Trump's Message to the Courts: Even 'A Bad High School Student' Would Understand the Law in Question

[Norm Lenhart]

Answer my question, is the judicial act unconstitutional?

What it is is not applicable to the scenario under discussion. AKA a strawman.

[Bigun]

Answer my question, is the judicial act unconstitutional?

No it isn't but neither did it amend the Constitution to re-assign enforcement powers granted the executive in the Constitution to the courts.

[Hoodat]

According to who?

If the President has the power to fire the head of the Justice Department, then he obviously has the right to fire any lesser Justice Department official.

[Norm Lenhart]

If the President has the power to fire the head of the Justice Department, then he obviously has the right to fire any lesser Justice Department official.

Reagan fired a lot of flight controllers. They are certainly down the Fed hierarchy.

[Norm Lenhart]

If the President has the power to fire the head of the Justice Department, then he obviously has the right to fire any lesser Justice Department official.

Clinton also axed a bunch of JD lawyers.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If the President has the power to fire the head of the Justice Department, then he obviously has the right to fire any lesser Justice Department official.

You're actually wrong, I believe. That was a major part of the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon couldn't fire the special prosecutor directly, so he had to fire the AG. And a bunch of them resigned until he got Bork in there who agreed to fire the prosecutor.

"However, on the following day (a Saturday) Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned.[/size][4][/font][/size][/color][5]"[/font][/size]

[Victoria33]

Nope.  I was pointing out how Norm was calling for a dictator.  And others are suggesting that Trump rule by fiat by declaring this a "national security matter."  It's not Trump I'm worried about, it's the people who think such things are a good idea.

@r9etb
@mystery-ak

The point the judge's will rule on, is this:  While Trump can stop citizens from counties coming here, he cannot do it based on religion or ethnicity.  He loses if they determine he is keeping out people due to their Islam faith or because they are Muslim.

[Bigun]

@r9etb
@mystery-ak

The point the judge's will rule on, is this:  While Trump can stop citizens from counties coming here, he cannot do it based on religion or ethnicity.  He loses if they determine he is keeping out people due to their Islam faith or because they are Muslim.

Trump can tonight direct that the State department simply stop issuing visas for XXX days and that will be that!

[Victoria33]

Trump can tonight direct that the State department simply stop issuing visas for XXX days and that will be that!

@Bigun

I was speaking about the court case, not what he could do otherwise.

[Hoodat]

You're actually wrong, I believe.

History says I am right.

That was a major part of the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon couldn't fire the special prosecutor directly

Your premise is patently false.  The ability to fire Cox was never an issue.  It is simply a matter of protocol.  The CEO of Wal-mart would not fire a cashier at a store in Aberdeen, South Dakota who insulted a customer.  Instead, he would give the order to the retail VP who would issue an order to the Regional manager who would issue an order to the store manager.  If anyone in that chain refused to implement that order, then the CEO would have a much bigger problem on his hands that needed to be resolved first.  Thus the resignations of Richardson and Ruckelshaus, and the promotion of Bork.

Here is a Justice Department organizational chart from 2003:


Any order to fire a US Marshal would come from the AG to the Deputy AG to the Director of the US Marshall service to the Deputy Director.  If the President issues an order, it gets passed down the chain of command.  In no way does it mean that the President can't fire that person.  Executive branch employees work for the head of the Executive Branch.

It was only a few weeks ago that President Trump fired the Deputy Attorney General.

In 2007, the Bush White House ordered the firings of 7 US attorneys.  The special prosecutor that was appointed to investigate concluded that there was nothing illegal about the firings, even without the cooperation of White House counsel.

[txradioguy]

Trump can tonight direct that the State department simply stop issuing visas for XXX days and that will be that!

Should have done that in the first place instead of a poorly implemented EO.

Look at how much political capital he's wasting in this less than a month into his term.

[truth_seeker]

It seems we have a generation, and more, who believe our legal system is based on emotions and feelings.

Got a few here it seems. They are either ignorant or pretending to be.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

History says I am right.


Your premise is patently false.  The ability to fire Cox was never an issue.  It is simply a matter of protocol.  The CEO of Wal-mart would not fire a cashier at a store in Aberdeen, South Dakota who insulted a customer.  Instead, he would give the order to the retail VP who would issue an order to the Regional manager who would issue an order to the store manager.  If anyone in that chain refused to implement that order, then the CEO would have a much bigger problem on his hands that needed to be resolved first.  Thus the resignations of Richardson and Ruckelshaus, and the promotion of Bork.

Here is a Justice Department organizational chart from 2003:


Any order to fire a US Marshal would come from the AG to the Deputy AG to the Director of the US Marshall service to the Deputy Director.  If the President issues an order, it gets passed down the chain of command.  In no way does it mean that the President can't fire that person.  Executive branch employees work for the head of the Executive Branch.

