Is Trump Going to Go Nuclear on the Judiciary?

How many divisions does the Ninth Circuit have?

Some good articles about this:

Mollie Hemingway on the five fatal flaws with the latest ruling against Trump's travel restrictions.

Michael Walsh reminds us that Congress has the power to remove any class of cases from the judiciary's balliwick.

If it has the balls to do so. Which this bunch of limp-dicks and corporate-sponsored globalists doesn't, alas.

this Josh Blackman piece pondering the "Revolt of the Judges" and whether the judiciary has decided to treat Trump as if he's not really president. He says that judges who seem to be taking their cues as to how to read Trump's public statements (in the most uncharitable light possible, of course) are practicing a new judicial doctrine which might be called "MSNBC deference."

That last from Via Instapundit, who has more, and wonders if Trump is coming close to his Jacksonian Moment.

If judges aren't going to accept that Trump is actually the President and has all the powers they were more than willing to concede Obama had (way more than willing, actually), then why should Trump accept that the judges have the powers they believe they do?

The people who claim to be sober and serious-minded patriots seem to be the ones who are actually the unhinged radicals pushing us, inexorably, to a Constitutional Crisis which may be the end of America as we currently know it.

Posted by: Ace at 06:11 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Judge me not.

Posted by: Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 at March 17, 2017 06:06 PM (oVJmc)

2 Tactical or Strategic nuclear?

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:06 PM (zsHGH)

3 st

Posted by: Old Nam Vet at March 17, 2017 06:06 PM (bKxiT)

4 Balls he has. He is laser-focused on results.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, She-Wolf of the 'Ettes 'Ettes at March 17, 2017 06:06 PM (EnKk6)

5 top 10

Posted by: Old Nam Vet at March 17, 2017 06:07 PM (bKxiT)

6 America as we know it.
So the Republicrats get what they want and conservatives get screwed?

Posted by: Darth Randall at March 17, 2017 06:07 PM (6n332)

7 Foist.?

Posted by: NZFrank withanM2 at March 17, 2017 06:07 PM (FXQNk)

8 Notice they waited until Wapner was dead to pull this shit.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:07 PM (oVJmc)

9 As a Constitutionalist, I don't really like the idea of the President going to war, even figuratively, with another branch.

On the other, practical, side...activist judges make a mockery of law, justice and the constitution.

If Trump wants a metaphorical fire, I'll bring some matches to Hawaii

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:08 PM (zsHGH)

10 It looks like Trump is moving to get congress to reign in the 9th circus finally. And we have had much worse clashes between runaway courts and the Presidency before.

We need an amendment that removes control of the federal courts from Washington and gives it to the States and makes it easier to remove insane judges.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 17, 2017 06:08 PM (mpXpK)

11 8 Notice they waited until Wapner was dead to pull this shit.
Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:07 PM (oVJmc)
----
They called him The Hanging Judge.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, She-Wolf of the 'Ettes 'Ettes at March 17, 2017 06:08 PM (EnKk6)

12 In other words, Judge Dredd was prescient for all the most wrong and stupid reasons.

Other news item: Jezebel is butthurt that the FBI which allegedly doesn't take threats against women seriously, has allegedly arrested the Eichenwald gif troll. That's the outrage here, apparently, "how dare you not arrest people who troll women first!?!?!", and it's blue on blue.
Ha.
Ha.
Ha.

Posted by: Sporkatus at March 17, 2017 06:09 PM (eXSOZ)

13 Congress has been signalling the judiciary to do as they please for years now.

Posted by: Krakenboner at March 17, 2017 06:09 PM (v+/21)

14 T20

Posted by: Weasel at March 17, 2017 06:09 PM (bDXcl)

15 The real takeaway from the decision(s) is that if a judge somewhere thinks you're awh bad person, you can't have Presidential power.

Which effectively ends the idea of a President.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:09 PM (oVJmc)

16 Bugger. At least I am posted on a current thread.
You need a parliment. 'runs for bunker'

Posted by: NZFrank withanM2 at March 17, 2017 06:10 PM (FXQNk)

17 meh Trump's initial order was better. he should have followed his instinct to stay with his original order and go all the way to the sc.

he should cancel the second order and revert to the first order.

should wait until gorsuch is on the bench.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:10 PM (cPsPa)

18 "the end of America as we currently know it."

And I feel fine.

Posted by: Eddie Baby at March 17, 2017 06:10 PM (CTCca)

19
"Mr. President, we are coming to a moment of truth in the life of this nation."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:10 PM (mbhDw)

20 Between Congress and the 9th Circuit we are in for a rough ride. The 9th are worthless retards and Congress is to chicken to do anything about it.

Posted by: Old Nam Vet at March 17, 2017 06:10 PM (bKxiT)

21 20 Between Congress and the 9th Circuit we are in for a rough ride. The 9th are worthless retards and Congress is to chicken to do anything about it.
Posted by: Old Nam Vet at March 17, 2017 06:10 PM (bKxiT)

You confuse cowardice with conspiracy.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:11 PM (mbhDw)

22 I do maintain that a war doesn't mean total destruction. We survived Jackson's revolt against the courts and we survived FDR's attempted watering down.

Barely, perhaps, but history is not yet done with us.

No idea what our purpose is, now, but we have one.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:12 PM (zsHGH)

23 18 "the end of America as we currently know it."

And I feel fine.
Posted by: Eddie Baby at March 17, 2017 06:10 PM (CTCca)

Dude, that ship sailed 8 years ago.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:12 PM (mbhDw)

24 >>The people who claim to be sober and serious-minded patriots seem to be the ones who are actually the unhinged radicals pushing us, inexorably, to a Constitutional Crisis which may be the end of America as we currently know i

I feel fine.

Posted by: Michael Stipes at March 17, 2017 06:12 PM (4/95V)

25 12 In other words, Judge Dredd was prescient for all the most wrong and stupid reasons

The future is Judge Dredd, only as a tranvestite.

Posted by: wooga at March 17, 2017 06:13 PM (jwxZQ)

26 LEONARD BERNSTEIN!

Posted by: Pug Mahon, Slainthe! at March 17, 2017 06:13 PM (RwwCT)

27 Brattleboro calls on the 9th Circuit Courts to deport and ban Trump. We want Presdent Obama back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mary Clogginstien from Brattleboro, VT at March 17, 2017 06:13 PM (WmgTn)

28
I say he ignores the court and/or dissolves it. If we have to destroy the Constitution to save it, then by G-d go ahead. And Obama was the one that torched it so all that's left are a few bits anyway.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:13 PM (mbhDw)

29 well I also confused love with a one night stand..................................that lasted too long.

Posted by: Old Nam Vet at March 17, 2017 06:13 PM (bKxiT)

30 Judges shot their wad way too early on this.

Guy was only in office a few weeks and they let their masks slip, I really don't think the judiciary was even on Trump's radar much.

Over the last 50 years, EVERY liberal victory has come through the Judicial Branch.

I don't stocking them with John Roberts type judges are enough.

I think the Right needs to look into an "activist conservative" model for judges from here on out.

It's either that or we need a new Constitution, that branch of government has simply asserted too much power.

Posted by: Maritime at March 17, 2017 06:14 PM (JnKpU)

31 Trump new hobby - Whack a Judge.

Posted by: Anna Puma at March 17, 2017 06:14 PM (fU1ci)

32 29 well I also confused love with a one night stand..................................that lasted too long.
Posted by: Old Nam Vet at March 17, 2017 06:13 PM (bKxiT)

You're a true romantic at heart.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:14 PM (mbhDw)

33 yeah the "real" president (to them) is Obama, which is (maybe) why The Won had to go to Hawaii and (maybe) meet with his old Harvard buddy, and let him know the Deep State shadow people had his back, maybe even handed him the script on justification for the TRO.

others surmise Obama had to go meet face to face since the NSA has "wiretapped" all other forms of communication (except carrier pigeons, which don't deliver to Hawaii).

One thing for sure, the globalists seem united in defying a duly elected president, and MSM coordinates the leftist narrative, no matter how dishonest it may be. The VA take the government paycheck but openly declare "not my president" and remove his picture. "Inconceivable"

OK, it is conceivable ... it is sedition and treason, "straight up".

Posted by: illiniwek at March 17, 2017 06:15 PM (BrMft)

34 Yeah, pretty much done working at work. The bosses put a keg of 90 Shilling in the kegerator.

And it's Friday. And it's Whacking Day.

Posted by: Pug Mahon, Slainthe! at March 17, 2017 06:15 PM (RwwCT)

35 meh, judges of the 9th are just speeding up the return of original intent as the primary school of thought in the judiciary.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:15 PM (cPsPa)

36 Six O'Clock
TV Hour
Lena Dunham
Bag of Flower

Posted by: Michael Stipe at March 17, 2017 06:15 PM (4/95V)

37 36 Six O'Clock
TV Hour
Lena Dunham
Bag of Flower
Posted by: Michael Stipe at March 17, 2017 06:15 PM (4/95V)

What are we living for?
Two-room flat, second floor.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:16 PM (mbhDw)

38 The real problem is that judges face no real consequences of completely unjustified, capricious, self-serving decisions.

This kind of abuse of power, to push a political agenda, in violation of oath, calls for jail time. This isn't a mere difference of opinion.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:16 PM (oVJmc)

39 What the judges have pushed into being is that if you advocate for policy "X" and then when in office sign an order that advances policy "X" then that advocacy will be the pretext to strike down your policy order. Only those who do not advocate for policy "X" may then do any order to advance policy "X", which they won't because they don't want to advance it.

The policy becomes victim of "Catch 22." If you wish to advance a policy you can't because to advocate for it shows you are for discriminating against some group and so you will be stopped. You can only advance a policy if you never want it advanced in which case you will never advance it.

This applies only to policies of conservatives. Progressives being pure of heart can't be caught in this "Catch."

Posted by: geoffb5 at March 17, 2017 06:16 PM (d3wbb)

40 Eichwald? Vas ist?

Posted by: Anna Puma at March 17, 2017 06:16 PM (fU1ci)

41
Someday, Congress will be made up of men who put the national interest ahead of personal wealth.

Maybe.

Posted by: Tommy Lackawanna at March 17, 2017 06:17 PM (3NkVJ)

42 I have faith Trump will handle this problem the way he has handled problems in the past.

Posted by: Old Nam Vet at March 17, 2017 06:17 PM (bKxiT)

43 It's almost as if the Judicary has had the most power since Marbury v. Madison.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:17 PM (2qHjF)

44 I have admired the legal system for years. And like the other branches of government, I have distrusted them equally.
Congress must do its job.

Posted by: Diogenes at March 17, 2017 06:17 PM (0tfLf)

45 The 9th Circuit went all pre-emptive on Trump and my guess is they're gonna pay for it in some form.

I certainly hope they do.

Posted by: JEM at March 17, 2017 06:17 PM (TppKb)

46 Been trying to fight my dark soul, but fuck it...slaughter them all.

Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at March 17, 2017 06:18 PM (aMlLZ)

47 Is there any way to train a monkey to fuck this judge and then unleash said trained (or naturally promiscious) monkey upon said judge while said judge is wearing antlers?

Asking for a friend's website.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:18 PM (zsHGH)

48 Gonna call my Congress critters and let them know I only voted for them to endorse and enable President Trump's agenda and no other reason. Also that I do not consent to rule by minor league judges with delusions of grandeur, or indeed by the judicial branch in general.

Not that it will do any good, but it make me feel better to have done it.

Posted by: ChicagoRefugee at March 17, 2017 06:18 PM (Q0lUp)

49 42 I have faith Trump will handle this problem the way he has handled problems in the past.
Posted by: Old Nam Vet at March 17, 2017 06:17 PM (bKxiT)

With a bikini contest?

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:18 PM (2qHjF)

50 Ace?

Kritarchy.... rule by Judges... Government by Judges... I didn't even know such a word existed until last week...

But we are in one...

Posted by: Don Q. at March 17, 2017 06:19 PM (NgKpN)

51 28
I say he ignores the court and/or dissolves it. If we have to destroy the Constitution to save it, then by G-d go ahead. And Obama was the one that torched it so all that's left are a few bits anyway.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:13 PM (mbhDw)

++++

This is what I don't get, Obama used the Constitution as part of his morning toilet routine. Yet, I hear the yammering yammerheads screaming about a Constitutional crisis if Trump over-rides the judicial proclamation. What would happen? Anything? Would the sun not come up in the morning? Would my bread not toast? Really, what would happen?

Posted by: washrivergal at March 17, 2017 06:19 PM (Ivjge)

52 @Widespread Pepe

Don't tease.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:19 PM (zsHGH)

53 46 Been trying to fight my dark soul, but fuck it...slaughter them all.
Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at March 17, 2017 06:18 PM (aMlLZ)

Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:19 PM (mbhDw)

54 If I put on my tinfoil hat, I could see a scenario where rogue jurists violate their authority to force Trump to react to the induced and intentional crisis. When PT stomps on the Court, Democrats scream "Impeach" and a compliant, Trump-hostile GOP responds, "OK."

You think Deep State and globalists are scared silly about Trump and any success he might bring with an empowered middle class movement? That is their nightmare scenario. They cannot let an independent rancher lead the milk producing herd off the land lest they go parched.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 17, 2017 06:19 PM (1CroS)

55 --
Yeah, pretty much done working at work. The bosses put a keg of 90 Shilling in the kegerator.

And it's Friday. And it's Whacking Day.

Posted by: Pug Mahon, Slainthe! at March 17, 2017 06:15 PM
-----------

Any job openings there?

Posted by: irright at March 17, 2017 06:20 PM (vqzjE)

56 38 The real problem is that judges face no real consequences of completely unjustified, capricious, self-serving decisions.

