GOP Rep. Chip Roy urges President Trump to go nuclear and defy the courts

[Chosen Daughter]

GOP Rep. Chip Roy urges President Trump to go nuclear and defy the courts
Chris Pandolfo · June 27, 2019   
   

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, on Wednesday called for President Trump to defy nationwide injunctions imposed by federal courts on his immigration policies and secure the border.
Roy (Liberty Score A, 100%) was speaking on BlazeTV’s “Steve Deace Show” when he said it’s time for a “Jacksonian moment” from President Trump.

“You’ve talked about the court challenges this administration faces virtually any time it tries to honor any of its campaign pledges. What legal advice would you give them? At what point … would you advise them to stop taking [nationwide] injunctions and all the rest of this seriously?” host Steve Deace asked.

“I would tell the president to do that now. The time is now,” Roy responded. “We need a Jacksonian moment where the president of the United States looks at the courts and says, ‘you enforce that law.'”...………

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gop-rep-chip-roy-urges-president-trump-go-nuclear-defy-courts/

I agree.

[HoustonSam]

I agree.

[Bigun]

 

As I have been saying for some time now!

[EdJames]

I agree.

 

[Fishrrman]

That's exactly what I've been promoting in this forum for some time now.

Force the issue of "the power of the federal courts" before the country.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[Bill Cipher]

Nothing like adding a little lawlessness to your cult of personality. 

[HoustonSam]

Nothing like adding a little lawlessness to your cult of personality.

What a court *says* about the law is not the same the same thing as *law*.

The federal judiciary would have us believe that the US Constitution does *not* mean what it *does* say about arms, and it *does* mean what it does *not* say about abortion.  This simply breeds contempt for law.  When judges impose on a free people some interpretation of law that obviously conflicts with its plain meaning, the people are no more free than were medieval peasants free from the whims of the most recent pope.

Rejecting dictates of judges which are contrary to plain meaning is not lawlessness; the dictates themselves are lawless.  The contrary position prevents literate free men from understanding statutes which are enacted in their own names.

[Bigun]

Nothing like adding a little lawlessness to your cult of personality.

I cannot wait to see you explain why the chief executive officer of the United States telling some rouge, unelected, judges to mind their own damned business would be "lawless". 

[skeeter]

Nothing like adding a little lawlessness to your cult of personality.

Got nothing to do with ‘cults of personality’. I’ve about had it with judicial activism, haven’t you?

If you’re worried about lawlessness let’s not pretend the left side of the judiciary has given a flying eff about constitutionality for some decades now. Take it up with them.

[Chosen Daughter]

Nothing like adding a little lawlessness to your cult of personality.

The only lawlessness is in the Courts.

[kevindavis007]

Nope...

[Bigun]

The only lawlessness is in the Courts.

I doubt that the ONLY lawlessness is in the courts but there is certainly enough in the courts for the president to stand against it.  The Congress alone has the power to actually DO something about it.

[rustynail]

Chip Roy is calling for Treason against a Federal Judge.

[Sanguine]

Chip Roy is calling for Treason against a Federal Judge.

No he's not.  Good grief.

[austingirl]

I cannot wait to see you explain why the chief executive officer of the United States telling some rouge, unelected, judges to mind their own damned business would be "lawless".

[austingirl]

Chip Roy is calling for Treason against a Federal Judge.

Ridiculous!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That is no more nuclear than a pompous judge declaring he has the authority to defend our country.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's not the President himself who would actually be defying a court order.  It would be much lower level executive branch employees who would be engaging in those acts on the ground, pursuant to orders by the President.  So the real question is whether all those "boots on the ground" types would be willing to follow a Presidential directive in defiance of a court order.

I don't know what the answer to that is, but you'd have to do the calculus.  Otherwise, if Trump gives orders and employees refuse to carry them out...it's gonna look real bad for him.

[Rivergirl]

Nothing like adding a little lawlessness to your cult of personality. 

Not a little sadly.   It's constant.   Dangerous but those who don't mind will rue the day.

[kevindavis007]

I imagine there would be outrage here is a Dem would defy the courts.

[Sanguine]

I imagine there would be outrage here is a Dem would defy the courts.

The problem with that argument is that it is leftist judges who are acting outside of their Constitutionally limited mandate, so chances of and as evidenced by the 0 administration, a leftist judge ruling against a leftist administration is almost certain to not happen.

[kevindavis007]

The problem with that argument is that it is leftist judges who are acting outside of their Constitutionally limited mandate, so chances of and as evidenced by the 0 administration, a leftist judge ruling against a leftist administration is almost certain to not happen.

Sometimes they do. Either way it is wrong.

[Sanguine]

Sometimes they do. Either way it is wrong.

I disagree.  When a rogue court and rules on something outside their jurisdiction, that is not a legitimate ruling.

[austingirl]

I disagree.  When a rogue court and rules on something outside their jurisdiction, that is not a legitimate ruling.

 

[kevindavis007]

I disagree.  When a rogue court and rules on something outside their jurisdiction, that is not a legitimate ruling.

Then there is a appeal process. Call me old fashion I rather have the President do things the Constitutional way.