With Latest Angry Tweet, Trumps Sets Off On Violent "Collision Course" With Supreme Court

[don-o]

With Latest Angry Tweet, Trumps Sets Off On Violent "Collision Course" With Supreme Court

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-08/latest-angry-tweet-trumps-sets-violent-collision-course-supreme-court

With Trump's first angry tweet of the day, it is becoming very clear that the president's diplomatic approach vis-a-vis the judicial system can be described quite simply as "scorched earth." Following last night's Appeals Court hearing, Trump had the following response: "If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!"

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!
7:03 AM - 8 Feb 2017

This, as The Hill puts it this morning, assures that Trump and the Supreme Court are now on a collision course: "the collision appears inevitable, with Trump’s executive order halting travel to the United States by people from seven majority-Muslim countries — a ban a federal judge blocked last week — already moving quickly through the judicial system."

The clash is coming because Trump’s travel order could be on the Supreme Court docket soon: a federal appeals court heard arguments on Tuesday, and after the adverse ruling - which may come as soon as today - the next stop will almost certainly be the high court. The problem, for Trump, is that any decision will be interpreted through the prism of Trump’s comments on the judiciary, which critics say threaten the separation of powers.

snip

[don-o]

How about Trump orders the embassies in the targeted nations to reduce operating hours to issue new visas? Henceforth, new applications may be submitted in months beginning with the letter B.

[txradioguy]

How about Trump orders the embassies in the targeted nations to reduce operating hours to issue new visas? Henceforth, new applications may be submitted in months beginning with the letter B.

Or just hang a closed until further notice sign outside the visa office at said embassies.

[endicom]

I don't see anger in the tweet or foresee actual violence in any clash with the courts. That tweet probably reflects what a majority of people believe.

[driftdiver]

With Latest Angry Tweet, Trumps Sets Off On Violent "Collision Course" With Supreme Court

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-08/latest-angry-tweet-trumps-sets-violent-collision-course-supreme-court

With Trump's first angry tweet of the day, it is becoming very clear that the president's diplomatic approach vis-a-vis the judicial system can be described quite simply as "scorched earth." Following last night's Appeals Court hearing, Trump had the following response: "If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!"
This, as The Hill puts it this morning, assures that Trump and the Supreme Court are now on a collision course: "the collision appears inevitable, with Trump’s executive order halting travel to the United States by people from seven majority-Muslim countries — a ban a federal judge blocked last week — already moving quickly through the judicial system."

The clash is coming because Trump’s travel order could be on the Supreme Court docket soon: a federal appeals court heard arguments on Tuesday, and after the adverse ruling - which may come as soon as today - the next stop will almost certainly be the high court. The problem, for Trump, is that any decision will be interpreted through the prism of Trump’s comments on the judiciary, which critics say threaten the separation of powers.

snip

@don-o
Wow so much spin in this article.   The language they use, "angry", "clash", Collision Course" and "scorched earth".    Every President we've had has done similar things.   For example Obama instructed his agencies NOT to enforce federal law.

The spin is strong with this one.

[skeeter]

I don't see anger in the tweet or foresee actual violence in any clash with the courts. That tweet probably reflects what a majority of people believe.

I agree, the title overstates the tweet. Trump basically just summarized the argument his administration put before the court.

[Wingnut]

I love what Trump is doing.  His Tweets have become the the mini me!  and the press can't help themselves!

The man is an evil genius.

[txradioguy]

I agree, the title overstates the tweet. Trump basically just summarized the argument his administration put before the court.

If that's the argument...no wonder they aren't winning the case.

[DiogenesLamp]

I love what Trump is doing.  His Tweets have become the the mini me!  and the press can't help themselves!

The man is an evil genius.

People think he is a fool.    He is crazy like a fox.  They think he is playing checkers,  because that is the level of their mental capacity. 


He's playing six dimension chess. 

[don-o]

@don-o
Wow so much spin in this article.   The language they use, "angry", "clash", Collision Course" and "scorched earth".    Every President we've had has done similar things.   For example Obama instructed his agencies NOT to enforce federal law.

The spin is strong with this one.

Oh, I agree that the headline is lurid hyperbole. But that is pretty much coin of the cyber realm. But, Trump is taking his case to the people in a way not seen before.