This kind of abuse of power, to push a political agenda, in violation of oath, calls for jail time. This isn't a mere difference of opinion.
Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:16 PM (oVJmc)

Embrace the power of ALL.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:20 PM (2qHjF)

57 Is Trump Going to Go Nuclear on the Judiciary?

He doesn't have to. He just needs to get Gorsuch confirmed. Then, the Supreme Court will decide these cases.

Longer term, they should split the 9th circuit. Perhaps it is possible for Congress to simply eliminate some old 9th circuit judgeships and Trump can appoint the judges to the new circuit, rather than taking some 9th circuit judges to the new circuit.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at March 17, 2017 06:20 PM (3OAG2)

58 can trump simply ignore the judges and just stop issuing visas for 3 months?

Posted by: Chi-town Jerry at March 17, 2017 06:20 PM (UpGcq)

59 51 This is what I don't get, Obama used the Constitution as part of his morning toilet routine. Yet, I hear the yammering yammerheads screaming about a Constitutional crisis if Trump over-rides the judicial proclamation. What would happen? Anything? Would the sun not come up in the morning? Would my bread not toast? Really, what would happen?
Posted by: washrivergal at March 17, 2017 06:19 PM (Ivjge)

There will be worse consequences if he doesn't. Let's say PDT wants to attack a Muslim country. This will set the precedent for the Judiciary to override his foreign policy and prevent him from being C-in-C.

No choice. Ignore/dissolve the 9th Circus.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:21 PM (mbhDw)

60 And it's Friday. And it's Whacking Day.

That'll be $100.

Posted by: Texas Legislator at March 17, 2017 06:21 PM (4/95V)

61 meh, judges of the 9th are just speeding up the return of original intent as the primary school of thought in the judiciary.
Posted by: yankeefifth
_____

I don't see liberal judges EVER pretending to be anything but "super legislators" from here on out.

And we can't reasonably assume we'll be in power long enough to rid ourselves of all of them.

The only "out" I see is to either steal their playbook and have conservative judges start dictating policy from the bench, or we get a new Constitution, which usually means bloodshed.

A conservative activist court would be the progressive tax is unconstituional because of equal protection, every state should honor each others right to carry firearms, ObamaCare illegal, right to work in all 50 states, etc.

Only then will the Left cry uncle and we can renegotiate how the judiciary should be structured.

We have unilaterally been disarming ourselves on this for too long.

Posted by: Maritime at March 17, 2017 06:21 PM (JnKpU)

62 As a Constitutionalist, I don't really like the idea of the President going to war, even figuratively, with another branch.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:08 PM (zsHGH)

----------------------------------------------

The constitution has been in trouble since the left found out that judges can make law and take over government.

We need a constitutional convention that will fix all the holes the left managed to find in the last 50-100 years.

In order to get our convention though we made to literally fight it out, or allow certain leftist areas of the country to go their own way.

Not sure which is the safer for the future of a constitutional republic. Do we want a leftist America on our borders degenerating into a nuclear armed North Korea 50 years down the road.

Posted by: William Eaton at March 17, 2017 06:22 PM (MuTTO)

63 I suspect that PDT is wanting the district judges to expose themselves as well as waiting for Gorsuch to be on the bench.

Kennedy is too unreliable and could very well swing toward the libs and add the Zeroth Amendment to the Constitution (5-3). If PDT appears to be backing down under the second, then SCOTUS has a harder time limiting presidential power by backing the district judges. The second order is all about placating Kennedy instead of letting him do another Obergefell.

The less law and more emoting that the district judges issue in their opinion or if the stupid one in Maryland acts to increase the number of refugees by judicial fiat, the more the Court will try to protect its turf and strike them down because they can do so on narrow legal grounds such as standing, exhaustion, etc. rather than the issue of immigration itself.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:22 PM (AH98f)

64 About the idea of Trump going to war against them: They have already declared war upon him.

That line in the movie, The Two Towers, "War is upon you, whether you wish it or not."

Posted by: davidt at March 17, 2017 06:22 PM (XoldI)

65 Is "hang them by the neck till they're de@d" an option?

Also, Trump probably has some sort of video production company, so we could make the hangings pay per view. We could give the proceeds to a lovely charity that caters to people abused by a corrupt judicial system.

/it's all good?

Posted by: shibumi at March 17, 2017 06:22 PM (FkAXz)

66 Hawaii judge says Trump had bad thoughts when issuing his executive order. But LBJ used the n-word in describing the purpose of his Great Society program. Does that mean we have to scrap welfare?

Posted by: Emmett Milbarge at March 17, 2017 06:22 PM (nFdGS)

67 Wasn't the rule by judges a book in the Old Testament?

Posted by: geoffb5 at March 17, 2017 06:22 PM (d3wbb)

68 Hmmm.... just hit me...

All of the evidence of Trump's ill intent... the various articles, and even his statements on Twitter or the Podium... are Hearsay evidence.

They never even attempted to ask President Trump's side of the story... never even ASKED him to respond to allegations.

They are, accusing him of ill intent, in a Court of Law, and he is NOT the Defendant....

Posted by: Don Q. at March 17, 2017 06:23 PM (NgKpN)

69 58 can trump simply ignore the judges and just stop issuing visas for 3 months?
Posted by: Chi-town Jerry at March 17, 2017 06:20 PM (UpGcq)

Theoretically, I think yes. Scenario:

1-Trump orders appropriate agencies to ignore the court and ban immigration.
2-Appropriate agencies have to comply.
3-Those who do not are fired and replaced.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:23 PM (mbhDw)

70 "...this bunch of limp-dicks and corporate-sponsored globalists..."

I was trying to come up with an accurate way to describe the current GOP-majority Congress, and Ace just gave it to me!

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at March 17, 2017 06:23 PM (laMCB)

71 Also, once the Supreme Court decides these cases, I'm sure the language will be strong enough not to leave any room for lower court judges to play the games the 9th circuit judges played with respect to the power of the president to exclude aliens.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at March 17, 2017 06:24 PM (3OAG2)

72 BREAKING THE LAW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU

Posted by: Judas Priest at March 17, 2017 06:24 PM (4/95V)

73 If Trump goes after the courts I'll start tweeting our pics of muh dick.

Posted by: John Shindler at March 17, 2017 06:24 PM (FqgrG)

74 BTW, Gorsuch confirmation hearings start Monday.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at March 17, 2017 06:24 PM (3OAG2)

75 I just learned a new word at NR in Armand White's savaging of the new "Beauty and the Beast": hebephrenic, hebephrenia being "A schizophrenia, usually starting at puberty, characterized by foolish mannerisms, senseless laughter, delusions, hallucinations, and regressive behavior. Also called disorganized schizophrenia, hebephrenic schizophrenia."

It looks like a piece of manic overproduced garBAHZH.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, She-Wolf of the 'Ettes 'Ettes at March 17, 2017 06:25 PM (EnKk6)

76 BTW, three judge district panels with an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court were employed in the past from 1908 until 1976 for some cases dealing with constitutional issues. Apportionment suits are still handled that way. Less chance for a dodgy idiosyncratic decision on the facts in that way.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:25 PM (AH98f)

77 Personally I've had it with the 9th Circuit and every other "Judge" who thinks he or she was elected President and not PDT.

AND I always believe in fighting the battle now rather than later

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 06:25 PM (SjImc)

78 I don't see liberal judges EVER pretending to be anything but "super legislators" from here on out.
---

They are Co-Presidents.

And by Co-Presidents, I mean the Judges are Presidents, and the actual President is a figurehead, like the Queen of England.

Posted by: shibumi at March 17, 2017 06:26 PM (FkAXz)

79 Wasn't a rule by Judges the plot to 12 Monkeys?

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:27 PM (2qHjF)

80 Does anyone know how Kennedy or even Roberts would rule on this? They seem to love reinterpreting law that was not there in the first place.

I could imagine them wanting to give the Judicial branch new powers to decide immigration...

Posted by: William Eaton at March 17, 2017 06:27 PM (MuTTO)

81 69 58 can trump simply ignore the judges and just stop issuing visas for 3 months?
Posted by: Chi-town Jerry at March 17, 2017 06:20 PM (UpGcq)

Theoretically, I think yes. Scenario:

1-Trump orders appropriate agencies to ignore the court and ban immigration.
2-Appropriate agencies have to comply.
3-Those who do not are fired and replaced.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:23 PM (mbhDw)

When Obama unconstitutionally went into Libya, I was incensed and thought hard about what the military should do in this circumstance. Senior officer resignations? Refuse to follow illegal orders?

But I kept coming up with, "Salute smartly and follow the orders," because in absence of a strong resistance in Congress (representing us as citizens), a reasonable response is, "We work for the Executive Branch."

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at March 17, 2017 06:27 PM (laMCB)

82 @William Eaton

I'd rather have the fight sooner, rather than later.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:28 PM (zsHGH)

83 Y'all have more faith in the Supreme Court than I do.

I believe 99% of those people in DC are blackmailed sex perverts.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:28 PM (2qHjF)

84 Does anyone know how Kennedy or even Roberts would rule on this? They seem to love reinterpreting law that was not there in the first place.

I could imagine them wanting to give the Judicial branch new powers to decide immigration...
Posted by: William

roberts has said he believes it is a tax

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:29 PM (cPsPa)

85 They aren't ruling based n what Trump actually said, they are ruling based on what they were told Trump actually said.

Posted by: Drew in MO at March 17, 2017 06:29 PM (cGlgB)

86 Yes, we took an oath to the Constitution, but if the Judiciary and Legislative branches are OK with it, while theoretically it's unconstitutional, in practice how are you going to refuse?

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at March 17, 2017 06:29 PM (laMCB)

87 Could Trump round these judges up and have them shot? Asking for a friend.

Posted by: Ronald Schtump at March 17, 2017 06:30 PM (n3hky)

88 In real terms, judges can issue their orders but PDT can slow walk issuance of visas etc. from those countries such as requiring State Dept. to engage in intensive background checks that take forever. Can also cut the money supply to groups importing refugees by changing protocols in how it is spent and audited. And so on and judiciary cannot do little to stop it as the hick in the stick judges lack jurisdiction over a lot of it (e.g. challenges in many cases would have to be made in DC district courts and the DC circuit) instead of forum shopping for a BLM loving judge.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:30 PM (AH98f)

89 I'd rather have the fight sooner, rather than later.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:28 PM (zsHGH)

--------------------------------------------

We agree on that...

Posted by: William Eaton at March 17, 2017 06:30 PM (MuTTO)

90 There was a Monkees episode where they had to go before a Judge.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at March 17, 2017 06:30 PM (3OAG2)

91 >>I believe 99% of those people in DC are blackmailed sex perverts.

and Ping Pong Enthusiasts!

Posted by: garrett at March 17, 2017 06:30 PM (4/95V)

92 Five judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have broken ranks with their colleagues and voiced support for the legality of President Trump's original travel ban.
The judges, all Republican appointees, said Wednesday they disagreed with the three-judge appeals panel that struck down the initial ban on travel from seven Muslim majority nations the administration said have terrorism problems and an inability to help the U.S. vet incoming immigrants.
"Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President's decision was well within the powers of the presidency," the judges stated in an unsolicited filing.

(I think you let this go up the chain)

Posted by: Holmes at March 17, 2017 06:30 PM (fi5nC)

93 I believe 99% of those people in DC are blackmailed sex perverts.
Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:28 PM (2qHjF)

Finally, a reasonable explanation! Much more believable than tinfoil-hat conspiracies and chemtrails.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at March 17, 2017 06:31 PM (laMCB)

94 Does anyone know how Kennedy or even Roberts would rule on this? They seem to love reinterpreting law that was not there in the first place.

I could imagine them wanting to give the Judicial branch new powers to decide immigration...
Posted by: William

The Judiciary is not going to tell itself to get fucked. They will screw the President.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:31 PM (mbhDw)

95 well even activist judges realize the rulings against Trumps eos are ridiculous. you have to have some semblance of leagal reasoning in you opinion or you betray your hand.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:31 PM (cPsPa)

96 Could Trump round these judges up and have them shot? Asking for a friend.

Posted by: Ronald Schtump at March 17, 2017 06:30 PM (n3hky)

Not on this blog you don't. [CBD]

Posted by: Miley, the Duchess at March 17, 2017 06:31 PM (tHwdc)

97 I saw Unsolicited Filing open up for Pearl Jam at Sasquatch 98!

Posted by: garrett at March 17, 2017 06:32 PM (4/95V)

98 roberts has said he believes it is a tax
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:29 PM (cPsPa)

-------------------------------------------

Hence my concern with Roberts is just as great as with Kennedy.

Posted by: William Eaton at March 17, 2017 06:32 PM (MuTTO)

99
Please refrain from references to doing violence.

LAST WARNING.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:32 PM (mbhDw)

100 You know who else had a Jacksonian moment?

Posted by: Steve Schmidt at March 17, 2017 06:32 PM (FqgrG)

101 With laws being interpreted differently based on which party is in office I have pretty much lost all respect for the power of the judicial branch.

Posted by: Drew in MO at March 17, 2017 06:32 PM (cGlgB)

102 FUCK

YOUR

FEELINGS

Posted by: DJT to 9th Circuit at March 17, 2017 06:33 PM (3OqcZ)

103 I think Trump is after the biggest game. The best reason to drag this out is to take his inoffensive policy to the Supreme Court. But there are two things interesting there. The first and most obvious, force the Republic to nuke the filibuster and appoint Gorsuch.

The second, when the inevitable minority opinion is issued, becomes driving RGB out of office as she is deliberately acting against all legal mores. Make it obvious to the American people. And if she doesn't resign, arrest her then pack the court. Fast acting coup. After that, the Democrats will be in a very bad way.

Posted by: trev006 at March 17, 2017 06:33 PM (cOSsi)

104 hebephrenia

I think that's what the Japanese call "chuunibyou": 2nd-year-of-middle-school disease. Wacky 14 year olds living in their own little worlds has been a thing in anime the last few years.

