Below is my column in USA Today on the continuing controversy over President Trump’s attack on judges who have ruled against his executive orders. I have been critical of Trump’s attacks on the media and the courts, which undermine not just those critical institutions but the White House itself. As discussed below, presidents have learned that attacking the courts tend to diminish their own credibility over time. Having said that, Trump is not as much as a departure from other presidents as some have made out. Indeed, public discord between the executive and judicial branches has a long history in our country. Of course that is no license to continue a bad practice and most modern presidents have avoided direct personal attacks on judges and justices. Most importantly, the criticism of the judges in the Ninth Circuit in my view are unwarranted and unhelpful. The executive order on immigration was, as I have previously stated, poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended. The law favored the President and still does. Yet, through remarkably causal drafting, the Administration gave judges a target rich environment in the first executive order. While I disagree with fundamental parts of these opinions, the result had more to do with the sloppy drafting of the order than any bias of the judges.
Here is the column.
When President Trump called Senior District Court Judge James Robart “this so-called judge” after the issuance of an order temporarily restraining Trump’s executive order on immigration, the response from all sides of the political spectrum was immediate and alarmed. It was called “bone-chilling” and “authoritarian.” Some even compared Trump to Hitler.
However, it was not only relatively mild for Trump but positively tame in comparison with past conflicts between presidents and judges. Even so, Trump might want to consider history before he follows the lead of his judge-trashing predecessors. Article III, the part of the Constitution that gives judges their power, is designed for days (and presidents) like this. It is why presidents have largely found that attacking judges did more to destroy their own credibility than that of their judicial antagonists.
Undeterred by the firestorm over his criticism of Robart, Trump then attacked the three-judge appellate panel after the 9th Circuit hearing as “disgraceful” and described the hearing a “sad day” for the United States. In a particularly curious distinction, Trump added, “I won’t say the court was biased. But so political.”
While these comments were unfounded and decidedly unhelpful to the government case, they are not necessarily outside of the norm for presidents in criticizing judges. In 2010, President Obama criticized the justices sitting in front of him at the State of the Union for their ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
At the start of the republic, most judges were highly political — often moving freely between political and judicial offices. Presidents saw justices particularly as political threats, and they were.
The first chief justice, John Jay, ran for elected office twice while keeping his seat on the Supreme Court and left in 1795 to become the governor of New York. John Marshall openly opposed Andrew Jackson for the presidency. Charles Evans Hugheschallenged Woodrow Wilson in 1916 and then returned to the court in 1930.
Modern justices have largely (and wisely) set aside such ambitions, but our history is replete with bare-knuckled fights between presidents and their judicial antagonists.
For example, that parag
on of U.S. democracy, Thomas Jefferson, and Chief Justice Marshall wholeheartedly disliked each other despite being third cousins once removed. Marshall expressed “almost insuperable objection” to Jefferson as “totally unfit for the chief magistracy of a nation which cannot indulge these prejudices without sustaining deep personal injury.” Jefferson referred to Marshall as a man of “lax lounging manners … and a profound hypocrisy.” Jefferson viewed Marshall as a Federalist hack, particularly after his decision on the right of Congress to charter the Bank of the United States in McCulloch v. Maryland.
Of course, the most infamous attack of a president on the authority of the judiciary is attributed to Andrew Jackson. After Marshall’s ruling against the right of Georgia to restrict the Cherokee in Worcester v. Georgia, New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley quoted Jackson as saying, “Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
Like Trump, Jackson might have been the victim of his own reputation. In reality, there is no evidence that Jackson uttered those words. He did, however, question the decision in a letter: “The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” In reality, Jackson was right. There was little the Supreme Court could do, and Georgia largely ignored the decision.
Abraham Lincoln also did not hide his contempt for Chief Justice Roger Taney after his infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford supporting slave owners. Not only did Lincoln criticize Taney on the campaign trail, he did so at his first inauguration. Before Taney gave him the oath of office, Lincoln proceeded to eviscerate the decision with Taney sitting like an errant child behind him as Lincoln decried the opinion as “erroneous” in its reasoning and “evil” in its impact.
Other presidents took a more personal tack. After Theodore Roosevelt’s nominee to the court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, ruled in Northern Securities Co. v. United States in favor of a railroad, a furious Roosevelt declared, “I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that.” Dwight Eisenhower attacked his nominee, Chief Justice Earl Warren, as the “biggest damn fool mistake I ever made.”
