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

[DiogenesLamp]

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

Judges,  car dealers,  tax payers,  oil companies,  Christians,  Congressmen,  whatever Obama felt like threatening.   

We're not some third world banana dictatorship.

You must have completely slept through the Obama administration.


 

[skeeter]

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.

Its clear the left has turned to the courts & partisan judges as a means to implement an agenda they cannot implement legislatively. Why are judges beyond reproach?

[mystery-ak]

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

We're not some third world banana dictatorship.

Where was the threat?...I sure didn't see one.

[txradioguy]

Where was the threat?...I sure didn't see one.

Implied.  If we don't win...i.e. if the judges don't rule the way I want them to...America isn't going to be safe.

Or in other words...if the judges don't rule the way I want them to we'll be attacked.

@Cripplecreek is right this is a dumb slap fight he's engaging in.  There are lots of things he's got lined up that will at some point need judicial review...acting like this with the courts less than a month into his term will bite him in the butt down the road.  These judges know they have what Trump doesn't...a lifetime appointment.

[driftdiver]

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

@txradioguy

I remember the days when judges issued rulings based on law and not on their own personal agenda.

[Cripplecreek]

Implied.  If we don't win...i.e. if the judges don't rule the way I want them to...America isn't going to be safe.

Or in other words...if the judges don't rule the way I want them to we'll be attacked.

@Cripplecreek is right this is a dumb slap fight he's engaging in.  There are lots of things he's got lined up that will at some point need judicial review...acting like this with the courts less than a month into his term will bite him in the butt down the road.  These judges know they have what Trump doesn't...a lifetime appointment.

Diplomacy is 50% of the job. Without it he will fail.

Unfortunately his utter lack of diplomatic skill is exactly what people voted for.

[Cripplecreek]

Or in other words...if the judges don't rule the way I want them to we'll be attacked.

@txradioguy

The worst part is the fact that we WILL be attacked and that would happen with or without a muslim ban and the simple folk will blame the judges.

[LonestarDream]

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

Yes the judges are out of control.  The president should have been calling out errant judges for decades.  Time for the president to use his bully pulpit.

@don-o

[Night Hides Not]

@txradioguy

I remember the days when judges issued rulings based on law and not on their own personal agenda.

Yeah, I remember you. We served together with General Grant during the Civil War!   

[LonestarDream]

@txradioguy

The worst part is the fact that we WILL be attacked and that would happen with or without a muslim ban and the simple folk will blame the judges.

It will be the Judges fault.  The sophisticated folks see that.  Trump is right to list the 78 Sharia attacks on the west.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

I remember the days when judges issued rulings based on law and not on their own personal agenda.

@driftdiver long long before you and I were on this earth judges were adding their personal agenda's to the courts rulings.

Hugo Black ring a bell?

FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court and add more justices to neutralize those opposed to his New Deal plan.

America...as well as his own VP were opposed to this.

Now it seems we don't care as long as it's "our guy" issuing the threats.

[txradioguy]

Yeah, I remember you. We served together with General Grant during the Civil War!   

You were just a raw wide eyed 2nd Lieutenant back then.

[endicom]

Now it seems we don't care as long as it's "our guy" issuing the threats.

No judge was threatened.

[don-o]

@driftdiver long long before you and I were on this earth judges were adding their personal agenda's to the courts rulings.

Hugo Black ring a bell?

FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court and add more justices to neutralize those opposed to his New Deal plan.

America...as well as his own VP were opposed to this.

Now it seems we don't care as long as it's "our guy" issuing the threats.

 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[txradioguy]

No judge was threatened.

Implied threat...already explained that...try and keep up please.

[txradioguy]

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Sorry...we're not even close to being in a King George versus the Colonies state in this country...despite the fact a small unhappy group wishes we ere.

You seriously degrade your argument when you start with the Revolution stuff.

[endicom]

Implied threat...already explained that...try and keep up please.

There's nothing to keep up with. That was a stretch not seen in the NBA.

[montanajoe]

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.

 

[txradioguy]

There's nothing to keep up with. That was a stretch not seen in the NBA.

It's only that in your little mind because you will never...even when it's as plain as the nose on your face...EVER say anything negative about Trump or admit when he's wrong.

We've already established this...he's perfect in your eyes and nothing will ever sway you from that.

[mystery-ak]

tx....no need for the insults...

[don-o]

Sorry...we're not even close to being in a King George versus the Colonies state in this country...despite the fact a small unhappy group wishes we ere.

You seriously degrade your argument when you start with the Revolution stuff.

I think the argument holds up fine - black robes, red coats. Different garb, same tyranny.

I'll go farther and assert that the current tyranny is worse by orders of magnitude. King Georges's resulted in thousands of deaths. Roe v Wade has resulted in multiplies millions.

[txradioguy]

I think the argument holds up fine - black robes, red coats. Different garb, same tyranny.

I'll go farther and assert that the current tyranny is worse by orders of magnitude. King Georges's resulted in thousands of deaths. Roe v Wade has resulted in multiplies millions.

We're in agreement on the abortion issue.

But the comparisons are vastly different.  Get back to me when we have to start quartering soldiers in our homes or the 2nd Amendment is stripped away completely.

When we get to the point where the justices start striking down en masse the Bill of Rights...then your Revolution comparison will be relevant.

[mountaineer]

Implied.  If we don't win...i.e. if the judges don't rule the way I want them to...America isn't going to be safe.

Or in other words...if the judges don't rule the way I want them to we'll be attacked.

To constitute a threat, he'd have to say those same judges will be attacked. It's not a threat, it's just a stupid prediction.

I sure wish he'd stop tweeting. 

[XenaLee]

That sounds like BS to me.  Since when can the CIC not even comment on ongoing attempts (by rogue judges) to circumvent his own policies?  Those "critics" are already too biased to listen to, IMO.

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

[txradioguy]

To constitute a threat, he'd have to say those same judges will be attacked. It's not a threat, it's just a stupid prediction.

How is it different from this:

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.  And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, this is a good example.  And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”

The title of the 2012 article was:

Obama Threatens the Supreme Court

http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-04-03/obama-threatens-supreme-court

Conservatives were beside themselves with the "implied/veiled" threat.  How dare Obama try to influence a judges decision.

However...fast forward to 2017...

I sure wish he'd stop tweeting. 

He's not supposed to be.  Not unless it's on the official Presidential feed.