Posted by: mikeski's phone at March 17, 2017 06:33 PM (0mH15)

105 In real terms, judges can issue their orders but PDT can slow walk issuance of visas etc. from those countries such as requiring State Dept. to engage in intensive background checks that take forever. Can also cut the money supply to groups importing refugees by changing protocols in how it is spent and audited. And so on and judiciary cannot do little to stop it as the hick in the stick judges lack jurisdiction over a lot of it (e.g. challenges in many cases would have to be made in DC district courts and the DC circuit) instead of forum shopping for a BLM loving judge.
Posted by: whig

close offices, reassign personnel, take computers offline for maintenance.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:33 PM (cPsPa)

106 Just read a PJMEDIA piece, Leftist judges did it by themselves, F them.

Posted by: Skip at March 17, 2017 06:33 PM (GPaiX)

107 Last, but not least, the true nuclear option is simply expand the Supreme Court which can be done by legislation and nuking the filibuster. Call it the FDR plan. Expansion would alter the group dynamics and disrupt the Court's operation. The argument would be that if the Court is going to act as a third legislature/executive then it should be a more representative body with policy as well as legal expertise.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:33 PM (AH98f)

108 I AM THE LAW!

Posted by: Trump Dredd at March 17, 2017 06:34 PM (HgMAr)

109 I'm off to celebrate all of my Irish ancestors who came to America so that I could live my life of whitey-white happiness. Happy St. Patrick's Day to all the horde.

Posted by: kathysayso at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (43OZ6)

110
The Judiciary is not going to tell itself to get fucked. They will screw the President.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:31 PM (mbhDw)

--------------------------------------------------------

It is becoming clear the checks and balances don't work well at stopping a judiciary gone wild.

It is degenerating into an even more annoying version of the Senate with even less ability to get the old geezers out.

Posted by: William Eaton at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (MuTTO)

111 I'll post this on each thread today:

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Here's Shaun Davey's excellent version of "The Parting Glass" [raises tasty mixed beverage to late grandparents]:

https://youtu.be/xDB87o-njFQ

--and the rest of the wonderful Waking Ned Devine soundtrack (which, by the way, should be in the Moron Movie Hall of Fame):

http://tinyurl.com/lsjdq7t

DISCLAIMER: You should probably be drinking while listening to this.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (3OqcZ)

112 I like the cut of your jib yankeefifth. You were born to subvert bureaucracies.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (AH98f)

113 maybe crank up filing fees and require cash payment in dollars.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (cPsPa)

114 54 If I put on my tinfoil hat, I could see a scenario where rogue jurists violate their authority to force Trump to react to the induced and intentional crisis. When PT stomps on the Court, Democrats scream "Impeach" and a compliant, Trump-hostile GOP responds, "OK."
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 17, 2017 06:19 PM (1CroS)

Isn't this pretty close to what happened to Andrew Johnson?

Posted by: Sausage McMuffin at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (e4ZX9)

115 >> Expansion would alter the group dynamics and disrupt the Court's operation.

We'll end up with a dozen Wise Latinas.

Posted by: garrett at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (4/95V)

116 Roger Daltrey wrote all of Hebephrenia over the course of just one weekend.

Posted by: musical facts at March 17, 2017 06:36 PM (wpC7C)

117 I know of one really good opinion that came out of a 9th Circuit district court. Believe it or not, it was Stephen Breyer's brother and it protected property rights against San Francisco.

Posted by: SFGoth at March 17, 2017 06:36 PM (dZ756)

118 109 I'm off to celebrate all of my Irish ancestors who came to America so that I could live my life of whitey-white happiness. Happy St. Patrick's Day to all the horde.

Posted by: kathysayso at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (43OZ6)

--Slainte'!

[raises tasty beverage]

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:37 PM (3OqcZ)

119 Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of you judges of the 9th Circuit.

I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have abused your positions to engage in political machinations against the President of the United States!

You are a den of vipers and thieves!

I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal (*brings his fist down on the table*) I will rout you out!

Posted by: Zombie Andrew Jackson at March 17, 2017 06:37 PM (3OAG2)

120 I like the cut of your jib yankeefifth. You were born to subvert bureaucracies.
Posted by: whig

heh. well, had my wife not told me she loved me this morning that would have been the nicest thing anyone said to me all day.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:37 PM (cPsPa)

121 Say there is an attack on CONUS...

The Dems would be wise not to have this hanging out there.

Hell I wouldn't touch this. Let's see if some grown ups intervene.

Posted by: Holmes at March 17, 2017 06:37 PM (fi5nC)

122
I'm off to celebrate all of my Irish ancestors who came to America so
that I could live my life of whitey-white happiness. Happy St. Patrick's
Day to all the horde.

Posted by: kathysayso at March 17, 2017 06:35 PM (43OZ6)
=============================

Me too. I'm a pasty white Skandi but will join in solidarity with all my pasty white Irish friends. Drinking and dancing are in the plans. Off to the Marina! Happy St. Patrick's Day - Behave yourselves!

oh who am I kidding. just don't get caught.

Posted by: grammie winger at March 17, 2017 06:37 PM (lwiT4)

123 By not repudiating the first (WA district) lawless court action, the administration invited (with a certainty) much much worse, which is now happening. It was a disastrous mistake.

All of these attempts to handicap fine points of strategy and appellate and SCOTUS dynamics completely miss the point, and in fact demonstrate how little hope there is, since so few people can step back even a micron and see how fundamental and outrageous all this is.

The court has no say in stopping, amending, or otherwise affecting the executive's exercise of clear authority, on this or any other aspect of public policy. Note there is no legal basis whatsoever to any of the rulings - because they're can't be, there IS no legal basis.

If the court has any say in this EO, and the "plaintiffs" have any standing, then rule of law, statutes, the constitution, and the concept of standing have no meaning. It is that simple and that bad.

Waiting for Gorsuch? Worried that Kennedy might support this absurd lawlessness?

Just reminders that the system is collapsed. Continue to try to "win" within the increasingly meaningless parameters of that system, and you're never more than one rogue human being from disaster.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 17, 2017 06:38 PM (QDnY+)

124 yankeefifth: "you have to have some semblance of leagal reasoning in you opinion or you betray your hand."

Ends justify means, even to these politicians of a slightly different flavor.

I do not trust our Courts to understand, much less respect, the plain reading of the law. They work backwards from the outcome they prefer.

Tragic that that's where we are, but that's where we are. Decades of whittling the law and now we're left with splinters.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 17, 2017 06:38 PM (1CroS)

125 Trump could just hire me to argue his cases. I never lose.

Posted by: Perry Mason at March 17, 2017 06:39 PM (K3F/8)

126 If it has the balls to do so. Which this bunch of limp-dicks and corporate-sponsored globalists doesn't, alas.

Limp-dicks? Corporate-sponsored globalists? Sir, you have offended our honor.

Harrumph. Harrumph, harrumph!!!

Posted by: The Limp-Dicked Corporate-Sponsored Globalist Caucus at March 17, 2017 06:39 PM (8ZskC)

127 Congress might have the will to remove judicial power over this topic, but I suspect the globalist jackwagons lack the desire to do so. I think they disagree with President Obama's will to protect the borders and USA national identity.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:40 PM (39g3+)

128 How 'bout them Rhode Island Rams?

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:40 PM (GsAUU)

129 this was linked earlier

5 judges on 9th circuit rebuke the decision of the 3 judge panel on the original eo

http://preview.tinyurl.com/n6wuxmu

Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 17, 2017 06:40 PM (Om16U)

130 I've said before (and a linked piece mentions it) -- Article 3, Section 2 (SCOTUS jurisdiction)..."In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Now, to give you a preview -- this has been mentioned before, but I don't know that it's been successfully done other than (IIRC) when congress told the court they can't hear habeus pleas from Gitmo detainees.

IIRC, the court said "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" to that. So, yeah, even if Congress stripped the courts from hearing this kind of case, they'd just say "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" and then it comes down to how far Trump wants to push it.

Also, the 9th circuit is HUGE and should be broken up. No doubt. Look at the size of the 9th circuit compared to, say, the 1st.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 06:40 PM (wmaTe)

131 How 'bout them Rhode Island Rams?
Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:40 PM (GsAUU)

OK what am I missing...My daughter is a Rhodie

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 06:41 PM (SjImc)

132
Trump could just hire me to argue his cases. I never lose.

Posted by: Perry Mason at March 17, 2017 06:39 PM (K3F/

Only against the (Hamilton) Burger court.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:41 PM (oVJmc)

133 Incidentally: more winning

http://tinyurl.com/kw46qbc

Immigrants are canceling their food stamps over fears they could be deported.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:41 PM (39g3+)

134 As I posted this morning: There is plenty of precedent to ignore the judiciary and there is
the separation of powers. It makes no sense to drain the swamp and leave the
judiciary, infested with partisan hacks, untouched. The founders gave
us the tools to smack the judiciary when it exceeds its powers,
including impeachment. Congress can eliminate the lower courts and
overwhelm the Supreme Court with the case load. Congress can cut the pay
of the judiciary, etc. The problem is the Congress is filled with
RINO's and Leftists.

There are more than enough tools to reign in an overreaching judiciary. Trump has the ability and the nerve to do so. The question is: are there enough people in the Congress with intestinal fortitude to do so?

Posted by: Locke Common at March 17, 2017 06:41 PM (ozb54)

135 Absolutely go Jackson on these Leftists. Dare them to enforce their bullshit rulings.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 06:42 PM (gA69l)

136 You can't walk two blocks in New York City without running into Hebephrenia!

Posted by: The Reverend Jesse Jackson at March 17, 2017 06:42 PM (3OAG2)

137 We are insulted, sir.

Posted by: limp-dicks at March 17, 2017 06:42 PM (HgMAr)

138 We take the Senate, they block us with the House
We take the House, they block us with the Presidency
We take the Presidency, they block us with the Judiciary

I'm beginning to see how all this works.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 17, 2017 06:42 PM (8ZskC)

139 Barron was at the WH today

kid keeps getting taller
his bday is on Monday

they say they've picked his new DC school but haven't said which

https://twitter.com/DailyMail/status/842847184257134592

Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 17, 2017 06:42 PM (Om16U)

140 " I believe 99% of those people in DC are blackmailed sex perverts. Posted by: Widespread Pepe

yeah ... something like that. There is all sorts of leverage held over the DC elite. They all know each other's sins, and even legal conversation can look bad. Trump's comments were salacious, but others have made deals that expose them as charlatons, and liars to their constituents.

Trump weathered all that, but not many could. He may be the cleanest man in DC, or maybe just really careful. But the DC Cartel are all "made men" and sold out to CFR, or Soros ... whatever globalist mob. The last thing they can stand is the people having a voice as they are getting torture/rape/killed.

Posted by: illiniwek at March 17, 2017 06:42 PM (BrMft)

141 this is going to be great!

Impeach each judge who gets over turned. You know, they said the EO was highly likely to lose on appeal. Which, since Trump's naming Supreme court justices and about 200 other fed judges...is not likely.

fuck these bishes.

Posted by: Joe Inaugurating 45 in DC at March 17, 2017 06:43 PM (sOknj)

142 ...Or trump could pull an FDR and threaten to increase the size of SCOTUS (and maybe even district and circuit courts).

It worked for FDR ("the switch in time that saved nine" and all).

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 06:43 PM (wmaTe)

143 But PDT can slow walk issuance of visas etc. from those countries such as requiring State Dept. to engage in intensive background checks that take forever

******************************

This is why I think PDT has a cooler head than we give him credit for. He knows he can drag his feet on this and accomplish the same goals of enforcing the EO by merely fucking with the bureaucracy and administration of the state department until this is decided by SCOTUS with Gorsuch on the bench, without the need to go full Jacksonian.

Unless Roberts and Kennedy go full on fuckballs insane, which is entirely in the realm of possibility.

Posted by: Captain FartsStorm at March 17, 2017 06:43 PM (NGRTR)

144 And not for nothing, I know Jackson gets a bad rap, but he was actually a pretty badass president. I always liked him, and David McCullough's bio of his is excellent.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 06:43 PM (gA69l)

145 2 Tactical or Strategic nuclear?

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 17, 2017 06:06 PM (zsHGH)

Anything under 300 kt is noise.

Posted by: Fox2! at March 17, 2017 06:43 PM (brIR5)

146 Mr. President! These Federal judges are revolting!

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 17, 2017 06:43 PM (JO9+V)

147 Also, the 9th circuit is HUGE and should be broken up. No doubt. Look at the size of the 9th circuit compared to, say, the 1st.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 06:40 PM (wmaTe)

This so needs to be done. Reduce the 9th Circut to California and create a 12th Circut for the rest. This would reduce Demunist misrule to just California.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 17, 2017 06:43 PM (ujg0T)

148 Blackman artical linkwas good.

Posted by: Skip at March 17, 2017 06:44 PM (GPaiX)

149 Reanimate Sherman.

Drop him off North of Seattle and tell him to march to Baja and call if he needs reinforcements.

Posted by: garrett at March 17, 2017 06:44 PM (4/95V)

150 >>>146 Mr. President! These Federal judges are revolting!

They stink on ice!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 06:44 PM (gA69l)

151 131 How 'bout them Rhode Island Rams?
Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:40 PM (GsAUU)

OK what am I missing...My daughter is a Rhodie
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 06:41 PM (SjImc)

--They just beat Creighton in the Big Dance.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:44 PM (GsAUU)

152
Trump could just hire me to argue his cases. I never lose.

Posted by: Perry Mason

Only against the (Hamilton) Burger court.
Posted by: Mr. Peebles

I'll dig up some dirt on those guys!

Posted by: Paul Drake at March 17, 2017 06:44 PM (IqV8l)

153 The United States struck an al-Qaida gathering in northern Syria killing dozens of militants, and is investigating reports that civilians were killed, U.S. officials said Friday.

