Watching Democrat/leftist reactions to President Donald Trump from the time he declared himself a candidate has been entertaining, educational and, recently, more than a little disturbing. Since the election and swearing in, the anti-Trumpsters have simply become unglued, indulging in outlandish and irrational behavior.

Among the craziness we find:

• The automatic emotional criticism of any and all Trump nominees.
• Government employees promising to refuse to do their jobs because of Trump.
• The lawful travel suspension of people in seven countries connected to radical Islamic terrorism being deliberately mislabeled as a “Muslim ban.”
• Some are calling for the military to overthrow the government, senior Obama administration Pentagon policy official Rosa Brooks, among them.
• Trump’s actions and/or his supporters have been met with rioting in the streets, the destruction of property, and personally attacked.

Following the issuance of an executive order for temporary travel suspension, which was approved by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel as a lawful order, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to defend the order issued by her boss, her client. She could have resigned her position on principle, but instead she chose insubordination and caused a politically motivated public incident, resulting in Trump telling her, “You’re fired!” Now she’ll be a martyr for “the cause.”

This event was met with typical leftist disdain: “This administration seems to have no regard for the rule of law,” said one of the leaders of the party of Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, Lois Lerner, Rod Blagojevich, and Dan Rostenkowski; that person being Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Regarding the claim that Trump’s edict is a “Muslim ban,” there are some 40 countries with substantial or majority Muslim populations, but the suspension covers only seven. It is a lawful and appropriate temporary suspension on travelers from seven nations either guilty of sponsoring terrorism or manifestly incapable of controlling terrorists inside their borders. Moreover, those “countries of concern” were officially identified in a 2015 law signed by then-President Barack Obama. Furthermore, Trump’s action is well within a president’s authority, and similar bans have been imposed by previous presidents, including Chester Arthur, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and, yes, Barack Obama.

Legal actions to derail the travel suspension must show it will cause plaintiffs irreparable harm. The plaintiffs where U.S. District Judge James Robart issued a restraining order are the states of Washington and Minnesota, not individuals or groups of individuals, and the states cannot demonstrate irreparable harm. It’s not difficult to conclude, therefore, that the restraining has political motives rather than legal ones. Deciding to suspend foreign visitors for national security is an executive branch decision, not a judicial decision, and the restraining order should be nullified.

The Ninth Circuit Court will hear that appeal later today.

The travel suspension is a smart tactic that could have been handled better. It has attracted even more attention than the fake news and other media screw-ups, but Trump’s nominee to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court is not far behind.

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth followed last year’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacant seat not long after Scalia died last February. The Republican-controlled Senate announced it would not act on the nomination in Obama’s final year, saying that the next president should fill that slot.

The Republicans’ position has an interesting history. Then-Sen. Joe Biden said on the U.S. Senate floor in 1992 that in a presidential election year a president should not make a nomination for the Supreme Court until after the election. This became known as “The Biden Rule.” Apparently, Biden, as Obama’s vice president, was unable (or did not try) to persuade his boss to follow this rule.

Additionally, there are numerous instances where Democrats blocked Republican nominees.

Since Democrats do not control the Senate, they must try to show that the nominee, federal Appellate Court Judge Neal Gorsuch, is unqualified. But given the broad approval of Gorsuch’s nomination, that’s a tall order.

“Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court,” Minority Leader Schumer said in a statement.

Such comments of desperation — posing as thoughtful opposition — are interesting in view of the unanimous confirmation vote putting Gorsuch on the appellate bench 10 years ago, as well as the voluminous praise of his towering qualifications for this new position.

Gorsuch made this revealing statement during Trump’s announcement of his nomination: “A judge who likes every outcome that he reaches is very likely a bad judge,” meaning that following the law and the Constitution is more important than following one’s political philosophy, or personal desires. Judges must have impartiality, independence, collegiality and courage, he said. Goruch’s philosophy is precisely what we must have in all judgeships, and what he has demonstrated on the Appellate Court.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected the land. Major news outlets demonstrate rampant symptoms through abdication of journalistic standards, and other leftist anti-Trumpsters riot, destroy and scream obscenities in protest. Large doses of adult behavior and acceptance of reality are prescribed.