Of course, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had not one but four justices who drove him to distraction in their invalidation of his New Deal measures. The “Four Horsemen” — Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, George Sutherland and Willis Van Devanter — stood between him and his effort to address the Great Depression. Just as Trump goes to Twitter, Roosevelt went to the newest technology of his time to speak directly to the public: radio. In his “fireside chat” March 9, 1937, he called for the expansion of the court by one new justice for every justice older than 70 (a clear reference to the gray-haired horsemen). Roosevelt lamented how such old justices are often “not so fortunate … to perceive their own infirmities.” His court-packing plan would ultimately die with the switch of Justice Owen Roberts in favor of a New Deal case — a move later characterized as “a switch in time saves nine.”
While often cited as an example of how presidents can influence rulings of the court, there is little evidence of that causal connection. The Horsemen remained opposed to Roosevelt’s actions, and it does not appear that Roberts was influenced by Roosevelt’s threat (his votes seem to have changed before the announcement of the plan).
Presidential threats have proved to have little impact on federal judges who were given life tenure by the Framers, specifically to insulate them from public pressures and attacks. Writing under the pseudonym of Publius, Alexander Hamilton explained, “This independence of the judges is … to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors.”
Indeed, Lincoln learned after his inauguration that it is futile to fight with people who ultimately decide what the law means. Taney proved the latter rule shortly afterward in his ruling in Ex parte Merryman that Lincoln violated the Constitution by suspending habeas corpus (a power reserved to Congress).
The courts and the presidency developed certain rules of engagement that have served both well. Judges learned to stay out of politics, while presidents learned to avoid personal attacks on judges.
If Trump continues his battles with judges, he could still prevail, but he should always remember that judges get the last word, even if he thinks they are wrong. As Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in a 1953 Supreme Court decision, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
JT, Great piece. I always appreciate your knowledge and writing about history.
Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem’ [good judges have ample jurisdiction]. . . . A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)
“The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)
Persuasive column and apropos message. Are you sure OW Holmes, Jr. didn’t say that quote that you’ve attributed to Robert Jackson? I could have sworn . . .
Too many terrorists spoil the broth.
And Not The Irish!
The Executive Order should have gone out on 9/12. 911 is when you call the cops on the phone.
Gitmo will have to be expanded. Trudeau will have to be reigned in. Too young to run a country.
To many terrorists spoil the broth.
Excellent article Sir, thank you for the information, your article as usual is a very good read.
I predict the replacement Exec. Order, having accomodated Court criticisms, will be attacked in the Courts as virulently as was the original EO. What if Trump shows deference to the Court in this manner, but the Court shows no deference to Presidential movement in their direction? That would send a message that the 9th Circuit is setting itself up as a “resistance” force, rather than as a neutral arbitrator of litigants interested in resolving disputes and moving forward.
Hopefully Trump will have his new EO vetted this time. He claimed the EO was an urgent matter but clearly it was not. We are weeks out and have seen no new one.
https://twitter.com/Truthdig/status/835200748694593536
Doesn’t it cause pause for one to look at the pictures of Roosevelt. Lincoln, Jefferson and then see Trump’s mug?
Could have been Bernie.
Just saying,to all of you Clinton boot lickers hope you got what you wished for.
Yup, exactly that Roscoe. And the stupid Dims just chose Perez as DNC chair. Excellent newz for Republicans. For Indies that lean progressive sad, but not unexpected. The arrogance of the DNC is only magnified by their cult members.
Didn’t you bash Ellison the other day. Face it. You are an honorary member of King Trumplethinskin of Orange’s court.
damn straight. Ellison was an “identity politics” guy – and he voted for war. I wanted Samuel Ronan – a vet, fresh ideas and wanted money out of politics.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/dnc-debate-samuel-ronan/
I wanted the mayor of South Bend.
What war did Ellison vote for?
Ellison voted for the no fly zone in Syria which would have brought us to war, or close to war, with Russia.
Spot on.
You appear to have no problem with Bannon’s “white identity” politics.
Perez is proof positive that the Democrat party is moribund. Beyond repair. Time to get on with a viable new party.
This “Justice Democrats” party that represents the people, not corporations is currently being promoted by The Young Turks:
https://justicedemocrats.com/
There are still some serious issues. I’m not sure Bernie is the right candidate even though he seems perfect in some ways. But, 1) He will be 79 next time round (b. Sept 1941). and this will be used ruthlessly against him. 2) Assuming he doesn’t want to go curl up somewhere and take a well deserved rest, the next biggest issue Bernie will have in joining a third party is what will happen to his committee position(s) should he fail? He’s an Independent that is bolted on to the Democrat party. The Dems will eviscerate him should he run 3rd party. He will be out in the cold, a position he hates, after so many years spent carving out a sphere of influence where he feels he can do at least some good. so unless he wants to retire anyway from the Senate, 3) Must overcome serious case of cold feet
Ellison’s early ties to Farrakhan doomed him in my opinion. Since it was so close he will be the deputy.