Raising even the idea of corrupt and incompetent judges is a new thing for a POTUS. I like it!

@LonestarDream

[txradioguy]

I remember the days when talk about calling out judges and threatening them via the media and social media was considered a bad thing.

[mystery-ak]

I remember the days when talk about calling out judges and threatening them via the media and social media was considered a bad thing.

Well those days are over.

If you heard the so-called hearing last night you would see that the career DOJ lawyer was pathetic in arguing the ruling, this is why we need Sessions over there right now.

[beandog]

I remember the days when talk about calling out judges and threatening them via the media and social media was considered a bad thing.

It was.  I sure don't remember that.  It should not be.  Judges are not anything special.  They are the problem and should be called out when they are not following the constitution.  You want to bow to them, feel free.

[DiogenesLamp]

I remember the days when talk about calling out judges and threatening them via the media and social media was considered a bad thing.

That is of course the consensus of the Milquetoast wing of the party that consistently loses to Democrats. 


Judges should have been called out and denounced as stupid,  corrupt and incompetent at least so far back as 1973.   


No,  the 14th amendment didn't create a "right"  to abortion,  and anyone who says so is either a liar or an idiot.   

[don-o]

Well those days are over.

If you heard the so-called hearing last night you would see that the career DOJ lawyer was pathetic in arguing the ruling, this is why we need Sessions over there right now.

I need to catch up on that. I was hoping the DOJ would not fall into the trap of arguing the merits, but focus solely on striking down the TRO, perhaps mentioning in passing tha issue of standing.

 I am intuiting that did not happen.

[don-o]

It was.  I sure don't remember that.  It should not be.  Judges are not anything special.  They are the problem and should be called out when they are not following the constitution.  You want to bow to them, feel free.

Precisely the point Levin makes in "Men in Black" and then goes farther in his Article V book to propose solutions via Constitutional amendment.

The whole matter of judicial review unbalances checks and balances.

[Rivergirl]

Somehow I don't see our Attorney General arguing this case before a circuit judge. 
Sessions will have to get his team up and running very quickly.   Hopefully it won't be a total disaster ala DT's organizational skills.

[DiogenesLamp]

I need to catch up on that. I was hoping the DOJ would not fall into the trap of arguing the merits, but focus solely on striking down the TRO, perhaps mentioning in passing tha issue of standing.

 I am intuiting that did not happen.

I didn't watch it,  but I have read from others that the issue of "standing"  was never brought up. 


Makes me think the careerist at the DOJ doesn't agree with Trump and is putting up a half-hearted fight.  "Standing"  is legal methodology 101.   

[don-o]

CNN asking if Trump is "threatening" the judges.

Old Harry Truman quote: ""I just tell 'em the truth and they think it's hell.

[txradioguy]

Well those days are over.

If you heard the so-called hearing last night you would see that the career DOJ lawyer was pathetic in arguing the ruling, this is why we need Sessions over there right now.

IIRC the Solicitor General for the U.S. who argued the Obamacare case before the SCOTUS was equally pathetic back in 2014.  Let's hope Sessions chooses better people.

[txradioguy]

It was.  I sure don't remember that.  It should not be.  Judges are not anything special.  They are the problem and should be called out when they are not following the constitution.  You want to bow to them, feel free.

So it's ok for the President to threaten judges?

We're not some third world banana dictatorship.

[Cripplecreek]

Only a moron looks for a slap fight with the court.

On the other hand the Hugo Chavez behavior of Trump could be for the same reasons Hugo Chavez painted all opposition as the enemy.

[don-o]

So it's ok for the President to threaten judges?

We're not some third world banana dictatorship.

There's a systemic problem in play here that needs to be addressed, like the original Constitution's provision for counting slaves as three fifths of a person.

Chickens are coming home to roost.

[don-o]

Only a moron looks for a slap fight with the court.

On the other hand the Hugo Chavez behavior of Trump could be for the same reasons Hugo Chavez painted all opposition as the enemy.

So you reject the idea of any check at all for the judiciary? what is that other than tyranny?

[endicom]

So it's ok for the President to threaten judges?

We're not some third world banana dictatorship.

I don't see a threat. With what is Trump threatening judges?