Syrian opposition activists said around 40 people, mostly civilians, were killed in a mosque in the area, accusing the U.S.-led coalition of carrying out the airstrike Thursday evening.

????Who gives a fuck. Stop using Mosques as cover you animals

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (SjImc)

154 Also, the 9th circuit is HUGE and should be broken up. No doubt. Look at the size of the 9th circuit compared to, say, the 1st.

Yeah it would change nothing about the decisions but it does need to happen, the court is covering too vast an area to be effective. It has an absurd number of justices too.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (39g3+)

155 Shopping a few heads off would be a good start

Posted by: Krakenboner at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (v+/21)

156 Obama stacked every office, every Dept, every agency with activist Ideologues..........Trump the swamp drainer has the gravitas to let them reveal themselves......before he opens that BigOl Can Of WhoopAss....like he's starting to don on healthcare......mental midgets dealing with the Master......don't underestimate Donald J Trump......he's proven he WILL WIN!

Posted by: concealedkerry or submit at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (kHv/o)

157 I don't want to believe 99% of the people in DC are blackmailed sex perverts, but money alone does not explain their actions the past few decades. Amd I define sex pervert as anything leverage against that person which would embarrass them.

Also I believe Trump has sex skeletons in his closet, I just don't believe it is close to enough for people to use it as leverage to control him. I.e. He doesn't give a fuck amd neither do the People.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (2qHjF)

158 Why does America need a 9th Circuit?

Posted by: Lord Sir x at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (nFwvY)

159
they say they've picked his new DC school but haven't said which

https://twitter.com/DailyMail/status/842847184257134592
Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 17, 2017 06:42 PM (Om16U)

See all the lefty heads explode if he goes to Sidwell.

Posted by: Fox2! at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (brIR5)

160 hey just beat Creighton in the Big Dance.
Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:44 PM (GsAUU)

Ah thanks.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (SjImc)

161 Hebephrenia was the Jwho's best album.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (oVJmc)

162 Syrian opposition activists said around 40 people, mostly civilians, were killed in a mosque in the area, accusing the U.S.-led coalition of carrying out the airstrike Thursday evening.

Green helmet guy and the Blue Helmet brigade swear it was. They even had bodies laid out pretending to be dead and carried out the same child 4 times on camera to prove it.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:46 PM (39g3+)

163 No, the true nuclear option is repudiation.

The judiciary has forfeited its legitimacy when it rules lawlessly and irresponsibly.

Repudiation will focus intense interest on the details of what's happening, and there is no substantive or political hope whatsoever for the idiot authoritarians on this one.

This is Trump's 9/11, though it doesn't appear he or anyone around him recognize that. "Win" with Gorsuch (how many months will have passed, how many admissions that cannot be responsibly vetted will have occurred - you know, the actual topic under discussion, not the stupid legal dynamics). If you're lucky. Still a loss, as the policy will have been gutted.

And by not creating any deterrent effect, by playing by the corrupt rules of an institution that has forfeited its legitimacy and has no good faith, even "winning" at SCOTUS is a very hollow victory that will do nothing to prevent the onslaught of judicial usurpation we probably have ahead.

I thought Obama's election (hell, even his candidacy) and O-care were stunning confirmations that the entire country is dumbed down, and effectively too stupid to continue being the US. This chapter - prominently including the blind and temporizing "responses" to a judicial coup being discussed - sort of confirms that beyond doubt.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 17, 2017 06:46 PM (QDnY+)

164 BTW, Ancestry was offering free access to Irish databases earlier today.

Found that one of my distant ancestors, William Smith Bryan, son of Sir Francis Bryan, supposedly tried to claim the vacant throne of Ireland as "Prince William of Ireland) but he was shipped to Gloucester Beach, Virginia in exile in 1650 with his family after losing to Cromwell's Army. He was claimed to be a "rebellious subject".

Wonder if that would grant me an Irish passport?

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:46 PM (AH98f)

165 sidwell stinks

Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 17, 2017 06:46 PM (Om16U)

166 It has an absurd number of justices too.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (39g3+)

Split it so that all of the conservative judges are in the circuit which covers only CA. That way it would emasculate the lawfare conducted by so many organizations in California.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 17, 2017 06:47 PM (rF0hx)

167 144 And not for nothing, I know Jackson gets a bad rap, but he was actually a pretty badass president. I always liked him, and David McCullough's bio of his is excellent.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 06:43 PM (gA69l)

--I did not know untile last night that Trump laid a wreat at his grave.

Also, Andrew Jackson was such a fucking racist that he adopted an orphaned Indian as his son.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:47 PM (GsAUU)

168 I just can't wrap my head around the concept that an unelected judge in Hawaii can set policy for the entire country.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 17, 2017 06:47 PM (Om16U)

169 "The problem is the Congress is filled with
RINO's and Leftists."

Posted by: Locke Common at March 17, 2017 06:41 PM (ozb54)

Yeah, unfortunately it's the median voter theorem in action. The root cause is that half the country is now commie scum.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at March 17, 2017 06:48 PM (laMCB)

170 Syrian opposition activists said around 40 people, mostly civilians, were killed in a mosque in the area, accusing the U.S.-led coalition of carrying out the airstrike Thursday evening.

Innocent civilians in a mosque? When does that ever happen?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 17, 2017 06:48 PM (8ZskC)

171 >>>--I did not know until last night that Trump laid a wreat at his grave.

Also, Andrew Jackson was such a fucking racist that he adopted an orphaned Indian as his son.

Exactly. Dude survived an assassination attempt, then beat his attacker with his cane. So awesome.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 06:48 PM (gA69l)

172 I think Trump also put a portrait of Jackson in the val Office, right?

He knows what he's doing.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 17, 2017 06:49 PM (Om16U)

173 I don't know why we need a federal judges in hawaii. Move that mfer to North Dakota.

Posted by: Lord Sir x at March 17, 2017 06:49 PM (nFwvY)

174 The Judiciary is the weakest of the branch, having neither will nor purse. The Legislature is acquiescing in this because they agree with the result.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 17, 2017 06:49 PM (sJaX3)

175 34 Yeah, pretty much done working at work. The bosses put a keg of 90 Shilling in the kegerator.

And it's Friday. And it's Whacking Day.
Posted by: Pug Mahon, Slainthe! at March 17, 2017 06:15 PM (RwwCT)

where do you work?

are they hiring?

Posted by: the Butcher at March 17, 2017 06:49 PM (AGJqR)

176 Harry Paratestes,
Look up the Bricker Amendment. Even the threat of it caused Warren's SCOTUS to backtrack on Communism.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:49 PM (AH98f)

177 If PDT doesn't fight this, then we're ceding legislative and executive power to some fuckstick in Hawaii. That doesn't seem to be particularly favorable to "separation of powers" to me.

Posted by: Insomniac - sin valor at March 17, 2017 06:49 PM (ywNoU)

178 I think Trump also put a portrait of Jackson in the val Office, right?

He knows what he's doing.
Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 17, 2017 06:49 PM (Om16U)

Hah. Begonia says otherwise.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 17, 2017 06:49 PM (8ZskC)

179 Some of my best friends are Cherokee, Jack.

Posted by: Zombie Andrew Jackson at March 17, 2017 06:50 PM (IqV8l)

180 a lot of DC behavior can be explained by PizzaGate type stuff.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 17, 2017 06:50 PM (Om16U)

181 164 BTW, Ancestry was offering free access to Irish databases earlier today.

Found that one of my distant ancestors, William Smith Bryan, son of Sir Francis Bryan, supposedly tried to claim the vacant throne of Ireland as "Prince William of Ireland) but he was shipped to Gloucester Beach, Virginia in exile in 1650 with his family after losing to Cromwell's Army. He was claimed to be a "rebellious subject".

Wonder if that would grant me an Irish passport?

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:46 PM (AH98f)

--Cool. I grew up in Tidewater, and Gloucester was very close. The most interesting historical site in Gloucester IMO is the Walter Reed House. It's so tiny, but he grew up with a lot (I think 11) of brothers and sisters there.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:51 PM (GsAUU)

182 Yeah it would change nothing about the decisions but it does need to happen, the court is covering too vast an area to be effective. It has an absurd number of justices too.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (39g3+)

Aren't the Treasoncrat ones HQed in San Francisco?

Wouldn't splitting off CA from the rest contain the damage?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 17, 2017 06:51 PM (ujg0T)

183 Nevergiveup: "????Who gives a fuck. Stop using Mosques as cover you animals"

When you run a theocracy, a mosque is just another government building. It deserves no special consideration. That goes doubly so when you actually run them as a military depot.

In a war with Peruvia, the Peruvians hit the mosques first.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 17, 2017 06:51 PM (1CroS)

184 Some of my best friends are Cherokee, Jack.

I'm Cherokee Jack!

/MST3K joke

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:51 PM (oVJmc)

185 Split it so that all of the conservative judges are in the circuit which covers only CA. That way it would emasculate the lawfare conducted by so many organizations in California.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 17, 2017 06:47 PM (rF0hx)

Would it not be easier to contain the leftists to CA alone? Aren't the worst of the lot, and their leftist Lawfare organizations, HQed in San Francisco?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 17, 2017 06:52 PM (ujg0T)

186 "The bosses put a keg of 90 Shilling in the kegerator."

From Odell? Love those guys.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 17, 2017 06:52 PM (noWW6)

187 Haven't been to the Tidewater part of VA but a lot of my ancestors came through there. Thanks for letting me know logprof

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:53 PM (AH98f)

188
Also I believe Trump has sex skeletons in his closet, I just don't believe it is close to enough for people to use it as leverage to control him. I.e. He doesn't give a fuck amd neither do the People.
Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (2qHjF)

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Ever read The Art of The Deal? He comes form a very stable family makes the case for finding a good spouse and sticking with them ( no joke, he frowns on promiscuity.)

Posted by: RondinellaMamma at March 17, 2017 06:53 PM (oQQwD)

189 >>a lot of DC behavior can be explained by PizzaGate type stuff.

And Phrenology. No Judge with a misshapen skull should be allowed to wear the robes.

Posted by: garrett at March 17, 2017 06:53 PM (4/95V)

190 Split it so that all of the conservative judges are in the circuit which covers only CA. That way it would emasculate the lawfare conducted by so many organizations in California.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 17, 2017 06:47 PM (rF0hx)

gerrymander the districts

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 17, 2017 06:53 PM (cPsPa)

191 So the judiciary considers Trump somehow illegitimate. Assume they manage get rid of him. Now, constitutionally, you have Pence. Is he illegitimate too, according to the courts? How about Ryan? Hatch? Are Trump's cabinet appointments legitimate?

Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 06:54 PM (QsIDL)

192 Also, Andrew Jackson was such a fucking racist that he adopted an orphaned Indian as his son.
Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:47 PM (GsAUU)

Thanks, logprof. I can't take the revisionist version of Jackson. I guess it would be too much to ask these smug idiots to read Remini. Anything that isn't a comic book version of history (e.g. Howard Zinn) is too taxing for them and too hurtful to their smugness.

Posted by: Caliban at March 17, 2017 06:54 PM (3GFMN)

193 184 Some of my best friends are Cherokee, Jack.

I'm Cherokee Jack!

/MST3K joke
Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:51 PM (oVJmc)

So proud to live, so proud to whack!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:55 PM (mbhDw)

194 I often wondered how Hitler came to power. I now feel as if Trump should take the same power as one. He would have my blessing. His LEGAL orders are not being obeyed and if left to congress and the judiciary, nothing will get done. It appears he has no recourse; just let the courts run the country? We are opening ourselves up to invasion and attack since our enemies know we are a nation on the verge of civil war. I sincerely believe the left would welcome the destruction of our great country! I am a veteran and would NOT now risk my life for what remains of our nation.

Posted by: wayne at March 17, 2017 06:55 PM (+JFwL)

195 183 Nevergiveup: "????Who gives a fuck. Stop using Mosques as cover you animals"

When you run a theocracy, a mosque is just another government building. It deserves no special consideration. That goes doubly so when you actually run them as a military depot.

In a war with Peruvia, the Peruvians hit the mosques first.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 17, 2017 06:51 PM (1CroS)

--LMAO.

Speaking of, Mitch Pacwa, S.J. (one of the few decent Jesuits in the world), who has led tours of the Holy Land was asked by a Protestant preacher why the Catholics and Orthodox have to build churches on biblical sites, rather than leaving them in their natural state. Father Pacwa replied, "Because otherwise the Muslims would build mosques on them."

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 06:55 PM (GsAUU)

196 We are a nation of law. Does it follow that we are a nation of a judiciary, with adjudication the highest and final form of government?

Posted by: kraken at March 17, 2017 06:55 PM (zSVEm)

197 Now, constitutionally, you have Pence. Is he illegitimate too, according to the courts? How about Ryan? Hatch? Are Trump's cabinet appointments legitimate?

This is a ripeness issue and if you ask us, all those guys are pretty ripe.

Posted by: Your Local Federal District Court Judge at March 17, 2017 06:56 PM (8ZskC)

198 After Washington and Reagan, my two favorite presidents are Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt. TR gets a bad rap, too - although by people like Glenn Beck - but he was effective and a badass.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 06:56 PM (gA69l)

199 I sincerely believe the left would welcome the destruction of our great country!

Heck, we KNOW it now. What we really need is a clean and sober 12-stepped Joe McCarthy for the 21st century.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 17, 2017 06:57 PM (ujg0T)

200 He comes form a very stable family makes the case for finding a good spouse and sticking with them ( no joke, he frowns on promiscuity.)

Posted by: RondinellaMamma at March 17, 2017 06:53 PM (oQQwD)

That's why he's had three wives that he found by grabbing them by the p***y.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at March 17, 2017 06:57 PM (laMCB)

201 "No, the true nuclear option is repudiation."

Obama ignored, or slow-walked, compliance with a bunch of contrary judicial decisions. Nothing nuclear happened.