From WikiLeaks: “New DNC Chair Tom Perez: 18 Podesta Emails show him working for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders.” Can’t wait to watch the party unify now that they have alienated the Bernie wing.
As for DNC chair – you knew Obama wanted Perez based on endorsements by Joe Biden, Eric Holder and others – and Obama got who he wanted. Ellison is now deputy chair.
In his statement congratulating Perez, Obama said this: “I know that Tom Perez will unite us under that banner of opportunity, and lay the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leadership for this big, bold, inclusive, dynamic America we love so much,” Say what?? The “America we love so much” — ?? This from Obama’s lips??
I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall during his 8 years in office hearing Obama talk so much about loving America or uttering the words “the America we all love so much” — no, I recall him flying around the world and apologizing for America, bowing to other leaders, and speaking at the United Nations every chance he could -pretending to be President-of-the-World while taking America down a few notches with his words and his policies.
I see by his “America we love” rhetoric that Obama is tapping into the American patriotism and the “boldness” that delivered Trump the presidency and the Dems are hoping to ignite the same kind of momentum within their party. Watch for more of this rhetoric from Dems. It just might work (with the media in their back pockets, of course).
The choice of Perez shows all they care about is fundraising. The Dems were not sure a black muslim would rake it in as well as Perez. Dems will continue to reveal how they only manipulate and use all of these groups as wedge issues to gain votes while Trump will show that he is the one who actually cares about improving their lives by bringing jobs, tax cuts, and policies that actually help these groups prosper.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/11/labor-secretary-advised-clinton-cast-sanders-candidate-whites-turn-minorities
Jonathan, is this really how you want to use your education and the platform you have been given?–to defend the sexual assaulting, emotionally disturbed, xenophobic, misogynist, racist loser who lost the election by 3 million popular votes? Who pays you to try to downplay Mr. Tiny Hands’ extreme lack of fitness for the job of President, his attacks on the judiciary, the media or anyone else who disagrees with him? What about the press conference wherein he excluded media who publish things he doesn’t like? What other President has done this? Can you defend it? If no one is paying you to do this, or if you aren’t doing it hoping to snag a gig at Fox, then you are a disgrace to your education. You cannot seriously argue that any President before chubbyfatass ever engaged in a consistent pattern of immature, unprofessional behavior. You cannot seriously argue that any previous President had the pathological need for public adulation that Dumpster does.
Did you see the report leaked last night about the absolute lack of any nexus between the countries Dumpster is trying to enforce his travel ban against and the risk of terrorism? This destroys any “rational” argument about the ban, plus it destroys your argument that the ban would ever withstand a Constitutional challenge. Again, why doesn’t Dumpster go after UAE or Saudi Arabia where most of the 911 terrorists came from? Come on, use your education to answer this one. We already know: it’s because Dumpster has business ties to these countries. Of course, we could have investigated these ties if Dumpster would release his tax returns. Has any previous President in recent history refused to release his taxes? I know what you’re going to say, Jonathan: no law requires it. That’s true as far as it goes, but every other candidate has done it. Dumpster wouldn’t. Now, we’re beginning to see why.
What about Dumpster trying to control the investigation into his ties with Russia and Russia’s influence over the election? Is this OK, or are you going to use your education and platform to downplay or attempt to normalize these things as well? I am embarrassed for you.
N, what has been and ignored is the SOP for what we have now.
The concept of nuance is what has been neutered.
Dumpster? Go poke your finger in one half of the electorate that got on board with their collective message and I think what you will find is that you should have poked your own team in the hiney.
Your personal ad hominem attacks on both Prof. Turley and the sitting President say much more about your maturity and reasonableness than you might want to acknowledge.
To the point of the leaked “report,” have you actually read it? It’s only a three-page draft. Unsigned, and not even in its final form. How extensive and detailed do you believe the arguments put forth might be? I’ll save you the trouble. The report only reviews DoJ press releases. No statistics on immigration, no review of any classified information or data on emigration from the named countries, and certainly no review of the reasons for the Obama Administration’s identification of those seven countries for enhanced review. Regardless of your views on Trump and his administration, using this “report” to say there’s no justification for the suspension of travel from those seven countries is a pretty weak argument.
Oh, and the reason the leak is no big deal (aside from the fact that some insider leaked a draft memo) is that all of the information contained in it is public. Remember, all this person did was to summarize recently-issued Justice Department press releases and draw conclusions from those sources, and only those sources.
To me, this is scurrilous news – my own new category.
How about looking at what is good about Trump’s presidency so far?
