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

[Cripplecreek]

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

@r9etb

I think what he's suggesting is that if Trump continues on his current path he will cross a line into the impeachable.

[r9etb]

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

No, and if you read for comprehension you'll understand that I did not say that.

What I said is that a) impugning the integrity of the courts is not something a president should be doing; and b) if he continues to do so, he deserves impeachment.

Why?  Consider what happens when a president says you can't trust the court system, and that an entire other branch of government -- which happens to be one of the checks and balances against the president -- is in essence corrupt. 

Surely a Constitution-lover such as yourself can understand why a president shouldn't be doing that.

[XenaLee]

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?

Yes, I do know the difference between an implied threat vs. what an overt threat is.  But apparently you don't.  Making a threat that you can (and presumably will) carry out is one thing.  Making a prediction on the likely outcome of something being made beyond your control is something entirely different.  And no, that something else is NOT an ""implied threat"".

Sorry, but....  it is my observation that.... your bias and dislike of Trump is clouding your judgement here on this issue.  And stop forcing me to defend Trump, dammit!  I hate that!!!   

(Sorry about the edits....still working on my first cup of java.)

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump shouldn't tweet this stuff, however, the tweet was neither a threat nor violent IMO.

[don-o]

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

Are the Men in Back to be immune from any questioning of their judgement? Is the "integrity of the court system" as it has devolved, to be accepted as settled law? Are we content to operate under Einstein's definition of insanity?

[LonestarDream]

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

Not to mention the EPA 'quartering' or imposing itself under the 'puddles as wetlands' doctrine on family farms.

[Doug Loss]

No, and if you read for comprehension you'll understand that I did not say that.

What I said is that a) impugning the integrity of the courts is not something a president should be doing; and b) if he continues to do so, he deserves impeachment.

Why?  Consider what happens when a president says you can't trust the court system, and that an entire other branch of government -- which happens to be one of the checks and balances against the president -- is in essence corrupt. 

Surely a Constitution-lover such as yourself can understand why a president shouldn't be doing that.

Oh bull.  What I said is a pretty accurate paraphrase of your argument.  I comprehend your claim just fine, regardless of how you try to obfuscate it.  And frankly, you know that in this case he's right, the courts haven't operated within their constitutional constraints for a long time.  You just don't like how he says it.  I'm not a Donald fan myself, but your claims are really reaching in your attempt to portray blunt speech as an impeachable offense.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The problem with Trump doing it is that it sets up for a President you don't like doing it either, and even more forcefully. Pretty soon the Judiciary will just be an extension of public opinion.

[XenaLee]

No, and if you read for comprehension you'll understand that I did not say that.

What I said is that a) impugning the integrity of the courts is not something a president should be doing; and b) if he continues to do so, he deserves impeachment.

Why?  Consider what happens when a president says you can't trust the court system, and that an entire other branch of government -- which happens to be one of the checks and balances against the president -- is in essence corrupt. 

Surely a Constitution-lover such as yourself can understand why a president shouldn't be doing that.

I disagree.   If and when a judge (....let's call him a rogue judge just to ruffle your feathers)....makes a ruling that circumvents, derails or prevents a president from implementing his policies... when that ruling is not based on current law OR on past precedents... that president has every right AND duty to call out that judge's judgment and actions.  But that's just me.

US judges and justices are not gods.  They are not above the law OR above criticism or question.  Where did you get that idea?  Certainly not from past US history.

[Free Vulcan]

What a drama queen article of breathless hysteria. Reading this article I feel like a slobbering dog just had a sneezing fit in my face.

[don-o]

Not to mention the EPA 'quartering' or imposing itself under the 'puddles as wetlands' doctrine on family farms.

And the snail darter...

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/23/us/snail-darter-is-taken-off-endangered-list.html

[the_doc]

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.

Amen to everything you said.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

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.

IMO he'd have to be held in contempt of court to be impeached.

[INVAR]

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

We're not some third world banana dictatorship.

Are you sure?

Can't prove that to me with anything coming out of our politics for the last 12 years.

[XenaLee]

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.