Of course, when it was Obama, the media said, "Look! Kardashians!" They are unlikely to extend the same discreet misdirection to Trump.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 17, 2017 06:57 PM (noWW6)

202 The real question is "will the Judiciary go nuclear on Trump?"

They obviously think they are the only defenders of America from a rogue president.

And they're only warming up. It's gonna be a long battle that one side always seems to win, starting with Marbury v Madison.

Posted by: Bill Wynn at March 17, 2017 06:57 PM (rfOVQ)

203 I suspect that like Hollywood, politics is full of pedos and scum careful to protect each other. How deep it goes and how much they're willing to do to protect that secret would explain a lot of behavior.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:57 PM (39g3+)

204 Anna Puma-

Thanks for the tip about Armond White writing in "National Review" about the current BATB vs. the excellent Cocteau film. Very interesting review.. IMO,. nothing could come close to the Cocteau film

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 17, 2017 06:58 PM (fDdVG)

205
188
Also I believe Trump has sex skeletons in his closet, I just don't believe it is close to enough for people to use it as leverage to control him. I.e. He doesn't give a fuck amd neither do the People.
Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (2qHjF)

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Ever read The Art of The Deal? He comes form a very stable family makes the case for finding a good spouse and sticking with them ( no joke, he frowns on promiscuity.)
Posted by: RondinellaMamma at March 17, 2017 06:53 PM (oQQwD)

Jerking off could be a sex skeleton used for leverage for some people. Like I said, I don't believe his sins rise to the level where people would give a shit.

People have adopted the those in glass houses should not throw stones. People are looking for a Leader and not a Saint. Other politicians in DC should follow his lead and cast off whatever chains that they believe others have on them and lead.

Hence, why I believe 99% are blackmailed.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 06:58 PM (2qHjF)

206 Believe it or not, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., actually has a pretty good biography of Jackson--The Age of Jackson. That was before the Democrats declared him enemy of the people.

Arguably, Jackson helped the North win the Civil War by delaying when the South decided to secede and under what grounds. A great war of secession over the tariff would have been a lot harder to fight and under worse grounds for the Union in the 1830's.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:59 PM (AH98f)

207 Whats curious is that under Bush the congress was out of control. Under Obama the executive was out of control. And now, it appears the judiciary is out of control. Now, voters responded to the other two but this? Its out of our hands. Will our representatives do their job and deal with it?

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 07:00 PM (39g3+)

208 Speaking of, Mitch Pacwa, S.J. (one of the few decent Jesuits in the world),

There are any?

I must admit I have a probably unfair anti-Catholic bias, but it came from dealing with Jesuit teachers, who I found were despicable leftists from stem to stern. A few were even caught molesting boys and just reshuffled.

I realize now there are many other orders of the Church, so I am tempering my bias.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 17, 2017 07:00 PM (ujg0T)

209 "That was before the Democrats declared him enemy of the people. "

Whose party was founded by Jackson...

Posted by: navybrat at March 17, 2017 07:00 PM (w7KSn)

210 >>>Whose party was founded by Jackson...

Jackson would smite these Dem special snowflakes, post haste.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 07:01 PM (kFnmp)

211 That's why he's had three wives that he found by grabbing them by the p***y.�
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh

A serial monogamanist. Wealthy to boot. I suspect that your preferred back door unlubed foreplay had nothing to do with their decision.

Posted by: E Depluribus Unum at March 17, 2017 07:01 PM (ZFUt7)

212 It would certainly shock me to learn that Trump has skeletons in his family closet. I don't know anyone who doesn't. Do you?

Posted by: Caliban at March 17, 2017 07:01 PM (3GFMN)

213 It's gonna be a long battle that one side always seems to win, starting with Marbury v Madison.

Until it doesn't.

The real damage here is not to one side or the other, it's to the country and our Republican credo. Pity these arrogant judges can't, or more precisely won't, see that. Bad things come from this sort of thing. Very bad things.

Posted by: pep at March 17, 2017 07:02 PM (LAe3v)

214 Yeah it would change nothing about the decisions but it does need to happen, the court is covering too vast an area to be effective. It has an absurd number of justices too.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:45 PM (39g3+)

judges*

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:03 PM (wmaTe)

215 Trump is going to grab the judiciary by the pussy and throw them out by it.

Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable and Profoundly Unserious at March 17, 2017 07:03 PM (cOHS7)

216 >>>Posted by: wayne at March 17, 2017 06:55 PM (+JFwL)

Well.....bye!

Posted by: Banana Splits Guy at March 17, 2017 07:03 PM (8QXa2)

217 Trump should go scorched earth. A full unconditional ban on all immigration which would be nondiscriminating as no one could enter the country. Simply saying " until the SCOTUS rules on the previous EO, no one enters, period. Then watch the leftist/Bolshevik collectives heads implode. That will end the Obama appointed judiciary clown show.

Posted by: Excelsior 007 at March 17, 2017 07:03 PM (47w0y)

218 Arguably, Jackson helped the North win the Civil War
by delaying when the South decided to secede and under what grounds. A
great war of secession over the tariff would have been a lot harder to
fight and under worse grounds for the Union in the 1830's.

Posted by: whig

I'm curious. Why do you say that?

Posted by: pep at March 17, 2017 07:03 PM (LAe3v)

219 Wyatt Earp, TR's "The Man in the Arena" speech is timeless:

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:03 PM (GsAUU)

220 Going to be an early century.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at March 17, 2017 07:03 PM (IqV8l)

221 g'early evenin', 'rons

Posted by: AltonJackson at March 17, 2017 07:04 PM (KCxzN)

222 http://washex.am/2mc8UOR
----
2 Secret Service agents under investigation for taking selfies with Trump's sleeping grandson

Posted by: EVLINC! at March 17, 2017 07:04 PM (y3aQB)

223 And they're only warming up. It's gonna be a long battle that one side always seems to win, starting with Marbury v Madison.
Posted by: Bill Wynn at March 17, 2017 06:57 PM (rfOVQ)

Yeah. Bork was right -- maybe we should revisit Marbury.

And fuck Chief Justice / Secretary of State (under Federalist big govt time John Adams. And yes, he held both titles at the same time.) Marshall in particular.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:04 PM (wmaTe)

224 And they're only warming up. It's gonna be a long battle that one side always seems to win, starting with Marbury v Madison.
It going disproportionately one way is the entire point of this conversation, which includeded moments in which the judiciary *did not* win, also, the *whole point* is that it is unconstitutional.

And now judges are somehow going to pull something else even more unconstitutional out of nowhere, based on nothing, and it's okay because they always win?
You fuckstick. You imbecile.

Posted by: Sporkatus at March 17, 2017 07:04 PM (eXSOZ)

225 Arguably, Jackson helped the North win the Civil War by delaying when the South decided to secede and under what grounds. A great war of secession over the tariff would have been a lot harder to fight and under worse grounds for the Union in the 1830's.
Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 06:59 PM (AH98f)

He was the people's president. At one time people were capable of seeing the wider implications of that, in spite of his manifold failings. Seems like that time has passed.

Posted by: Caliban at March 17, 2017 07:05 PM (3GFMN)

226 logprof: Father Pacwa replied, "Because otherwise the Muslims would build mosques on them."

Well you can't argue with that. And mosques are pretty much Islamic flag-planting, moreso than any other "religion" (note the quotes are of the non-humorous intent).

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 17, 2017 07:05 PM (1CroS)

227 184 Some of my best friends are Cherokee, Jack.

I'm Cherokee Jack!

/MST3K joke

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 17, 2017 06:51 PM (oVJmc)

So proud to live, so proud to whack!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2017 06:55 PM (mbhDw)

Nice to meet you. I'm Monterey Jack! And this here is my cousin, Colby Jack.

Posted by: Monterey Jack at March 17, 2017 07:05 PM (JO9+V)

228 I should have added Trump referenced POTUS Jackson the other night. IIRC some dicks on the SCOTUS told him not to do something and he said "Tell them to send their army to stop me." or something like that.

Many veiled threats in that speech toward the jihad judges. Will they be smart enough to know or so steeped in indoctrination to ignore?

Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable and Profoundly Unserious at March 17, 2017 07:05 PM (cOHS7)

229 Yeah. Bork was right -- maybe we should revisit Marbury.

Of course we should, but do you seriously think supreme court judges are going to voluntarily give up power? That's like waiting for congress to pass term limits and pay cuts.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 07:05 PM (39g3+)

230 "A great war of secession over the tariff would have been a lot harder to fight and under worse grounds for the Union in the 1830's.

Posted by: whig"

I'm curious. Why do you say that?
Posted by: pep at March 17, 2017 07:03 PM (LAe3v)

By 1860, industrialization and demographics clearly had begun to favor the states that remained in the Union.

Back In 1830, not so much, in fact, not at all.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 17, 2017 07:06 PM (ujg0T)

231
There are any?

"The Jesuits always profit from the exaggerations of their enemies. Accused of murdering five men and a dog, they triumphantly produce the dog."

Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 07:06 PM (cafSR)

232 Time for the President to pull the trigger.

Ignore the idiot judges, implement his EO's for National Security's sake and ask Congress to begin impeachment processes against the 8 year old's on the bench.

Winning baby!

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at March 17, 2017 07:06 PM (5VlCp)

233 I'm curious. Why do you say that?
I'm betting he thinks that Brit assistance would have been complete, the industrial and manpower advantages of the North would not have been so complete, and fewer men would have been willing to rise up and die over a tariff issue than a morality cause. For starters.

Can't say I disagree.

Posted by: Sporkatus at March 17, 2017 07:07 PM (eXSOZ)

234 204 I suspect that like Hollywood, politics is full of pedos and scum careful to protect each other. How deep it goes and how much they're willing to do to protect that secret would explain a lot of behavior.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 06:57 PM (39g3+)

--You need to read more of Vox Day's blog. This is well-trod ground there.

He's not a conspiracy theorist, more of a "tomorrow's news today" kinda guy.

He wrote a book called SJWs Always Lie, which sums him up.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:07 PM (GsAUU)

235 The 'unconstitutional' ruling authority the supreme court has was power they appointed themselves to have. Congress could very easily just take it away from them, but then Congress would lose their get out of jail free card. A much easier road to take would to just make a few examples out of a few judges. But you don't allow the Supremes to fix this one, because its a public slap on the authority of the other branches. Congress really has to deal with this one, but it will be shocking if they actually do. It may come down to the president ignoring the opinion of the circuit court and authorizing its use anyway.

Posted by: akelm88 at March 17, 2017 07:07 PM (km/D2)

236 yo
I have returned you lucky lucky screen people

****manspreads like a boss****

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:08 PM (DpjJ8)

237 Of course we should, but do you seriously think supreme court judges are going to voluntarily give up power? That's like waiting for congress to pass term limits and pay cuts.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 07:05 PM (39g3+)

No, the court won't do it.

But maybe it's time for the legislature and the president to declare that the courts are not and have never been a co-equal branch and that they overstepped in Marbury and that their days of judicial review are over.

(i know, I know, I'm dreaming here.)

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:08 PM (wmaTe)

238 Could a SC Justice be called before a Congressional committe to nswer questions about their conduct, either personal or professional?

Posted by: kraken at March 17, 2017 07:08 PM (zSVEm)

239 >>>220 Wyatt Earp, TR's "The Man in the Arena" speech is timeless:

Indeed!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 07:08 PM (kFnmp)

240 "Bad things come from this sort of thing. Very bad things."

Well, the bad things are here, they're not coming. They're here already.

A court (a single individual, actually) usurping national security authority from a president, with no trace of a legal or constitutional basis - AND being obeyed - is a disaster. It's post-constitutional.

Such a lawless act not being immediately rescinded and the judge reprimanded is a disaster.

Not taking it immediately to SCOTUS is to acknowledge our constitutional system is a shambles, because the judiciary has forfeited its legitimacy and is lawless. Because the only reason NOT to immediately SCOTUS reversal of all this was the fear that even that court is now completely lawless, as well. There shouldn't be any doubt that such a lower court decision would be quickly dismissed and rebuked, 8-0.

That there is any doubt of this is nature's way of reminding everyone, including the blind legal establishment, that the judiciary and the constitutional order have collapsed.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 17, 2017 07:09 PM (QDnY+)

241 196 We are a nation of law. Does it follow that we are a nation of a judiciary, with adjudication the highest and final form of government?
Posted by: kraken at March 17, 2017 06:55 PM (zSVEm)

No... there is nowhere in the Constitution that says we are a Nation of Laws... that is just a saying...

We are a Republic. We ELECT Leaders to represent us.

Federal Judges are NOT Elected... they are APPOINTED...

Thus, they should not RULE us.

Yet... due to the other 2 Branches of Government not standing up to the Courts for 225 years.... here we are...

(that, and add in the Civil War, which destroyed the idea that the States themselves were Sovereign...)...

Posted by: Don Q. at March 17, 2017 07:09 PM (NgKpN)

242 There are a lot of similarities between Trump and Jackson. Both were elected as populists, both did what they felt and flipped off the world if it didn't care for it, and both seem more interested in what the nation needs than what makes people happy. I suspect in the end, both will have done regrettable or difficult things that were good for the nation but not necessarily virtuous or ethical.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 07:09 PM (39g3+)

243 By 1860, industrialization and demographics clearly had begun to favor the states that remained in the Union.

Back In 1830, not so much, in fact, not at all.

The South was primarily agricultural, and the North far more industrial, but I'm not familiar with how those ratios changed over the 30 year period in question. I assumed your argument had to do with railroads.

Posted by: pep at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (LAe3v)

244 Bill Wynn, Only to someone ignorant of constitutional history--to wit-- see Dred Scott--led to the Civil War which led to evisceration of power in 1860's. See ex parte McCardle where the jurisdiction of the court was removed and also Congress actually reduced the Court by one justice to prevent Andrew Johnson from appointing one.