Consumer confidence is up, stock market is up, business confidence is up, more companies staying in America and creating jobs…..burdensome regulations are being removed, more power given back to the state and local gov’s. What’s your problem with paying lower taxes? Or tax reform? Many of Trump’s cabinet picks are superbly qualified to lead their agencies. We have Rex Tillerson at the helm in the State Dept which makes me feel a whole lot better than having the sleezy, creepy Spirit Cooking weirdo John Podesta as Secy of State – he was Hillary’s choice for SOS according to a list that the Clinton campaign released not too long ago.
Trump is the first sitting president to be on board with gay marriage – he has no issue with it. He is sending the transgender bathroom decision back to the states to decide. He is looking to implement policies favorable to women and families. Roe v Wade may be chipped away at, but never overturned. If there is anything to these Russia allegations then it will come out, but so far there is nothing. Trump is not a moron or a buffoon – or a warmonger like Hillary. Noone who pulled off what he pulled off is whatcha call stupid. I actually don’t see what all the alarm is about. The media IS biased and he’s pointing it out. So what?
Yes, they messed up a few things, but it’s only been a month and rookie mistakes are to be expected. Yes, he has personality issues and ego issues, but we have to look at the whole picture and get some perspective. And maybe Trump only wants four years and then he steps aside after having done a whole lot of good for the country. This is a perspective that more than half of the country currently shares, but you wouldn’t know it according to media reports.
Actually if my memory serves me, Obama did try to blacklist Fox news during his presidency but he didn’t get away with it. Neither should Trump. Obama had a Fox reporter and his parents wiretapped and got called out on it, but you would never have known it the way the media covered him. The problem is that a large sector of the mainstream media leans quite left, is an appendage of the Democratic Party rather than neutrally reporting the news. The scorn and smirking on half of the commentators faces should be a cause of alarm regardless of what side you are on. Fox is the one station that leans right but there are many shows on Fox that have both Dems and Reps represented and engaging in spirited debated, the lifeblood of this country. I watch all stations and I honestly do not see the conservative viewpoint represented equally. I would challenge anyone to watch all stations for 1 week (and I mean the news not the Hannity or Rachel Maddow shows) and disagree with me. Honestly, if you want people to take you seriously and represent the Democratic Party in a positive way I would suggest you try to engage in productive discourse.
What about the press conference wherein he excluded media who publish things he doesn’t like? What other President has done this? Can you defend it?
Let’s try. First, a quick definition just to establish a baseline. News organizations are supposed to “investigate”, right? That is part of the definition. They are not supposed to simply be mouthpieces, or parrots, or stenographers for an administration nor are they supposed to be secret agents say for a previous administration trying to box in the current one. Right? They are supposed to investigate the truth or falsehood of the stories they cover and report on those findings.
The MSM (largely including Fox) has blatantly failed to investigate anything related the truth or falsehood of the Democrat’s, more accurately team Hillary’s assertions, including the subsequent reports by the NSA, the FBI and the CIA that Russia was involved in hacking Clinton and the DNC and attempting to put its finger on the scales of the election in favor of Trump. The assertions of the DNC and the reports of the intelligence agencies have never gone beyond “allegations”. Never. Not once. Yet the news agencies that Trump excluded presented these reports and assertions as if they were absolute fact. Over and over an over again. No fact checking. No push back. No investigating. No putting such hacking into context since the US indulges in cyber spying and influence just as much as most other advanced nations. Nothing even vaguely resembling what Journalists are paid to do by definition of their profession. Even had they simply stated that we can not know the truth for sure since the reports provide no evidence at all (claiming – as usual – the need for secrecy), they would have fulfilled at least part of their jobs as “reporters.” and Trump would have far less to base his remarks about the fake news that they did push on to the public by consistently selling the belief that the Russian hacking is established fact. Which it is NOT.
And it has become fairly obvious that this persistent “fake news” about Russia can only be part of a coordinated effort (on some group or groups part – I would argue the deep state that controls both parties) to box Trump in from his express campaign goal of reducing tensions between Russia and the United States. The forced resignation of Trump’s security adviser, Mike Flynn, was another part of the same coordinated effort.
Given even a fraction of this being true (and I think such a fraction would be above nine tenths), Trump has every right to exclude the media from what ever briefings he wants since it is not a media in any sense except as an organ of propaganda. If he is doing anything wrong – in this specific instance, in my opinion – it is that he is not sufficiently calling the media out for the liars they are, nor is he making it sufficiently clear that there is as yet no established facts regarding the so called Russian hacking. As has been stated on The Intercept, Trump has the authority to declassify any papers or memos he wants to, and I find fault with his not doing so on reports of Russian Hacking.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/someone-please-ask-donald-trump-this-simple-question-about-russia/
And no matter what one thinks of Mike Flynn, Trump should never have allowed the Deep State to get him thrown overboard.
I imagine Trump’s resistance to fight the issue is based on advice to avoid setting precedent. But what ever the reasons might be for Trump not wanting to wage a full on battle over manipulation of his foreign policy, and I doubt he can take much pride in all of them, he has at least resisted falling completely within the power of the MSM.
