Will Trump go full 'Andrew Jackson' on the Courts?

[corbe]

   He didn't win this fight his First Term and though he's learned a lot since then IMHO he'll fail again because he doesn't have a spineless Congress on board, yet again.

[Bigun]

I voted yes because that is exactly what he should do IMHO.

[MeganC]

I voted yes because that is exactly what he should do IMHO.

X2.

When a judge doesn't have jurisdiction then he needs to be ignored.

[Smokin Joe]

Considering Roberts has been part of a cabal including hobnobbing with lawfare judges, what option does he have?
The swamp is not limited to the administrative state, but has inundated the judiciary and legislative branches as well.
I don't want a dictator, but the lower courts have overstepped, again.

Git 'er done.

[libertybele]

Yes it is time.  However...he first needs to start asking Congress to pass some laws specific to his agenda that he can sign. Then he needs to light a fire under Bondi's and Patel's rears.  WTH are they waiting on?  Ms. Bondi ... WTH are you waiting on?  Mr. Patel, WTH are you waiting on?  Things need to progress so that the American public starts seeing people held responsible for crimes committed.  Accountability is a must!!!  Others putting up roadblocks just might think twice.

Trump made a lot of promises ... he obviously is trying to keep them .... but this do-nothing Congress is going to sink this country and something that I doubt Trump is going to allow to happen.  He has worked tirelessly, took a bullet, dodged a bullet, been through impeachments, drug through the courts .... I'd say he's not going to throw in the towel unless his health folds or someone takes him down.

Sad.

Prayers up for President Trump and this country.

[jafo2010]

I think it is time to make John Roberts an offer he can't refuse.

After appropriate investigation by the DOJ, I think there is evidence to be had to show the coordinated effort of the FISA court with others to undermine the Trump campaign in 2016.  The abuse of the court is sufficient to end Roberts career if he was involved, and I suspect he was, along with every judge appointed to the  FISA court.  All of them should have their careers ended in disgrace.

John Roberts is the big problem. He falls, that will remove much of the rot with our judicial system.

There is nothing that can be done to remove the brainless in the Supreme Court.  We know one for certain has no idea what a woman is.  Ugggh!

The other day, my wife said, 'women are too hormonal, and should never be in charge of anything'.  I just laughed, but she was serious.  I said, I doubt that would fly in this country that has white men in the sewer.  She went on to say, 'white men should run things, and not women'.  Again, I laughed, because we are so far away from those days.

In fact, because of the abuses by the court, I would end the FISA court.

[kevindavis007]

Nope he should respect the Constitution. Besides Jackson was a horrible President.

[MeganC]

Besides Jackson was a horrible President.

He cleared the East Coast of hostile natives. That was a wholly appropriate and long overdue measure. Too many of those tribes had allied with America's enemies first in the French & Indian Wars, our Revolution, and again in the War of 1812. Removing them took someone like Jackson to get it done.

Trump is removing the illegal aliens from our country so this much they have in common.

[kevindavis007]

He cleared the East Coast of hostile natives. That was a wholly appropriate and long overdue measure. Too many of those tribes had allied with America's enemies first in the French & Indian Wars, our Revolution, and again in the War of 1812. Removing them took someone like Jackson to get it done.

Trump is removing the illegal aliens from our country so this much they have in common.

You can try to spin Jackson as some strong leader, but the truth is he was a slave-owning authoritarian who trashed the Constitution, ignored the Supreme Court, and left behind one of the darkest legacies in presidential history. That’s not a strong presence — that’s a bad one. He didn’t “get things done,” he ran over the rule of law like it didn’t matter, and any president who looks up to that is telling you exactly how little they care about limits on power. If Trump actually respected the Constitution, he wouldn’t idolize the one president who crapped on it and dared anyone to stop him.

[Timber Rattler]

You can try to spin Jackson as some strong leader, but the truth is he was a slave-owning authoritarian who trashed the Constitution, ignored the Supreme Court, and left behind one of the darkest legacies in presidential history. That’s not a strong presence — that’s a bad one. He didn’t “get things done,” he ran over the rule of law like it didn’t matter, and any president who looks up to that is telling you exactly how little they care about limits on power. If Trump actually respected the Constitution, he wouldn’t idolize the one president who crapped on it and dared anyone to stop him.

 

And if you want to dig deeper, you ought to see how Jackson behaved when he was virtual military dictator of New Orleans and then Florida, which he illegally invaded.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/andrew-jackson-and-constitution

He wasn't called King Andy I for nothing during his presidency.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Honestly, the question isn't for us, it's for the public at large and of course his opponents who will no doubt oppose him. IMO if he does defy a judge, get charged with contempt, then continue, he'll lose the support of the GOP, he'll be impeached (and convicted this time) and the public may not be as forgiving this time.

[MeganC]

You can try to spin Jackson as some strong leader, but the truth is he was a slave-owning authoritarian who trashed the Constitution, ignored the Supreme Court, and left behind one of the darkest legacies in presidential history. That’s not a strong presence — that’s a bad one. He didn’t “get things done,” he ran over the rule of law like it didn’t matter, and any president who looks up to that is telling you exactly how little they care about limits on power. If Trump actually respected the Constitution, he wouldn’t idolize the one president who crapped on it and dared anyone to stop him.