See the Switch in Time that saved Nine in the 1930's as a response to the Dem's Court packing where two justices miraculously decided that FDR was right all along. The Bricker amendment caused Scotus another strategic retreat.

Ultimately, the Court's actions require public acquiescence if not support. Widespread dislike of decisions that affect many are ultimately overturned one way or another.

BTW, the key way that Marshall won the in the Marbury decision was that he dismissed the case by declaring the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional in its granting SCOTUS powers to issue a writ of mandamus. Effectively, by dismissing the case and not ordering President Jefferson and Secretary Madison to do anything, he managed to call out Jefferson's and Madison's actions, interpret the Appointments clause in such a way that denied Jefferson's pet theory that delivery of the commission made the appointment valid, and gain judicial review powers for the court.

The next time judicial review was used to strike down congressional laws was Dred Scott. Just for fun, read up on Ex Parte Merryman--for a lawyer, Lincoln was more than capable of defending his constitutional powers.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (AH98f)

245 I wasn't always of this mind, but Jackson saved the Republic, no doubt about it.
Britain wanted to strangle off all commerce at the Mississippi delta.
They controlled Canada and had defeated the US on the battlefield there.
The White House had been burned.
The President and the Cabinet were scattered.
Truce had even been declared at Ghent.
Just then Jackson beat the British at New Orleans, with inferior forces. And beat them badly, he did.
The world scarcely noticed due to the Napoleonic wars. The little skirmish in New Orleans barely made the news.

Posted by: navybrat at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (w7KSn)

246 239 Could a SC Justice be called before a Congressional committe to nswer questions about their conduct, either personal or professional?
Posted by: kraken at March 17, 2017 07:08 PM (zSVEm)

...Eh, maybe. I don't know. I'm sure the courts would weigh in on the Constitutionality of such a thing. (...and therein lies the problem.)

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (wmaTe)

247 I torn over this
I think all of trump's exec orders should be up for judicial review
but if the judges are playing idiot politics then congress should remove them
ex: the jagoff here in Hawaii
T said the entire office was shocked by his stupidity

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (DpjJ8)

248 Remember the Revolutionary war was primarily fought over Judicial Tyranny like this. It was not economics like they always say, but the abuse of power by out of control british judges.

Posted by: akelm88 at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (km/D2)

249 @241
Agree completely.

Posted by: pep at March 17, 2017 07:11 PM (LAe3v)

250 UC Davis is haning with Kansas pretty well.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:11 PM (GsAUU)

251 The world scarcely noticed due to the Napoleonic wars. The little skirmish in New Orleans barely made the news.

Well that and technically it was after the war had officially ended.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 07:12 PM (39g3+)

252 249 Remember the Revolutionary war was primarily fought over Judicial Tyranny

I thought it was over the south getting lippy

oh wait, wrong war

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:12 PM (DpjJ8)

253 Of course the other action is to start impeaching these judges.

You know the left would and we are not in a knife fight here.

Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable and Profoundly Unserious at March 17, 2017 07:12 PM (cOHS7)

254 BTW, the key way that Marshall won the in the Marbury decision was that he dismissed the case by declaring the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional in its granting SCOTUS powers to issue a writ of mandamus. Effectively, by dismissing the case and not ordering President Jefferson and Secretary Madison to do anything, he managed to call out Jefferson's and Madison's actions, interpret the Appointments clause in such a way that denied Jefferson's pet theory that delivery of the commission made the appointment valid, and gain judicial review powers for the court.
Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (AH98f)

Well, it was more ...devious? ...brilliant? then that! He essentially ruled against his own party (being a federalist with a position in Adam's cabinet) and let TJ win that round -- but also declared that the courts now had judicial review.

Marshall was a shrewd politician.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:12 PM (wmaTe)

255 Someone on Twitter asked for a "real Christian" to justify Trump's budget.

How about "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's" you. Dumb. Twat.

Posted by: Shopgirl at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (ZzOhU)

256 Remember, Bill Wynn sucks cock by choice.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (6FqZa)

257 If Trump's executive orders should all be judicially reviewed, does it follow that every executive order of every President be required to pass Judicial muster?

Posted by: kraken at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (zSVEm)

258 I suspect that neither the members of the Deep State nor the Judiciary have any deep understanding of the mind altering effects of 55 grains of copper jacketed lead moving at 3250 feet per second - can have on a #FakeAmerican.

Posted by: An Observation at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (Qac1m)

259 pep,
Several factors existed. One, who would want to die in the North to support a high tariff (not really seizing the moral high ground), population growth from 1830-1860 favored the North. Railroads were much more developed in the North in 1860 than 1830 as well as industry. And so on.

Here is a decent summary of the differences.
http://mrkash.com/activities/northsouth.html

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (AH98f)

260 Not sure about anyone else, but I'm good with the end of America as we currently know it.

Posted by: Lawrence Larson at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (gNKbf)

261 248 I torn over this
I think all of trump's exec orders should be up for judicial review
but if the judges are playing idiot politics then congress should remove them
ex: the jagoff here in Hawaii
T said the entire office was shocked by his stupidity
Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (DpjJ

Well, if you allow judicial review then you can't get angry when the super legislature we call the supreme court votes on issues how they want to.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:14 PM (wmaTe)

262 >>>257 Remember, Bill Wynn sucks cock by choice.

It's sanitary and he likes the taste.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 07:14 PM (kFnmp)

263 240 >>>220 Wyatt Earp, TR's "The Man in the Arena" speech is timeless:

Indeed!
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 07:08 PM (kFnmp)

--and does not Trump personify The Man in the Arena?

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:14 PM (GsAUU)

264 Congress is torn simply because this judge has put them in a place where they cannot procrastinate any more. But leave it to congress to find a way to procrastinate and pass the buck, even though this one is actually their job.

Posted by: akelm88 at March 17, 2017 07:14 PM (km/D2)

265 I have returned you lucky lucky screen people

****manspreads like a boss****

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:08 PM (DpjJ

Please sign our guest book.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 17, 2017 07:14 PM (sJaX3)

266 we havz teh feelz

Posted by: 9th Circus at March 17, 2017 07:14 PM (GsAUU)

267 >>>--and does not Trump personify The Man in the Arena?

He obviously has no problem getting his hands dirty. He's a doer, not a thinker. (I mean that respectfully.)

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 07:14 PM (kFnmp)

268 258 If Trump's executive orders should all be judicially reviewed, does it follow that every executive order of every President be required to pass Judicial muster?
Posted by: kraken at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (zSVEm)

Yes, they are all reviewable.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:15 PM (wmaTe)

269 you know if people here would do what most blogs do & require a sign in I think you could get rid of the Bill Wynn's BUT it's like pissing in the Pacific ocean here

Posted by: EVLINC! at March 17, 2017 07:15 PM (y3aQB)

270 Speaking of, Mitch Pacwa, S.J. (one of the few decent Jesuits in the world)

I saw Mitch Pacwa beat up Floyd Mayweather at Madison Square Garden in '15.

Just kidding. I remember he used to debate James White. Those were some of the most genial, informative debates he's ever had against a Catholic opponent.

Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at March 17, 2017 07:15 PM (W8bn5)

271 258 does it follow that every executive order of every President be required to pass Judicial muster?

I would have to say yes

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:15 PM (DpjJ8)

272 does it follow that every executive order of every President be required to pass Judicial muster?

No. Like a watchdog press, the filibuster, the homeless, unemployment rate, etc., it only applies to Republicans.

Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 07:15 PM (8fypK)

273 Am I too late?

Posted by: Pepper Jack at March 17, 2017 07:16 PM (JO9+V)

274 The Founders warned us about this moment.

The seeds of this crisis were planted in FDRs time, and the repeated lapses in the enforcement of the Constitutional 'separation of powers' is finally coming home to roost.

We either settle this matter as the Constitution has laid out (all the needed tools are there), and give the Judiciary their "know your place" moment, or the Executive surrenders it's rightful powers...

...or we settle the matter the Olde Fashioned Way.

Choose well, choose wisely...

Posted by: CPT. Charles at March 17, 2017 07:16 PM (ry4ab)

275 Am I too late?
Posted by: Pepper Jack at March 17, 2017 07:16 PM (JO9+V)

if your trying to place a bet on the Super Bowl, yeah

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 07:17 PM (SjImc)

276 rhomboid: :Such a lawless act not being immediately rescinded and the judge reprimanded is a disaster.

Not taking it immediately to SCOTUS is to acknowledge our constitutional system is a shambles, because the judiciary has forfeited its legitimacy and is lawless. Because the only reason NOT to immediately SCOTUS reversal of all this was the fear that even that court is now completely lawless, as well. There shouldn't be any doubt that such a lower court decision would be quickly dismissed and rebuked, 8-0."

Agreed. I genuinely think there's fear of the outcome and it's justified. And if that pair of hackivist court yahoos prevail, then we might as well abandon the presidency. Law will have been actively killed with the Legislative check watching, whistling, and pretty much bending over.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 17, 2017 07:17 PM (1CroS)

277 256 Someone on Twitter asked for a "real Christian" to justify Trump's budget.

How about "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's" you. Dumb. Twat.
Posted by: Shopgirl at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (ZzOhU)

--Yep.

Don't recall Jesus telling followers to pay tithes to fund Piss Christ either.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:17 PM (GsAUU)

278 So per Drudge man is arrested for slitting the throats of his father and brother ( http://bit.ly/2mDxW5E0 ), and since it's a day that ends in y , quote from the article "Some witnesses said the suspect made remarks "linked to radical Islam" but the police urged caution, saying the killer's motives were unknown."

Posted by: random ~~lurker~~ commenter at March 17, 2017 07:17 PM (+tRIN)

279 >>>if your trying to place a bet on the Super Bowl, yeah

Take the Falcons. It's a lock!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 17, 2017 07:17 PM (kFnmp)

280 No. Like a watchdog press, the filibuster, the homeless, unemployment rate, etc., it only applies to Republicans.
Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 07:15 PM (8fypK)

Not true! See Korematsu v. United States.

Oh, bad example. They upheld FDR's exec order rounding up and jailing Japanese people...

Ummm...

Hmmm...

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:17 PM (wmaTe)

281 The people who claim to be sober and serious-minded patriots seem to be the ones who are actually the unhinged radicals pushing us, inexorably, to a Constitutional Crisis which may be the end of America as we currently know it.
=================================
Bingo. That's it.

The endpoint is inevitable. That's what happens in banana republics,which is what we are now.

Posted by: Simplemind at March 17, 2017 07:17 PM (ZuGkg)

282 NCJ! Good to see your nick.

But "judicial review" of EOs based on clear presidential authority (and it's completely clear in this case) should be only a pro forma review confirming its legality (see the MA district judge's ruling on the first EO).

Pro forma. As in, "we don't have a say in this".

And FFS, it sure as hell does NOT include allowing anyone to have "standing" to challenge a lawful EO or policy.

That's what ELECTIONS are for, nitwits.

I'm not as sanguine as many here about any of this. This is a distinctive new and worse chapter in judicial lawlessness, which has done so much to harm the country in the last few decades. This is moving from *just* outrageous social engineering and coercion and sabotage to literally seizing executive power - in an area of national security, dealing exclusively with foreigners outside the country, FFS.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 17, 2017 07:18 PM (QDnY+)

283 266 dude!!
I haven't been on exodus that long!
don't make me send nck after you!!

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:18 PM (DpjJ8)

284 Well, hello, NCJ! Also, I saw FaCubeItches as well.

Welcome back!

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:18 PM (GsAUU)

285 Any system of gov or any system at all is only as good as the people in it....and the Left and the RINOs are fucking this one up royally.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 07:18 PM (SjImc)

286 Am I too late?

Posted by: Pepper Jack at March 17, 2017 07:16 PM (JO9+V)

Yes. Mine is the last legitimate comment. We're not normalizing later comments.

Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 07:18 PM (8fypK)

287 Am I too late?

Posted by: Pepper Jack at March 17, 2017 07:16 PM (JO9+V)

It ain't over til it's over.

Posted by: Cracker Jack at March 17, 2017 07:18 PM (LTHVh)

288 Time to impeach some bitches.

Posted by: Monty James at March 17, 2017 07:19 PM (gKOMX)

289 The seeds of this crisis were planted in FDRs time, and the repeated lapses in the enforcement of the Constitutional 'separation of powers' is finally coming home to roost.

We either settle this matter as the Constitution has laid out (all the needed tools are there), and give the Judiciary their "know your place" moment, or the Executive surrenders it's rightful powers...

...or we settle the matter the Olde Fashioned Way.

Choose well, choose wisely...

Posted by: CPT. Charles at March 17, 2017 07:16 PM (ry4ab)

The seeds were planted in Marbury v. Madison.

Seriously, all of this goes back to 9 (well, I think it was 5 then, but you get my point) unelected black robed "justices" saying that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Id.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:19 PM (wmaTe)

290
Am I too late?

As long as Congress procrastinates, you'll always have a place here.

Posted by: akelm88 at March 17, 2017 07:20 PM (km/D2)

291 Harry,
He only had a couple of months legal training but he was one of Washington's officers, elected to Congress, and apparently was an effective Secretary of State for Adams. Incidentally, his office was the one responsible for issuing and delivering commissions including Marbury's. He should have really been a witness in the case because he had possession of the Great Seal of the U.S. used to mark appointment documents. Reportedly his brother working in the office was the one who failed to deliver Marbury's commission. So Marshall knew darn well that Marbury was appointed as a matter of fact but did not recuse himself.

He also allowed a private lawyer to represent the administration during the trial when Jefferson and Madison refused to acknowledge the suit. The whole case is fraught with hypocrisy, failures in ethics (The Senate refused to let Marbury view its journal indicating his appointment was properly voted upon), and so on.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:20 PM (AH98f)

292 "The people who claim to be sober and serious-minded patriots"

I'm confusulated by this. Who the f**k does this refer to?