The New York Times broke the Clinton email story.
The information used by NYT and other rags came from Wikileaks and it was asserted that Wikileaks got this information from Russian Hacking.
And the NYT was one of the kitty box stuffers that Trump did not invite to a press briefing,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocked-white-house-briefing-sean-spicer
They should probably just include, Breitbart, Infowars Townhall, a few christian broadcasting outfits and Fox and be done with it.
Looks like the Mafia is deep into into the Trump Russia thing. FBI needs to investigate.
https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/835317401080250368
The corporate media showed its blatant bias in the last election by overtly helping the Clinton campaign. CNNs Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to the Clinton campaign. Reporters submitted their stories to Clinton campaign operatives for their review and edit before publishing. Stories were rewritten and turned into fluff pieces favorable to Clinton and harmful stories were suppressed entirely. For Trump to call out these corporate media entities as fake news is entirely correct. He has every right to keep the likes of CNN and NYT and WaPo and anyone else he chooses out of the press gaggles or briefings. All of the press was given transcripts and recordings of the gaggle. Most of the MSM are corporate shills, openly hostile toward Trump, and nearly all were in the tank for Shillary. Their not-so-covert mission is to take Trump down and Trump is responding accordingly. He has expanded White House press briefings to include more from the new media including bloggers, small town paper reporters, and others via Skype, and he is putting the corporate shill media propagandists who call themselves journalists to the back of the line. So what?
I like comment nesting, but it gets a little hard to follow at times, so forgive me if your comment wasn’t addressed to mine.
Assuming it was, I (respectfully) take issue with your, “So What?” The main stream media, in blowing up this hoax about Russian involvement in the US election, and now the so called Russian/Trump ties, is doing the work of their bosses, the deep state, or in this case the Industrial Military Complex who wants nothing more than to keep tensions sky high with Russia (cause it’s good for business).
The MSM is therefore directly involved in trying to influence Trump’s foreign policy on behalf of their corporate masters and that is not a “So What?” issue.
Trump does himself no favors by not making this gambit to box him in explicit. On the contrary, he makes it appear that there might be something in it after all, especially in so far as he did not stand up for Mike Flynn.
The investigations appear to be leading to financial wrong doings of Trump campaign staff such as Manafort and Flynn. Comey is in the crosshairs again.
BB, my “So what?” comment was just my opinion about all the uproar the media is making about Trump’s fake news comments and Spicer’s selective press gaggle last week.
I will worry when the courts bend to the will of the executive over their constitutional duty. We need this tension between the branches to have any hope we can rid ourselves of the Uber-presidency progressives created.
progressives created?
The Presidency can exist only if it is enabled by election results.
The lack of a counter force to the “progressives” is tangible. Is it not?
To constantly blame the power that got elected based on a majority says a lot about the lack there of on the other side as well my friend.
Of course that is no license to continue a bad practice and most modern presidents have avoided direct personal attacks on judges and justices. Most importantly, the criticism of the judges in the Ninth Circuit in my view are unwarranted and unhelpful. The executive order on immigration was, as I have previously stated, poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended. The law favored the President and still does. Yet, through remarkably causal drafting, the Administration gave judges a target rich environment in the first executive order. While I disagree with fundamental parts of these opinions, the result had more to do with the sloppy drafting of the order than any bias of the judges.
Judges should be personally attacked. They’re pretentious, dishonorable, and act in bad faith. Anything which reduces their social unassailiblity is good.
Based on what calculus? You sit there and proclaim your remedies to the injustices at hand and offer nothing but well articulated simple mixed solutions.
Honestly.
Sober up, say something coherent, and you might get an answer.
The legal BS could go on forever with opposite opinions coming from every level. Scalia disregard the ‘WE’ in the second amendment, which is more prevalent than the ‘I’ and voted for the individual. Scalia liked guns. This is evident throughout the history of mankind. The real issue here is the seemingly nonsensical manner in which the President went about restricting immigration. The systems in place required extreme vetting, had deported record illegals with records, and were in place. All DDT had to do was to pick up the phone and order a tightening of protocols and procedures already in place. DDT’s grandstanding for his own personal self gratification is the issue. DDT has repeatedly illustrated that he is not Presidential material, does not have the temperament to teach third grade, and is probably mentally listing back and forth between severe bouts of a realization that he is the phony he has been trying so hard to cover up, and severe megalomania bordering on mental disfunction.
At the end of the day, DDT is not fit to be President. If one needs any further proof, review the imbeciles he has appointed. Review the hypocrisy illustrated by his appointments vis a vis his campaign promises. America has a idiot fox guarding the hen house.