American families were safer after Andy than they were before. After Andy there were no more Indian attacks east of the Mississippi. He put an end to that crap.

[Cyber Liberty]

You can try to spin Jackson as some strong leader, but the truth is he was a slave-owning authoritarian who trashed the Constitution, ignored the Supreme Court, and left behind one of the darkest legacies in presidential history. That’s not a strong presence — that’s a bad one. He didn’t “get things done,” he ran over the rule of law like it didn’t matter, and any president who looks up to that is telling you exactly how little they care about limits on power. If Trump actually respected the Constitution, he wouldn’t idolize the one president who crapped on it and dared anyone to stop him.

Sounds like a mild version of William Tecumseh Sherman.

[Bigun]

It never ceases to amaze me that people look at the actions of people in the context of current times instead of the times they lived in. Andy Jackson was much loved in his time.

[The_Reader_David]

He cleared the East Coast of hostile natives.

He cleared the East Coast of the Five Civilized Tribes, so called because they were competing the European-Americans, not by warfare, but in commerce and agriculture on equal terms, having adopted many of the European settler's methods and much of their technology.  When they were force-marched to Oklahoma, the took their slaves with them.  Only the Seminoles were still actively hostile, and he didn't manage to clear them off of their lands.

[Kamaji]

American families were safer after Andy than they were before. After Andy there were no more Indian attacks east of the Mississippi. He put an end to that crap.

The same could be said of many authoritarians - in the 1930s German families were, at least initially, safer because of Hitler and National Socialism.  Does that justify what Hitler and the Nazis did and ultimately became?

[MeganC]

The same could be said of many authoritarians - in the 1930s German families were, at least initially, safer because of Hitler and National Socialism.  Does that justify what Hitler and the Nazis did and ultimately became?

False equivalency fallacy. Andrew Jackson's accomplishments have f*ck all to do with Hitler.

[Kamaji]

False equivalency fallacy. Andrew Jackson's accomplishments have f*ck all to do with Hitler.

No false equivalency at all.  You support an authoritarian who trampled the rule of law because, as you claim, he made certain people safer.  That commits you to the principle enunciated; that, or else you're just a hypocrite, which makes you dangerous as well, just in a different manner.

[MeganC]

No false equivalency at all.  You support an authoritarian who trampled the rule of law because, as you claim, he made certain people safer.  That commits you to the principle enunciated; that, or else you're just a hypocrite, which makes you dangerous as well, just in a different manner.

I see you read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. So did I. Now run along, the adults are talking.

[Kamaji]

I see you read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. So did I. Now run along, the adults are talking.

You're no adult.

[MeganC]

You're no adult.

I'm not the one trying to shut down someone else with the leftist's favorite trope of "Then you like Hitler!"

[Kamaji]

I'm not the one trying to shut down someone else with the leftist's favorite trope of "Then you like Hitler!"

I'm not trying to shut anyone down - that would be you - I'm merely pointing out the sort of principles you commit yourself to when you praise a disaster like Jackson because he inadvertently made a few people safer for a short period of time.

If holding you to the logic of your own statements is "shutting you down" then perhaps you should rethink your own statements.

[MeganC]

I'm not trying to shut anyone down - that would be you - I'm merely pointing out the sort of principles you commit yourself to when you praise a disaster like Jackson because he inadvertently made a few people safer for a short period of time.

A short period of time? In the past 170+ years have there been any further Indian attacks east of the Mississippi? No.

Looks like a job well done to me.

[Timber Rattler]

All right...let's turn down the volume a bit.  We're all friends here...we've gotten so use to fighting the Kremlin crowd over at FR that it's become second nature to even fight amongst ourselves here over lower priority issues, like Andy Jackson.

[Kamaji]

A short period of time? In the past 170+ years have there been any further Indian attacks east of the Mississippi? No.

Looks like a job well done to me.

You have logically committed yourself to authoritarianism and tyranny - to defiance of the rule of law - you made your bed, it's too bad you find it uncomfortable.

[Cyber Liberty]

All right...let's turn down the volume a bit.  We're all friends here...we've gotten so use to fighting the Kremlin crowd over at FR that it's become second nature to even fight amongst ourselves here over lower priority issues, like Andy Jackson.

It's got me wondering if us Trump supporters are considered Communists, or Nazis.

[Kamaji]

It's got me wondering if us Trump supporters are considered Communists, or Nazis.

It's a question of what they seem to be bent on turning themselves into.

[Bigun]

Disposing the Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

[catfish1957]

It's a question of what they seem to be bent on turning themselves into.

That's 2 offensive and blatantly false statements on this matter today.   The Mods must be in a good mood today.

And I don't consider myself MAGA.

[Kamaji]

That's 2 offensive and blatantly false statements on this matter today.   The Mods must be in a good mood today.

And I don't consider myself MAGA.

Please demonstrate the falsity of the quoted statement.  Is it, or is it not, the case that what people become is generally dependent on what they intend to become?