It was only a few weeks ago that President Trump fired the Deputy Attorney General.

In 2007, the Bush White House ordered the firings of 7 US attorneys.  The special prosecutor that was appointed to investigate concluded that there was nothing illegal about the firings, even without the cooperation of White House counsel.

The Bush DOJ ordered the firings:

On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush administration [/size]Department of Justice[/color] [/size]ordered the unprecedented[/color][/size] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys[/font][/color]

99% of the time it doesn't matter, but in a few key cases it's more than protocol, it's federal law.

[Bigun]

It seems we have a generation, and more, who believe our legal system is based on emotions and feelings.

Got a few here it seems. They are either ignorant or pretending to be.

Indeed and all they need do is to read a little history and find out for themselves just how much our founders feared "Magistrates"  what they called judges!  The Federalist papers are quite instructive on the subject!

[r9etb]

The point the judge's will rule on, is this:  While Trump can stop citizens from counties coming here, he cannot do it based on religion or ethnicity.  He loses if they determine he is keeping out people due to their Islam faith or because they are Muslim.

Agreed.  Thanks for stating that clearly.

[txradioguy]

@r9etb
@mystery-ak

The point the judge's will rule on, is this:  While Trump can stop citizens from counties coming here, he cannot do it based on religion or ethnicity.  He loses if they determine he is keeping out people due to their Islam faith or because they are Muslim.

Nailed it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Trump can tonight direct that the State department simply stop issuing visas for XXX days and that will be that!

This is what I am saying.   If they tell him he has to issue Visas in foreign countries,   he can give them a big "F*** YOU!"   


By no stretch of the imagination can they argue that he must issue Visas to people in foreign countries.  That's why this is so stupid.   They cannot possibly win this no matter what they do.  All they can do is make themselves look silly,  helpless,  and indifferent to American security interests. 

[DiogenesLamp]

@r9etb
@mystery-ak

The point the judge's will rule on, is this:  While Trump can stop citizens from counties coming here, he cannot do it based on religion or ethnicity.  He loses if they determine he is keeping out people due to their Islam faith or because they are Muslim.

That is incorrect.  He can stop foreigners from coming here for any d@mned reason he pleases.   All he has to do is to issue an order to his state department that says "Revoke all Visas for country X"  and Country X citizens will not get in the United States. 

[r9etb]

That is incorrect.  He can stop foreigners from coming here for any d@mned reason he pleases.   All he has to do is to issue an order to his state department that says "Revoke all Visas for country X"  and Country X citizens will not get in the United States.

Um..... he can maybe try.  But in so doing he would most likely be prompting an actual Constitutional crisis.

[Norm Lenhart]

Um..... he can maybe try.  But in so doing he would most likely be prompting an actual Constitutional crisis.

You are as wrong today as you were yesterday. you were given the links to the laws showing he can and you wilfully ignore them. If you insist on repeating a lie, so be it.

[r9etb]

You are as wrong today as you were yesterday. you were given the links to the laws showing he can and you wilfully ignore them. If you insist on repeating a lie, so be it.

And you're apparently still hoping for a dictatorship.

Under the Constitution, Trump can't just thumb his nose at the courts when he doesn't like their rulings.  There are procedures in place: he can appeal to the Supreme Court.  And if he doesn't like what they say.... he still cannot thumb his nose at the decision.

You guys are really not thinking through the idiocies you're touting.

[DiogenesLamp]

Um..... he can maybe try.  But in so doing he would most likely be prompting an actual Constitutional crisis.

Foreign Policy is entirely within the purview of the President.   The Embassies which issue the Visas are under *HIS*  control,   not any court's control.   


If there is any constitutional crises it will be because some arrogant and presumptuous Judges are badly in need of a slapping down.   

 

[Norm Lenhart]

And you're apparently still hoping for a dictatorship.

Under the Constitution, Trump can't just thumb his nose at the courts when he doesn't like their rulings.  There are procedures in place: he can appeal to the Supreme Court.  And if he doesn't like what they say.... he still cannot thumb his nose at the decision.

You guys are really not thinking through the idiocies you're touting.

You arent reading what actual powers the exec has to use.

[r9etb]

You arent reading what actual powers the exec has to use.

And you're not thinking beyond the next hissy fit.

[DiogenesLamp]

And you're apparently still hoping for a dictatorship.

Hardly,   but even if that were the case,  I am reminded of the immortal words of Mather Byles.


"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Under the Constitution, Trump can't just thumb his nose at the courts when he doesn't like their rulings.  There are procedures in place: he can appeal to the Supreme Court.  And if he doesn't like what they say.... he still cannot thumb his nose at the decision.

And to rebut that we have Andrew Jackson. 

"John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it! "



And don't forget Abraham Lincoln,  who came very close to throwing Chief Justice Taney into jail.