The legal establishment mediocrities (like Dershowitz and the like) who think rule of law consists entirely of process and mechanics and adhering to the previous pattern of judicial supremacy, regardless of law or the constitution or common sense?

Who is ace talking about?

Posted by: rhomboid at March 17, 2017 07:20 PM (QDnY+)

293 http://bit.ly/2mcqe6u
----
Levin: Why all this LYING? Because I kicked the media right 'in the nuts!'

Posted by: EVLINC! at March 17, 2017 07:20 PM (y3aQB)

294 Never new from the PJ artical a Florida woman congressman (D of course) is a former impeached judge.

Posted by: Skip at March 17, 2017 07:20 PM (GPaiX)

295 >>>Someone on Twitter asked for a "real Christian" to justify Trump's budget.

Thou shalt not steal.

Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at March 17, 2017 07:20 PM (W8bn5)

296 >>>Someone on Twitter asked for a "real Christian" to justify Trump's budget.

Thou shalt not steal.

Boom.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 17, 2017 07:21 PM (LTHVh)

297 283 I agree kinda sorta
but to be honest I need to educate myself on exactly what the authority and review of an EO really is
or of course I could ask my wife who should know it

I think if a fed judge goes against an EO there should be a quick and immediate appeal before the circuit
it would prevent judge shopping and over reach

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:21 PM (DpjJ8)

298 Hey rhomboid,
I am actually glad that it is coming out into the open now. When the judges become politicians, it is easier to remedy just like when the media launched kamikaze attacks. They are out in the spotlight now and a lot of people don't like what they see.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:22 PM (AH98f)

299 Posted by: rhomboid at March 17, 2017 07:18 PM (QDnY+)

It's not being sanguine, it's just... this started SO long ago and has been going on FOREVER and has arguably waxed and waned since the "lochner era," but it's not anything new or novel. Judges think they're the super legislature and there's nothing any of us can do about it.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:22 PM (wmaTe)

300 Every. If you split the 9th up it doesn't solve the issue. Libs will aways find a lib judge to rule in heir favor in CA.

Posted by: #neverskankles at March 17, 2017 07:22 PM (Xj0cx)

301 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

--John Adams

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:22 PM (GsAUU)

302 285 thanks
and its good to be back

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:23 PM (DpjJ8)

303 Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:20 PM (AH98f)

I still think the worst Supreme Court ruling was the one that blatantly took 'Interstate' out of 'interstate commerce' in the Constitution...

So that Congress could control whether a Farmer was growing grain, to feed his own damn chickens.

Pure blatantly legal sophistry, that granted Congress WAY more control over us than was intended.

Posted by: Don Q. at March 17, 2017 07:24 PM (NgKpN)

304 shhhh

Lou Dobbs is on...

Posted by: Mortimer - Finish Her! at March 17, 2017 07:24 PM (KgpWR)

305 256 Someone on Twitter asked for a "real Christian" to justify Trump's budget.

How about "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's" you. Dumb. Twat.
Posted by: Shopgirl at March 17, 2017 07:13 PM (ZzOhU)

To be fair, A Christian could be justified in claiming nothing is Caesar's. Yet, I rarely hear Bible reading Christians make this obvious argument.

This argument could have been made to justify the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.

Instead of Christians, I believe you meant Churchians. There is a huge difference.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 07:24 PM (2qHjF)

306 Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:20 PM (AH98f)

Absolutely true. And yes, IIRC, you are correct -- his brother was the one who was supposed to deliver the charters and, um, forgot(?) I guess?

He was a busy man, I'm sure.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:24 PM (wmaTe)

307 How much money is in the Trump budget for the 9th?

Posted by: Burnt Toast at March 17, 2017 07:25 PM (P/kVC)

308 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams

This quote used to piss me off (being a secularist), until I had a good look at how the post-moral non-religious people were treating the Constitution. That, and reading Burke on similar events in 1790 France.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 17, 2017 07:25 PM (6FqZa)

309 I think if a fed judge goes against an EO there should be a quick and immediate appeal before the circuit
it would prevent judge shopping and over reach
Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:21 PM (DpjJ

Maybe in the future, but not now....FIRST we need to confirm Gorsuch, since an immediate Appeal to the Circuit Court is a rocket to the Supreme Court and we need that 5th vote

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 07:25 PM (SjImc)

310 Harry,
By the time the detention order was issued, Roosevelt had appointed eight out of nine justices. So they kinda owed him and there was that whole Pearl Harbor attack thing that made going up against a president in a popular war kinda impractical politically.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:25 PM (AH98f)

311 NBCSN-HD is showing Curling Night in America. I shit you not.

Clearly, there are way too many channels.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 17, 2017 07:26 PM (LTHVh)

312 Any lawsuit brought against an action by the president to himself should only be heard by SCOTUS. That's how you stop judge shopping.

Posted by: #neverskankles at March 17, 2017 07:26 PM (Xj0cx)

313 I still think the worst Supreme Court ruling was the one that blatantly took 'Interstate' out of 'interstate commerce' in the Constitution...

So that Congress could control whether a Farmer was growing grain, to feed his own damn chickens.

Pure blatantly legal sophistry, that granted Congress WAY more control over us than was intended.
Posted by: Don Q. at March 17, 2017 07:24 PM (NgKpN)

Wickard v Filburn? Yes, yes, a lovely a case. I think the biggest stain on Scalia's record is not joining Thomas's dissent in Gonzales v. Raich which would have gone a long way toward setting up an overturning of Wickard.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:26 PM (wmaTe)

314 oh for Christ's sake
I'm finally comfy in front of the laptop (no pants as per the AoS handbook) and nck wants a ride home
cant wait till I ship her off to college
brb

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:26 PM (DpjJ8)

315 312 Any lawsuit brought against an action by the president to himself should only be heard by SCOTUS. That's how you stop judge shopping.
Posted by: #neverskankles at March 17, 2017 07:26 PM (Xj0cx)

They only have original jurisdiction "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party"

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:27 PM (wmaTe)

316 boulder herlit,
You will see the same thing in the Federalist and throughout the Convention debates. Parchment barriers only work if the will in the population exists to not try to thwart them which requires a virtuous public--both to select good officials but to remove bad ones.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:27 PM (AH98f)

317 Also, Andrew Jackson was such a fucking racist that he adopted an orphaned Indian as his son.
Posted by: logprof

He still could have been racist. Maybe it was a white Indian. You know, like a white hispanic.

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at March 17, 2017 07:27 PM (W8bn5)

318 312 Any lawsuit brought against an action by the president to himself should only be heard by SCOTUS. That's how you stop judge shopping.

that is an excellent point

Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:27 PM (DpjJ8)

319
Someone on Twitter asked for a "real Christian" to justify Trump's budget.

Free food. Free house. Free doctor. Free beer.

FREEBIRD!!!

Posted by: Someone on Twitter at March 17, 2017 07:28 PM (IqV8l)

320 Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:21 PM (DpjJ8

A couple of the legal doctrines that these Judges SHOULD get slammed on...

1. They are only supposed to rule on stuff within their Jurisdiction... not the whole country.

2. To alleviate the harm shown in a Lawsuit, they are supposed to do the LEAST they can... ie if they sue because one person can't get in, you let that person in... you don't over rule the entire Executive Branch, and 250 years of legal precedence...

Posted by: Don Q. at March 17, 2017 07:28 PM (NgKpN)

321
They only have original jurisdiction "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party"
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:27 PM (wmaTe)

The states files suit against the EO right?

Posted by: #neverskankles at March 17, 2017 07:28 PM (Xj0cx)

322 This quote used to piss me off (being a secularist), until I had a good look at how the post-moral non-religious people were treating the Constitution. That, and reading Burke on similar events in 1790 France.
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 17, 2017 07:25 PM (6FqZa)

--I am fine with it applying to non-religious but moral people (and yes, they are out there, present company included --hell, Thomas Jefferson was one). The problem with a lot of non-religious people is that almost all of them lose their morality long before they lose their religion.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:28 PM (GsAUU)

323 Is Trump Going to Go Nuclear on the Judiciary?
====

OH!!
"Judiciary" is "JUDGES!"

You gave me haht attack!

Posted by: Kim Jong Un at March 17, 2017 07:29 PM (KgpWR)

324 He still could have been racist. Maybe it was a white Indian. You know, like a white hispanic.
Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at March 17, 2017 07:27 PM (W8bn5)

Hmm. Like, I might write a children's book about this.

Posted by: Chelsea Clinton at March 17, 2017 07:29 PM (8ZskC)

325 Skip you mean there's *another* impeached federal judge in the House from FL?

Alcee Hastings was one (is one?), I believe. But another one? "Florida Voter" might have to become a thing alongside "Florida Man".

Was on the floor during the impeachment trial of another judge, was about the same time as Hastings. Not my area, was there for something else (I think they did portions of the trial in between action on legislation)

One sort of painful moment. In impeachment trials, Senators vote from their seats. The clerk calls their name, they rise and say "guilty" or "not guilty". Very dramatic, by Senate standards. Instead of the long rolling votes, where Senators duck in and say "aye" or "no" or give the thumbs-down signal to the clerk after catching his eye from somewhere on the floor.

Dave Durenberger of MN just happened to walk in one door when the clerk was reading his name from the initial roll call on the verdict vote. Not realizing the special procedure, he just flashed a big grin after catching the clerk's eye and called out "aye!".

The impeached judge sort of slumped in his chair (he sat at a table in the well). Staff suppressed laughs. Durenberger quickly realized his error, dashed over to his seat, called for recognition, and said "guilty".

Posted by: rhomboid at March 17, 2017 07:29 PM (QDnY+)

326 They only have original jurisdiction "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party"
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:27 PM (wmaTe)

But could be changed with either a Rule from the Supreme Court about where things can be heard...

or...

a Law from Congress (like they did with the FISA Courts).

To sure the President, it seems it should be done in DC... not 80 different courts throughout the country.

Posted by: Don Q. at March 17, 2017 07:30 PM (NgKpN)

327 Students are outraged when I teach them Wickard. Then I address Raich and Obamacare. It is interesting to watch their minds work through those.

At least Randy Barnett carved out a majority on the idea that the commerce clause grant Congress the power to require actions by people. Course, Dred Justice Roberts opened the window using the Taxing power clause.

Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:30 PM (AH98f)

328 "The Leftist stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Republican."

Luke 18:11, New AoSHQ Version

Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 07:30 PM (5p/Pr)

329 Someone on Twitter asked for a "real Christian" to justify Trump's budget.

Everyone in America knows that the Federal government is bloated, wasteful, debt-ridden, and filled with fraud and duplication. Everyone knows about stupid spending like shrimp on treadmills and fat lesbians.

But the instant someone suggests we maybe cut this, everyone starts screaming like a puppy whose tail you stepped on.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 07:31 PM (39g3+)

330 311 NBCSN-HD is showing Curling Night in America. I shit you not.

Clearly, there are way too many channels.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 17, 2017 07:26 PM (LTHVh)

--Eh, well most of the time they have NHL games.

And if it's female curling, well, that's a great public service.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:32 PM (GsAUU)

331 Oh, and now he's yelled at Turnbull and pissed on Merkel.

He's tweaking the right tails.

Posted by: JEM at March 17, 2017 07:32 PM (TppKb)

332 Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 07:30 PM (5p/Pr)

LOL; Well done.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 17, 2017 07:32 PM (fDdVG)

333
Students are outraged when I teach them Wickard. Then I address Raich
and Obamacare. It is interesting to watch their minds work through
those.
===

Bless you, sir. We need many more of you.

You are doing the Lord's work.

Posted by: Mortimer - Finish Her! at March 17, 2017 07:32 PM (KgpWR)

334 320 Posted by: navycopjoe is still alive at March 17, 2017 07:21 PM (DpjJ8

A couple of the legal doctrines that these Judges SHOULD get slammed on...

1. They are only supposed to rule on stuff within their Jurisdiction... not the whole country.

2. To alleviate the harm shown in a Lawsuit, they are supposed to do the LEAST they can... ie if they sue because one person can't get in, you let that person in... you don't over rule the entire Executive Branch, and 250 years of legal precedence...
Posted by: Don Q. at March 17, 2017 07:28 PM (NgKpN)

I hear every federal judge has jurisdiction over everything in the world.

Posted by: Burnt Toast at March 17, 2017 07:32 PM (P/kVC)

335 327 Students are outraged when I teach them Wickard. Then I address Raich and Obamacare. It is interesting to watch their minds work through those.

At least Randy Barnett carved out a majority on the idea that the commerce clause grant Congress the power to require actions by people. Course, Dred Justice Roberts opened the window using the Taxing power clause.
Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:30 PM (AH98f)

what do you teach?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:33 PM (wmaTe)

336 311 NBCSN-HD is showing Curling Night in America. I shit you not.

Clearly, there are way too many channels.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 17, 2017 07:26 PM (LTHVh)

Well Cotton, you gotta love those Curlers...

Posted by: ESPN 8! the OCHO! at March 17, 2017 07:33 PM (NgKpN)

337 Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:30 PM (AH98f)

I mean, I assume Con Law -- but at law school or college level?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 17, 2017 07:33 PM (wmaTe)

338 I like female Curlers. They're kinda cute.

Posted by: eleven at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (qUNWi)

339 The reason this requires a response so splashy it inspires fear is because the offense is so grave. This is nothing less than a rule change being proposed. The Progs now propose that any action by Trump (and by extension any future Republican POTUS) requires the unanimous consent of the entire Federal Judiciary. If we accept the premise that such an absurd notion can even be proposed and debated in the normal way, by appeals, Congressional action, etc. then we have lost.