[Cyber Liberty]

That's 2 offensive and blatantly false statements on this matter today.   The Mods must be in a good mood today.

And I don't consider myself MAGA.

My mood was good when I woke up this morning.

[catfish1957]

Please demonstrate the falsity of the quoted statement.  Is it, or is it not, the case that what people become is generally dependent on what they intend to become?

Quote from: Cyber Liberty on Today at 11:32:16 am
It's got me wondering if us Trump supporters are considered Communists, or Nazis.  (likely said with sarcasm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question of what they seem to be bent on turning themselves into.  (your offensive comment)


Making this comment once is offensive, twice puts you in the same category as the left who call us these names all the time.

[Kamaji]

Quote from: Cyber Liberty on Today at 11:32:16 am
It's got me wondering if us Trump supporters are considered Communists, or Nazis.  (likely said with sarcasm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question of what they seem to be bent on turning themselves into.  (your offensive comment)


Making this comment once is offensive, twice puts you in the same category as the left who call us these names all the time.

Now that's an offensive statement because it's just another false charge of being a leftist.  No wonder so many long-time posters keep leaving.  Anyone seen @PeteS in CA recently?

You still haven't demonstrated the falsity of my statement.  Whether a person will become a communist or nazi depends, as it always has, on whether that person intends to become a communist or nazi.  It's a statement that is almost self-evidently true.

Prove otherwise.

[catfish1957]

Now that's an offensive statement because it's just another false charge of being a leftist.  No wonder so many long-time posters keep leaving.  Anyone seen @PeteS in CA recently?

You still haven't demonstrated the falsity of my statement.  Whether a person will become a communist or nazi depends, as it always has, on whether that person intends to become a communist or nazi.  It's a statement that is almost self-evidently true.

Prove otherwise.

Go find someone else to play your non-sequitur circle jerk games.  You know what you said.

[Kamaji]

Go find someone else to play your non-sequitur circle jerk games.  You know what you said.

Yes, I do.  I said that whether Trump supporters will become communists or nazis depends on what they intend to become.  Notwithstanding your libel that it was a false statement, you still have not demonstrated how it was a false statement.

Maybe you should stop making false statements.

[Bigun]

The notion that there was ever any intention that there be anything like Judicial supremacy in this Republic offends me greatly.

[Cyber Liberty]

Let's just dispense with the attacks on each other.  Everybody has already had their last word.

[MeganC]

You have logically committed yourself to authoritarianism and tyranny - to defiance of the rule of law - you made your bed, it's too bad you find it uncomfortable.

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" were defined as unalienable rights in our founding. Damn the law if it conflicts with those rights.

And said St. Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all."

Andrew Jackson took seriously his charge to protect the lives of Americans. If some ass in a black robe said otherwise then Andy ignored him.

I support the idea of America First and Americans First and if President Trump protects Americans despite the objections of America hating jurists then that's fine by me.

[MeganC]

The notion that there was ever any intention that there be anything like Judicial supremacy in this Republic offends me greatly.

 

[Kamaji]

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" were defined as unalienable rights in our founding. Damn the law if it conflicts with those rights.

And said St. Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all."

Andrew Jackson took seriously his charge to protect the lives of Americans. If some ass in a black robe said otherwise then Andy ignored him.

I support the idea of America First and Americans First and if President Trump protects Americans despite the objections of America hating jurists then that's fine by me.

And the entire Constitution - including the separation of powers, the checks and balances - the power of the federal courts to frustrate the intemperate demands of the executive - was drafted precisely to protect those inalienable rights. 

If you value those rights, then you would value the Constitution, including the parts the Founders drafted that intended - yes, intended - for the courts to prevent the executive from taking actions that were expedient if the executive failed to follow duly enacted law.

But, you don't seem to care about the Constitution, which really means that, when push comes to shove, you don't really care about those unalienable rights, either, because you're willing to throw overboard the mechanisms the Founders designed to protect those rights.

[MeganC]

And the entire Constitution - including the separation of powers, the checks and balances - the power of the federal courts to frustrate the intemperate demands of the executive - was drafted precisely to protect those inalienable rights. 

If you value those rights, then you would value the Constitution, including the parts the Founders drafted that intended - yes, intended - for the courts to prevent the executive from taking actions that were expedient if the executive failed to follow duly enacted law.

But, you don't seem to care about the Constitution, which really means that, when push comes to shove, you don't really care about those unalienable rights, either, because you're willing to throw overboard the mechanisms the Founders designed to protect those rights.

You like Hitler similies so here you go:

Hitler was lawfully elected. Would you have had the German people abide their laws as they did with Herr Hitler or should they have ignored the law and done the right thing anyway?

[Kamaji]

You like Hitler similies so here you go:

Hitler was lawfully elected. Would you have had the German people abide their laws as they did with Herr Hitler or should they have ignored the law and done the right thing anyway?

Yes, he was.  Voters are very unreliable people.  And once he was elected, he attacked the independence of the judiciary, and ultimately rendered the judiciary subservient to the executive.

I fail to see the difference between that and what you are advocating for Trump to do in the here and now.