And now...  you're just being silly.  (ooops)

Roberts rewrote the frigging law.  It wasn't presented in all of those 2,400+ pages of tripe, as a 'tax'.  It was written and presented as a mandated FEE.

Roberts had no legal 'right' to do what he did.... ie save Obama's legacy legislation by changing the mandate to a tax vs. a fee.  I suspect that, since he had been 100% against it up until his ruling, that he or his family was threatened with something.  And yeah....I call that a rogue decision made by a rogue justice.  Sue me.

[skeeter]

And now...  you're just being silly.  (ooops)

Roberts rewrote the frigging law.  It wasn't presented in all of those 2,400+ pages of tripe, as a 'tax'.  It was written and presented as a mandated FEE.

Roberts had no legal 'right' to do what he did.... ie save Obama's legacy legislation by changing the mandate to a tax vs. a fee.  I suspect that, since he had been 100% against it up until his ruling, that he or his family was threatened with something.  And yeah....I call that a rogue decision made by a rogue justice.  Sue me.

Yep, Roberts basically ruled on a law he wrote. Thats about as rogue as a judge can get.

[txradioguy]

The problem with Trump doing it is that it sets up for a President you don't like doing it either, and even more forcefully. Pretty soon the Judiciary will just be an extension of public opinion.

Exactly.

[txradioguy]

Are you sure?

Can't prove that to me with anything coming out of our politics for the last 12 years.

Positive.

[txradioguy]

You do realize that Trump can do exactly the same thing, right?  And he's preparing the political landscape so that the outrage can be directed towards those he's selected.

For all he's got to do is have the DHS turn a blind eye... and wait.

There will be those here that will cheer something like that loudly.

[driftdiver]

This only can apply if every single person affected by the ban is a 'radical jihadist'.

And you know that's patently false.

@HonestJohn
@XenaLee
The trouble is you don't know who is who.   How do you vet someone from Syria or Somalia?     Even Iraq is difficult and they have a somewhat functioning government.   We couldn't keep jihadists off the military bases there with all of the security they had and close personal contact.

The only people who have a right to come to this country are its citizens. 

[INVAR]

There will be those here that will cheer something like that loudly.

I would expect that, if it hasn't already happened.

[r9etb]

Oh bull.  What I said is a pretty accurate paraphrase of your argument.

Whatever, Doug.  Whatever. 

[XenaLee]

This only can apply if every single person affected by the ban is a 'radical jihadist'.

And you know that's patently false.

Oh good grief.  That is not true ...not even close.

I happen to agree with Trump's attempt to (gasp!) vet any immigrants coming into the USA, especially those coming from ME nations like Syria.  We already know that ISIS vowed to infiltrate via "refugee immigration".   If trying to control or curtail that kind of immigration is a 'radical' concept to you, then I posit that you either apparently don't care about the safety of the US and US legal citizens, or that you don't have America's welfare in your best interest.  Which prompts me to ask.... which country's best interest DO you care about, if not the USA?

[r9etb]

If trying to control or curtail that kind of immigration is a 'radical' concept to you, then I posit that you either apparently don't care about the safety of the US and US legal citizens, or that you don't have America's welfare in your best interest.  Which prompts me to ask.... which country's best interest DO you care about, if not the USA?

Which prompts me to ask.... are you simply incapable of conducting a civil conversation?

Really: is there no way for you to discuss this topic in an intelligent and thoughtful way, that does not involve questioning the guy's loyalty to the USA?

[XenaLee]

@HonestJohn
@XenaLee
The trouble is you don't know who is who.   How do you vet someone from Syria or Somalia?     Even Iraq is difficult and they have a somewhat functioning government.   We couldn't keep jihadists off the military bases there with all of the security they had and close personal contact.

The only people who have a right to come to this country are its citizens.

Right.  That's why.... if it was me in control, I would set up refugee camps over there (in the Middle East)...where aid and medical treatment would be provided until those refugees could be vetted and it could be ensured that they were not involved in or associated with jihadi activities.  I would stop all "unvetted" immigration into the US.   Trump isn't doing that.  He's just trying to stop the blinkin obvious threat, currently.  Yet still they're screeching.  It's idiotic.  You either want to protect the USA or you don't.