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

[txradioguy]

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.

What exactly constitutes a rogue judge?  Is this going to be like fake news and just become a title people attach to rulings that don't go their way?

[mountaineer]

I have no problem with a president criticizing a court ruling with which he disagrees.

[txradioguy]

I have no problem with a president criticizing a court ruling with which he disagrees.

Same here.

[don-o]

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.

I'll see your "quartering" and raise you a " Kelo v City of New London"

[txradioguy]

I'll see your "quartering" and raise you a " Kelo v City of New London"

And they are two very different things...even though you try to make them the same issue.  One has to do with Government forcing you to house troops in your house...the other is simply judicial overreach on an already existing law.

You aren't having Generals bang on your door and tell you that...by decree of the President you WILL house and feed a Marine rifle platoon or face arrest.


Kelo is an issue that can be reversed.


But it won't happen with this President since he was and as far as I know is still supportive of Kelo and used it to his advantage.

[XenaLee]

What exactly constitutes a rogue judge?  Is this going to be like fake news and just become a title people attach to rulings that don't go their way?

You know exactly what a 'rogue judge' is.  This ain't your first time at the rodeo.  Stop feigning ignorance.

[endicom]

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.

You shouldn't try switching the subject or to ad homs with an old New Yorker. We can find a guy like you on any street corner. That's why I so quickly spotted Obama for being what he is.

Back on subject, you try to impress that Trump has threatened judges when he has not done so.

[txradioguy]

My how things change...

2012:

Obama Threatens The Supreme Court… Again

Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.”

2017

Trump Lashes Out at Liberal Renegade Judges for Blocking Temporary Refugee Ban from Terror States

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!

Both stories...both reporting on a President conveying an implied threat to the Judicial if they don't get a ruling to go their way...but covered very very differently courtesy of:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

[the_doc]

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

I don't like Trump, and I don't always agree with his loudmouth approach, but I think the above quote from the article is utterly asinine.  Presidents have frequently clashed with the court system.  And Obama went way over the top in this regard.  But even his unseemly comment during the SOTU Address did not "threaten the separation of powers."

The author of the linked article is a weasel. Critics say is his journalistic "out."  But look at the headline.  It is atrocious.

[txradioguy]

You know exactly what a 'rogue judge' is.  This ain't your first time at the rodeo.  Stop feigning ignorance.

Rogue judge is in the eye of the beholder.  Especially now that we've entered an era that any news story that doesn't shine a certain person in a favorable light is automatically tagged as "fake news".

It's perfectly legit to ask the question of what now defines a "rogue judge'...because the definition you and I know seems to have changed.

I'm not feigning ignorance at anything. 

[don-o]

And they are two very different things...even though you try to make them the same issue.  One has to do with Government forcing you to house troops in your house...the other is simply judicial overreach on an already existing law.

You aren't having Generals bang on your door and tell you that...by decree of the President you WILL house and feed a Marine rifle platoon or face arrest.


Kelo is an issue that can be reversed.


But it won't happen with this President since he was and as far as I know is still supportive of Kelo and used it to his advantage.

Both go to the issue of the people's right to be secure in their property. "Existing law" that is built on rotten foundations is the construction material of the long chain of abuses.

[XenaLee]

Rogue judge is in the eye of the beholder.  Especially now that we've entered an era that any news story that doesn't shine a certain person in a favorable light is automatically tagged as "fake news".

It's perfectly legit to ask the question of what now defines a "rogue judge'...because the definition you and I know seems to have changed.

I'm not feigning ignorance at anything.

How has it changed?  In my mind, it still defines a justice that ....rather than rule on the law already on the books ....

issues a ruling based, not on past precedents, but on (apparently) his own current bias or upon his current need to do so (See:  Justice Roberts' mysterious reversal on ObamaCare, where he  arbitrarily rewrote the law to fit Obama's agenda....due to some unknown reason (or threat) to do so.). 

A rogue judge is one that can be manipulated by either political party for political purposes.

[r9etb]

You know exactly what a 'rogue judge' is.  This ain't your first time at the rodeo.  Stop feigning ignorance.

Well, a truly "rogue judge" would be one who consistently rules despite the availability of clear law and precedent.

Unless you can prove that here, perhaps you could choose a more accurate term. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I have zero problem with the President blasting an activist judge.  And I say that as someone who has appeared before more than I can count, including the Supreme Court.  It was a garbage decision by the District Court, and if affirmed, it'll be a garbage decision by the 9th Circuit.  It was never intended that courts get to decide which foreigners get to enter our country.  That is up to the elected branches, and Congress expressly delegated this particular aspect of it -- the right to exclude certain groups -- to the President.

It would be a worse assault on liberty to pretend such decisions have any real basis in law.