Again with the DDT?
It’s DJT…or are you intending to employ a literary device to infer?
Then again if so, I believe the use is not achieving its desired effect. DDT gets rid of parasites; in this case, it seems that the parasites are being forced into a trap as their emotions are getting the best of them.
@Renegade, your pissing in the wind with the Canadian Pinwheel, the boy is absolutely obsessed with President Trump. Actually I find pleasure in him eating away at himself, I’d worry if he had any good to say about President Trump. Assac here it is again=President Trump.
Where is the Squeeker? Hope she’s OK, love that girl/woman.
DDT because it seems like a good idea, does the job, quick, deadly, solves all the problems; then down the line: evolutionary disaster, cancer, etc. Just like the President and the ignoramuses that voted for him.
Would you please stop calling people who voted for Trump “ignoramuses”? We had a choice between the two candidates and anyone in their right mind would have chosen Trump over Hillary.
Let’s sum up your girl Hillary’s pileup of crap and corruption she offered the country: The Uranium One deal alone puts Hillary closer to the Russians, then we have her corrupt history including Travelgate, Whitewater, Benghazi lies, etc……and then the news that the so-called altruistic charity Clinton Foundation has now closed up shop because no more donations flow in when there’s no more influence to buy. Then we can look at her poor health…..passing out on anniversary of 9/11, history of falling or passing out, concussions and brain injuries, seizures on camera. Then there is the sheer incompetence, proven bad judgment which was just proved to be true just by the unbelievably bad $2 billion dollar losing campaign she ran. Oh, and she surrounds herself with sycophantic sickos like John Podesta, Anthony Weiner’s ex wife, David Brock, her tired old tongue-chewing, known sexual predator of a husband named Bill, and more. There is NO question that Trump was the right choice for the country at this time. Hillary would have been a certain, guaranteed disaster for the country as president. Trump just may pull it off. You, sir, are the ignoramus.
I guess I will change my comment name on the blog to “ignoramuse”. But I did not vote for him. But if the election was tomorrow I now would.
Anything bad said about the judges on the Ninth Circuit is justly earned. They are regularly overturned. However, they have gotten better when they are en banc.
True, Paul, but the Ninth Circuit still ought to be split up, if only because they have become “too big to fail.” 😉
Ralph – sadly the Ninth fails all the time. 🙂
A perfect punch line.
Really JT? Its all normal and everybody does it? Everybody that reads this site knows you play to the conservative entertainment complex. But the words of H.L. Mencken comes to mind reading your opinions. “The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots” Preaching to the choir and throwing out the red meat to your infotainment base has become party over country, lies over facts, and your site has become so one sided about the law itself and those words Mencken said has become itself true.
I’m not an attorney that’s why I pay one to put together and read my contracts but on this topic if President Trump would have kissed these judges ass they would have found against him. They would have found against him no matter what he put in that EO. Let’s watch next go around. “Don’t blame the courts when they’re criticized by the public and members of government”, who are they Gods? if you interpret the constitution void of your political beliefs nobody should criticize you. My understanding and you know better then I they glossed over the reason for the EO and interpreted it to suit themselves? As far as the press goes they’re relentless against him, the day they say or print something positive about him, I’ll worry.
The courts are properly gelded, by any means necessary. We have courts to examine criminal charges and mediate disputes between persons. We do not have courts to decide questions of social policy. This is a role they’ve arrogated to themselves and anything’s fair game to take it away from them.
Nonsense. Courts have been discerning and explaining social policy for centuries. How do you think the common law has evolved?
Can’t wait for this conversation to blossom.
Nonsense. Courts have been discerning and explaining social policy for centuries.
Absolute social fiction. Democrats cannot stop lying.
Your response is long on presumption and short on substance. Nevertheless, I still regard myself as educable, so perhaps a further explanation of my position will encourage something other than ad hominem disdain.
Social policy, like economic policy, is merely a sub-species of public policy, by which I mean the body of laws, customs and traditions by which a people defines itself and its common goals. Public policy is expressed primarily in legislative pronouncements and judicial decision-making.
A person living in solitude in an empty world has no need of law; its subject is relational interests, the manner in which they are created, the rights and duties they entail and the consequences of their termination. Law develops in response to changes in the human condition. That is what Holmes meant when he famously observed that “The life of the law has not been logic. It has been experience.” The history of American law and its English origins is a story of adaptability to changing conditions, the formulation of new theories to deal with new concerns and the elimination of old principles that no longer have any purpose, all operating on a foundation of precedent to provide stability and predictability. And to insure that the rule of law is afforded the respect of the people, we entrust its practical application to a jury of laypersons.
