재임 시절에 임명됐으며 보수 성향으로 알려졌다. 그는 법 앞에는 진영 논리가 개입할 수 없음을 실증했다.

트럼프 대통령의 충격은 컸다. ‘소위 판사라는 사람(so-called judge)’이라며 인신공격을 하고, “어떤 일이 일어난다면 그와 사법체계를 비난하라”고 반발했다. 그러나 워싱턴주 법무장관은 “대통령을 포함해 그 누구도 법 위에 있을 수는 없다”고 일축했다. 견제와 균형의 민주주의 원리가 숨 쉬는 미국의 위대함을 느끼게 한다.

미 사법부의 이 같은 작동 원리는 우리나라와 비교된다. 특히 탄핵정국과 맞물려 사법부의 독립성을 위협하는 행태들은 우려스럽다. 탄핵 찬반 단체들이 떼로 몰려다니며 특정인의 구속을 주장하고, 탄핵심판 일정을 압박하고, 법률로 보장된 특검의 활동을 부정하는 등 법치를 훼손하고 있다. 법을 지켜야 할 정치인들마저 휩쓸려 다니며 이에 편승하는 작태는 눈살을 찌푸리게 한다.

헌법 제103조는 ‘법관은 헌법과 법률에 의하여 그 양심에 따라 독립하여 심판한다’고 돼 있다. 법관의 판단에 어느 누구도, 어떤 형식으로도 개입하지 않는 게 법치이며 작금의 혼란을 단축하는 길이다.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Turmoil in Los Angeles: Key Test of Trump’s Power

Australia: America’s Economic and Political Chaos Has Implications for Australia

Germany: Peace Report 2025: No Common Ground with Trump

Austria: Whether or Not the Tariffs Are Here to Stay, the Damage Has Already Been Done*

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Topics

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Germany: Peace Report 2025: No Common Ground with Trump

Australia: America’s Economic and Political Chaos Has Implications for Australia

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Turmoil in Los Angeles: Key Test of Trump’s Power

Germany: Friedrich Merz’s Visit to Trump Succeeded because It Didn’t Fail

Related Articles

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Australia: America’s Economic and Political Chaos Has Implications for Australia

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Turmoil in Los Angeles: Key Test of Trump’s Power