Heck, I don't even see a legitimate legal basis to overturn a ban on new immigration even if it was expressly limited to Muslims.  Non-citizens and non-residents simply do not have constitutional rights.  Period.

[XenaLee]

My how things change...

2012:

2017


Both stories...both reporting on a President conveying an implied threat to the Judicial if they don't get a ruling to go their way...but covered very very differently courtesy of:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

The main problem with this lame (and I'm being nice here...lol) comparison is....

the Obama threat was within his power to do, ie create chaos and direct his party to disrupt Medicare.   It was a lame threat, of course, since Obama knew he would only be hurting himself and his own party by carrying out that threat.

With the Trump comment, it isn't a threat since it is obvious that the end result is and will be out of his control....ie jihadists coming into America and wreaking havoc due to rogue judges thwarting his attempts to keep them out.

You do see the difference here, don't you? 

Obama Threatens The Supreme Court… Again

Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.”

Trump Lashes Out at Liberal Renegade Judges for Blocking Temporary Refugee Ban from Terror States

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!

[XenaLee]

Well, a truly "rogue judge" would be one who consistently rules despite the availability of clear law and precedent.

Unless you can prove that here, perhaps you could choose a more accurate term.

Uh....no.  I consider Justice Roberts a "rogue judge" ever since he made that crap ruling on Obamacare.  There's no rule that they have to be consistently wrong...lol.

But nice try there.

[Oceander]

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.

Why are judges only rogues when they do something one does not like?

[r9etb]

I have zero problem with the President blasting an activist judge.  And I say that as someone who has appeared before more than I can count, including the Supreme Court.  It was a garbage decision by the District Court, and if affirmed, it'll be a garbage decision by the 9th Circuit.  It was never intended that courts get to decide which foreigners get to enter our country.  That is up to the elected branches, and Congress expressly delegated this particular aspect of it -- the right to exclude certain groups -- to the President.

It would be a worse assault on liberty to pretend such decisions have any real basis in law.

I haven't read the actual decision, so I cannot comment either way as to the quality of the judge's decision.

The real problem is that Trump throwing firebombs again -- this time, impugning the integrity of the court system, 140 characters at a time. 

His behavior on that score is utterly irresponsible.  I'd go so far as to say that, if he persists and escalates, it will end up being impeachable.

[XenaLee]

Why are judges only rogues when they do something one does not like?

Seriously?  You don't see the issue here? 

So you agree with the judge going against Trump's attempt to stop radical jihadists from coming into America before being or sans being vetted?

[txradioguy]

The main problem with this lame (and I'm being nice here...lol) comparison is....

the Obama threat was within his power to do, ie create chaos and direct his party to disrupt Medicare.   It was a lame threat, of course, since Obama knew he would only be hurting himself and his own party by carrying out that threat.

With the Trump comment, it isn't a threat since it is obvious that the end result is and will be out of his control....ie jihadists coming into America and wreaking havoc due to rogue judges thwarting his attempts to keep them out.

You do see the difference here, don't you?

Only lame to those that don't want to admit there is a double standard going on here.

Only lame in the fact you completely miss the point I was making in order to try and defend Trump.

By the way you do know what an implied versus an overt threat is dont you?

[Right_in_Virginia]

A rogue judge is one that can be manipulated by either political party for political purposes.

Well said @XenaLee

[Right_in_Virginia]

The real problem is that Trump throwing firebombs again -- this time, impugning the integrity of the court system, 140 characters at a time. 

His behavior on that score is utterly irresponsible.  I'd go so far as to say that, if he persists and escalates, it will end up being impeachable.

I'd go so far as saying you need to grow a pair @r9etb           

[Doug Loss]

I haven't read the actual decision, so I cannot comment either way as to the quality of the judge's decision.

The real problem is that Trump throwing firebombs again -- this time, impugning the integrity of the court system, 140 characters at a time. 

His behavior on that score is utterly irresponsible.  I'd go so far as to say that, if he persists and escalates, it will end up being impeachable.

So you say calling names is an impeachable offense?  Really?

[r9etb]

Uh....no.  I consider Justice Roberts a "rogue judge" ever since he made that crap ruling on Obamacare.  There's no rule that they have to be consistently wrong...lol.

But nice try there.

Oh, please.  You didn't like his decision, so he's "rogue."  I actually read his decision -- did you? -- and his legal rationale is reasonable, even if you don't agree with it.  He ruled that the fines related to the individual mandate are a tax (which they are), whatever else Congress might have called them; and recognized that Congress is authorized to levy taxes. 

The fact that you disagree with a judge does not make him "rogue."  You're just engaging in name-calling.

[r9etb]

I'd go so far as saying you need to grow a pair @r9etb           

Aren't you just the cutest little thing?