That is why I regard the law as an organism, constantly renewing itself and evolving through the accumulation of knowledge and collective experience. My views on the common law apply as well to constitutional interpretation, which is why I reject the narrow and ahistorical doctrine of Scalian originalism currently in vogue.
Trump may not exceed the of the 18th and 19th century barbs but when viewed in the context of his other behavior he appears out of control. Unfortunately my spidey sense tells me there is something more sinister going on here and that the bluster is being used to distract us from the tragedy that is occurring in this country. I don’t expect many on this thread will agree but that’s fine. That’s America.
Agreed, President Bannon has a dark future in mind for us.
Define “dark future.”
I don’t disagree. I am having a hard time figuring out what the sinister things is to worry about because the media turns every molehill into a mountain, which gives you the impression that no real mountain exists. What are the most sinister policies that are most likely to bring harm? I worry that he is too thin-skinned and loose-lipped – a bad combination for a person entrusted with the fate of the country. Will he get us into a war that could be avoided? Will it incite violence in the country as the left and the right pull ever farther apart? But none of the investigations appear to go anywhere despite a supposedly huge force of government, citizens and media that are actively pursuing them. Instead, the mainstream media chooses to hyperbolize small things or not give a fair assessment of a particular issue and everyone goes hysterical. Example – the bathroom EO. Obama issued it unilaterally with no debate and Trump reversed it. Does that mean he is anti-LGBT or does it mean that he is trying to limit the power of the federal government in favor of states rights?But the stories tend not to highlight both sides in a clear way. Turning everything into a moral issue rather than a big government vs small government issue feels manipulative. In order to see something that even remotely resembles the truth requires looking at stories from all sides, multiple news stories from the left and the right. I don’t think when I was younger this was the case. BTW – do you know of another political bloc where there is open debate about issues and more people would agree with you? I would love to read more of the liberal argument particularly if people can use evidence to support their arguments.
But none of the investigations appear to go anywhere despite a supposedly huge force of government, citizens and media that are actively pursuing them” That appears to be changing. That is if Daryl Issa still has any power..
Justice Holmes, that’s exactly what my husband has been saying – a distraction. I’ve been paying closer attention now and I agree with y’all. WTF is really going on?
Given this historical context,Trump’s diatribes against Judge Robart and the 9th Circuit seems to be “small potatoes” indeed.
Trump attacked a judge over his Mexican heritage. Has that happened before?
Trump attacked the judge because of his membership in La Raza, not over his heritage.
Not a meaningful distinction
Jay – very much a meaningful distinction. La Raza should be considered a hate organization.
No, anon, as Paul notes, Trump never attacked Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage. On the contrary, he said his Mexican heritage was “fine” and then he went on to says that Mexicans would be supporting him because his actions will create more jobs. Trump’s comments on Judge Curiel and the “Trump Univerisity” lawsuits–which he settled shortly after he won the presidential election–were made during a campaign speech in San Diego, CA. You can hear his comments on Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage at 4:27 – 4:48 in the following YouTube clip of his speech:
If Trump had merely said that he disagreed with the decisions out west and set forth the executive branch’s position and maybe the legal reasoning for that position, no one could validly complain and only the very hard left would complain. It was Trump’s words that were offensive.
That said, courts themselves cannot be completely absolved from blame when judges are criticized by the public and members of other branches of government. It cannot be doubted that activist judges act like legislators. Therefore, the public logically treats them like legislators, including directing harsh, even ad hominem, remarks toward them and engaging in partisan rhetoric when someone is nominated to the bench.
When one’s words are an endless stream of lies and exaggerations, it is hard not to take offense. DDT is grandstanding for the sake of drawing importance to his actions, regardless of whether or not they are in the best interests of America or Americans. This is megalomania of the clearest iteration.
By endless streams of lies, do you mean like “You can keep your health plan” or “You can keep your doctor”. Or, my favorite, Hilary Clinton’s under appreciated “I landed under sniper fire in Bosnia”. That line should have had more legs than it did.
What people do not realize is that Donald Trump and Barack Obama have the same personality. Hard to believe, but those two people, so different on the surface, are identical beneath the obvious. Both are egotistical, play off the crowd, love to campaign but are not necessarily enthused about governing (the jury is still out as far as Trump governing is concerned), are vicious attack dogs, are divisive, will put their own goals over that of their country, and will say anything that comes to their minds. The only personality difference is that, while Obama ponders, Trump acts.
Nope, they don’t. Obama is not a sexual abuser as is Trump.. Even his worst enemies did not claim that.
Provide facts here to back up your claim that Trump is a “sexual abuser.”
Grabbing women by the p….y is sexual abuse by most standards.
