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.