Saying on a hot mic that some women “let you” do it when you are rich and powerful is not the same as actually doing it. Funny how liberal women had no problem supporting Hillary Clinton for the White House when her husband is a known sexual predator and accused rapist. Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying under oath and disbarred is a disgrace, yet there was no outrage from liberal feminists at the prospect of him moving back into the White House to be co-president with Hillary. Stunning hypocrisy.
So far Trump has not submitted a tax plan, a healthcare plan, or a budget. So what has he done? Changed a bathroom law by EO and roused hate groups into action.
https://twitter.com/MiamiHerald/status/835861349066473472
Anon,
Since you ask, there is a long answer and a short answer to your question. The short answer is: if you want to know what he has done, read your local newspaper. Everything that the written press is criticizing him for is what he has done.
The long answer is as follows: he has rescinded numerous unnecessary executive orders, he has issued an immigration order and will soon issue a second one, he has restarted two pipelines, he has (despite the efforts of the Dems in Congress) established a cabinet, he has met with the leaders of Canada, the UK, and Israel, he held an unprecedented meeting of business and labor leaders which drew raves from both labor and business, he arranged for several companies to either bring or retain tens of thousands of jobs to America, he has evicted hundreds of criminals from the country, he has worked with Congress to begin tax and health care reform (this is necessarily a long process-Obamacare left the health care industry in a mess and the tax code is voluminious). All-in-all a pretty good 36 days’ work. You may not like the direction of the movement, but you cannot say he is not a mover.
Oh, I forgot the most important thing. He has made the middle class substantially wealthier and more financially secure. Since his election, the optimism he brings to the economy has increased stock market values 13-14%. For those of us at or near retirement age, this is very important. With health care costs rising and social security going bankrupt, many of us rely our 401(k)’s, which are market driven, to support us in our retirement. A 401(k) with a relatively modest $500,000 principle invested in the stock market has earned over $60,000 since Trump’s inauguration. That’s a quarter million dollars on an annual basis, a pretty good pay day for a middle class workingman or woman.
Anon, I would agree with you that Tump offers fertile ground for criticism, but you do him a huge favor by constantly trying to compare him unfavorably using Neocon and Neoliberal points of view ( Obama and Hillary specifically and the DNC in general being the essence of those bellicose and impoverishing ideologies respectively). The insurmountable problem you face is that Trump is but a more authoritarian version of the exact same thing (save only for the outer trappings and the pathetically skimpy “political party”) you keep pointing to as virtue.
It’s like trying to criticize Al Capone by using Lucky Luciano as the shining example of what Capone should be compared against. Hopeless. Impossible. Obviously those who have the exact same problem of perspective you do, except in mirror image, will justifiably rake you over the coals for the hypocrisy of your hero scoundrels while getting away with bragging about the identical behavior of their own ( I’m not speaking about Bob who seems quite aware of the issue I’m describing).
Most, if not all, politicians can be accused of lying, after they fail to achieve what they promised to get in, regardless of whether it was simply to get in or sincere or both. This comes with the territory. Obama promised stuff but when his best laid plans went into action, there was the private sector. The sewer that is the US health care insurance system is incapable of producing a perfect result or, for that matter, a result pleasing to all. The obvious solution is a two tier system based on the more successful systems to be found in any one of the three dozen systems that rank higher than here. So, Obama’s efforts were not entirely without fault and some of his promises went unfulfilled and were seen as lies from some.
This is par for the course in politics. However, with DDT, he starts with lies, continues with lies, and now is restricting the press that calls him on it. This is entirely a different sort of ego.
Issac,
If Obama didn’t know that people couldn’t keep their doctors or their health insurance when he claimed that they could, he was the only one who didn’t know this obvious fact. It was evident to all (except possibly but not likely Obama), that if the doctor did not want to accept Obamacare, he could not be compelled to do so, just like a doctor cannot be forced to accept Medicare. You go on Medicare, you may lose your doc. Same for the health insurance. If the insurer doesn’t like what is required of policies, it can withdraw from the market and people in that market will lose their insurer. It is all fairly self-evident. So, either Obama knew that people would lose their doctors and health insurance and lied or he didn’t know what to everyone else in the world was obvious. Since the man has degrees from two Ivy League schools and, therefore, must be an intelligent man, I conclude the former. I trust you will agree with my logic.
How is Trump “restricting the press?” They are free to report anything and everything they choose to. The press not selected for Spicer’s gaggle were given recordings and transcripts.
“Bogus claims” and “manufactured controversies.” These were two of the Obama admin’s many favorite rebuttals.
How about when Obama’s DOJ named James Rosen of Fox News a co-conspirator? Or when they spied on Associated Press reporters? Would you call that restricting the press?
It is laughable how Isaac seems to think that Obama did not do the same thing – lies, more lies, restricting the press that calls him on it — but O did it with the help of his wingman Eric Holder in the DOJ and many of his media pals. Trump has no such backing.