Rejecting the whole premise behind this must be the response and it must be equal to the provocation and such that they fear to attempt such a thing for generations. Violence should NOT be off the table. Only by the veiled threat of a violent response can the only peaceful solution hope to be achieved. It is clear Justice #9 will not be permitted to be seated until this attempted coup succeeds or fails so any plan depending on that is defective. Four-Four means Progs win and they know it and fully intend to exploit the situation. This means it is vital that one of the prog justices see a good reason to want to defuse the situation and the notion in the back of their mind that a midnight helicopter ride might be the price of doing Soros' bidding on this one is the best one I can think of.

Remember, wars are usually caused by miscalculation over who would win a fight. When everybody knows the score a peaceful outcome is assured.

Posted by: John Morris at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (sCRhB)

340 FREEBIRD!!!

*holds up Bic lighter and sways back and forth*

Posted by: Old Blue release the KrakenTrump at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (9iR5/)

341 Grump!

LOU is on.

Posted by: Mortimer - Finish Her! at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (KgpWR)

342 Posted by: ESPN 8! the OCHO! at March 17, 2017 07:33 PM (NgKpN)

If it's almost a sport...it's on the Ocho!

Posted by: tu3031 at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (qJhUV)

343 "The Leftist stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Republican."

Excellent, very well done. But do we as conservatives stand a way back, not daring to draw close, and pray "God be merciful to me, a sinner?" or do we say "thank God I'm not like that Leftist?"

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (39g3+)

344 "War is upon you, whether you wish it or not."

Posted by: sock_rat_eez, they are gaslighting us 24/7 at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (9AVZA)

345 The mixed USA team is beating the crap out of the Scottish team.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (LTHVh)

346 Women's Curling is more than a sport.

It's a thing.

Posted by: eleven at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (qUNWi)

347 i'm flabbergasted some guy we've never heard of can decide what is in our national security's interest.

it really makes zip sensze to me.

Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (R7cwD)

348 hah, just realised I was citing Burke when there was a 'whig' in the thread

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (6FqZa)

349 338 I like female Curlers. They're kinda cute.
Posted by: eleven at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (qUNWi)

--Yeah, they're beautiful in a Girl Next Door way.

Posted by: logprof at March 17, 2017 07:36 PM (GsAUU)

350 So, in a strange twist of fate, Donald Trump may be the one man responsible for saving the American experiment.

DONALD...

TRUMP!

Posted by: MAGA at March 17, 2017 07:36 PM (A4HOq)

351 Posted by: John Morris at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (sCRhB)

Very thoughtful and articulate comments. I suggest your consider e-mailing them to the Trump White House

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 17, 2017 07:36 PM (fDdVG)

352 Christopher R Taylor: "But the instant someone suggests we maybe cut this, everyone starts screaming like a puppy whose tail you stepped on."

I don't know the origin, but here's an analog:

"Don't tax me; tax that guy behind the tree." [heard from a CPA]

Everyone wants their own carve-out.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 17, 2017 07:36 PM (1CroS)

353 i'm flabbergasted some guy we've never heard of can decide what is in our national security's interest.

it really makes zip sensze to me.
Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (R7cwD)

So you must be a conservative then?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 07:36 PM (SjImc)

354 I hear every federal judge has jurisdiction over everything in the world.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at March 17, 2017 07:32 PM (P/kVC)

Actually... President GHW Bush declared US Law had worldwide Jurisdiction...

So he could arrest Norriega in Panama... for things which were against US Law, but not Panamanian Law...

Posted by: ESPN 8! the OCHO! at March 17, 2017 07:36 PM (NgKpN)

355 so Is this Judge part of our National Security ? Does He sit in on intelligence operations?
Does He know Shit about anything Security but stabbing Trump in the back for politics?

Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:37 PM (R7cwD)

356 Actually... President GHW Bush declared US Law had worldwide Jurisdiction...

I think that was the 'Might Makes Right" Doctrine

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 07:37 PM (SjImc)

357 Does He know Shit about anything Security but stabbing Trump in the back for politics?
Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:37 PM (R7cwD)

Back Stabbing is usually taught in the First year at Law School

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 17, 2017 07:38 PM (SjImc)

358 Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (39g3+)

I'm not like leftists in a number off ways, However, I do have as part of my daily devotions a time of confession and I often say the Jesus Prayer from the Eastern Orthodox tradition: "Lord, Jesus Christ, only son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner."

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 17, 2017 07:38 PM (fDdVG)

359 347 i'm flabbergasted some guy we've never heard of can decide what is in our national security's interest.

it really makes zip sensze to me.
Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (R7cwD)

+++

Outrageous. And Hawaii has a huge homeless population, to the point that they were giving away airline tickets to the stateside because of the masses sleeping on the beaches. So, I guess, instead, they just want to replace these people with a mob from Syria or such????

Posted by: washrivergal at March 17, 2017 07:38 PM (Ivjge)

360 339 The reason this requires a response so splashy it inspires fear is because the offense is so grave. This is nothing less than a rule change being proposed. The Progs now propose that any action by Trump (and by extension any future Republican POTUS) requires the unanimous consent of the entire Federal Judiciary. If we accept the premise that such an absurd notion can even be proposed and debated in the normal way, by appeals, Congressional action, etc. then we have lost.

Rejecting the whole premise behind this must be the response and it must be equal to the provocation and such that they fear to attempt such a thing for generations. Violence should NOT be off the table. Only by the veiled threat of a violent response can the only peaceful solution hope to be achieved. It is clear Justice #9 will not be permitted to be seated until this attempted coup succeeds or fails so any plan depending on that is defective. Four-Four means Progs win and they know it and fully intend to exploit the situation. This means it is vital that one of the prog justices see a good reason to want to defuse the situation and the notion in the back of their mind that a midnight helicopter ride might be the price of doing Soros' bidding on this one is the best one I can think of.

Remember, wars are usually caused by miscalculation over who would win a fight. When everybody knows the score a peaceful outcome is assured.
Posted by: John Morris at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (sCRhB

And the GOPe is.on the DIM/Prof side. Explains the slow walking of everything.

Posted by: Phone of Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 07:39 PM (3cOA7)

361 ...245 Ultimately, the Court's actions require public acquiescence if not support. Widespread dislike of decisions that affect many are ultimately overturned one way or another.
...
Posted by: whig at March 17, 2017 07:10 PM (AH98f)

You obviously have lots more faith in today's liberal brainwashed youth than I do.

Posted by: Bill Wynn at March 17, 2017 07:40 PM (rfOVQ)

362 Posted by: John Morris at March 17, 2017 07:34 PM (sCRhB)

Somebody give this man a cigar.

Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at March 17, 2017 07:40 PM (aMlLZ)

363 Outrageous. And Hawaii has a huge homeless
population, to the point that they were giving away airline tickets to
the stateside because of the masses sleeping on the beaches. So, I
guess, instead, they just want to replace these people with a mob from
Syria or such????
Posted by: washrivergal at March 17, 2017 07:38 PM (Ivjge)

No, I'm sure they will give the Syrians free plane tickets too.

Posted by: Kindltot at March 17, 2017 07:40 PM (WQX/u)

364 John Morris, aside from the bit about violence - that ain't happening, and shouldn't happen, don't see any chance of it - your comment about the response being fitting for the provocation expresses better than I have what I had in mind.

This is NOT some arcane dispute over how to award mineral rights at in-holdings in national forest land, or the like.

This is brazen, utterly baseless seizure of executive power over immigration and admissions, in the face of clear statutory and constitutional authority vested in the president.

It would be no more baseless, unconstitutional, or brazen for a district judge to put a TRO on a command to US military forces. The absurdity of such a hypothetical is enhanced, but no more fundamental.

So Harry I don't agree, "this" has not been going on forever - if by "this" you mean courts seizing operational control of actual policy-making in areas that are exclusively executive prerogatives.

And if y'all were getting into EO 9066 somewhere up above, I'm reading an interesting book on the whole relocation thing at the moment. Shock of shocks, it turns out that "racism, hysteria, and lack of political will" (the 1983 commission's unfounded slander) had exactly nothing to do with war-time relocation plans for Axis aliens (and some US citizens).

Posted by: rhomboid at March 17, 2017 07:42 PM (QDnY+)

365 Nevergiveup, I believe in the country and what is in the citizens interest overall. This is Not in our interest. This is national suicide letting some Dick in some hole somewhere usa decide EVERYONE that wants access to the country May !
srsly we've been vetting access and citizenship for ever, we hve rules and they haven't been followed in decades.
That ! that we have no recourse but to say we Have No borders we have nothing to protect right?
no sovereignity, no borders, no citizenships just walk on in and do whatever BUT follow these little laws the govt DECIDES is in It's interests.
Not Americas but sleazy fkn power interests of anything but Americans'

Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:42 PM (R7cwD)

366 Back Stabbing is usually taught in the First year at Law School

And the person that graduates last in their class is usually called...Your Honor.

Posted by: tu3031 at March 17, 2017 07:43 PM (qJhUV)

367 too wordy?

shorter, they can kiss my rear, I will not obey what They say anylonger if it isn't In my interest at the moment.

Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:43 PM (R7cwD)

368 Pineapple Face Noriega's bogus parliament had declared Panama at war with the US, and then his soldiers shot a group of US soldier on their way to Panama City killing one.

Whatever George Bush Senior said, if country A declares war on country and then shoots at B's soldiers, their sovereignty is forfeit.

All that's on Pineapple Face for being a cokehead.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 17, 2017 07:43 PM (6FqZa)

369 John Morris - you nailed it.

I would take your Morris Doctrine into Congress. Expose their little dirty money schemes and show WHY they are in opposition to cutting or even passing a budget.

Make one Senator(R) your example and the rest will fall in line.

Posted by: Mortimer - Finish Her! at March 17, 2017 07:43 PM (KgpWR)

370 but, but, but Trump is a threat to the Narrative, maintenance of the Narrative overrides all other concerns.

Posted by: Shoey at March 17, 2017 07:44 PM (OYK2S)

371 why is it anything ILLEGAL seems to have gravitas but WE as individuals never can find 'Standing?'

Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:44 PM (R7cwD)

372 Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:35 PM (R7cwD)

Friend of Obama.Went to Harvard with him. Met with Obama before the decision came down. That's pretty much all you need to know, other than that he's one of the leftist activist judges.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 17, 2017 07:45 PM (fDdVG)

373 Back Stabbing is usually taught in the First year at Law School

The old joke is that Jewish kids don't join gangs until they become lawyers.

Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 07:45 PM (8fypK)

374 / although I admit that Bush's name for the Panama invasion, "Operation Just Cause", was gay.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 17, 2017 07:46 PM (6FqZa)

375 Friend of Obama.Went to Harvard with him. Met with Obama before the decision came down.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 17, 2017 07:45 PM (fDdVG)

The Fool Factory strikes again. And Buchanan met with Taney before Dred Scott came down. How'd that turn out?

Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 17, 2017 07:47 PM (8fypK)

376 nood, meh.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 17, 2017 07:48 PM (6FqZa)

377 It's almost as if our Judicary were in safe ivory towers on an Island on the opposite hemisphere.

Posted by: Phone of Widespread Pepe at March 17, 2017 07:48 PM (3cOA7)

378 Fenelon, What happened to the last President stepping aside ?

of course the Cad would not do anything but what is detrimental to the country.

Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:48 PM (R7cwD)

379 Rhomboid, I had a long talk with my mother about that. She was born and was living in Santa Barbara when the war broke out. She did admit that there was racism against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, and that it was probably in their best interest to leave the area. There were many in California who had bad feelings about the Japanese, a lot having to do with the Japanese being better farmers because they worked harder. Others just saw an opportunity to get cheap stuff. A bigger concern was that an awful lot of suddenly warlike Americans could have done serious harm to the Japanese community. Maybe to the point of making the Jim Crow south and KKK look like grade school punks. And the law enforcement couldn't and probably wouldn't protect them.

Posted by: Old Blue release the KrakenTrump at March 17, 2017 07:49 PM (9iR5/)

380

Call for Johnny Philip Morris!

Posted by: Johnny Roventini at March 17, 2017 07:49 PM (IqV8l)

381 we need to stop providing funds to the Corportaions . we need to do just as leftists do and boycott Any of the things in Their interests.

It works for them, it might work for us.

Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:50 PM (R7cwD)

382 Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:48 PM (R7cwD)

Yes

Obama is going to Tahiti. If Tahiti didn't have poisonous snakes before he got there they will when he arrives.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 17, 2017 07:50 PM (fDdVG)

383 one can hope.

Posted by: willow- mixing memes at March 17, 2017 07:51 PM (R7cwD)

384 On other pressing matters, I suspect the fix is in and the GOP will cave on Ryancare.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at March 17, 2017 07:52 PM (97XyN)

385 Back Stabbing is usually taught in the First year at Law School

The old joke is that Jewish kids don't join gangs until they become lawyers.
Posted by: Kodos
----------

Another thing that is learned is that arguments need not have any basis in truth, fact, or logic. They merely need to be made, earnestly and without qualm.

I recall my business law professor intoning to the class,"When you come into Equity, come with clean hands".

What happens when the judge doesn't have clean hands?

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at March 17, 2017 07:54 PM (ZO497)

386 http://bit.ly/2mchjBU
----
Meals on Wheels reports surge in donations after WH's "proposed cuts"

Posted by: EVLINC! at March 17, 2017 07:59 PM (y3aQB)

387 The doctrine these judges are violating is that of "ultra vires." As in, they are NOT allowed, under the Constitution, to step outside the bounds of their LEGAL authority -- which is derived from the Constitution, not pulled out of their asses.

A decree that is "ultra vires" is one that is "outside the bounds" of their proper, constitutionally allowable authority.

Therefore: Ignoring such an order is not only legal, it is essential in order to preserve the Constitutional powers reserved to the branch the order affects. So President Trump really, really HAS to ignore this order, or he will accede to an entirely illegal, un-Constitutional "hater's veto" of the Executive's power.

Posted by: Beverly at March 17, 2017 08:14 PM (5dG+K)

388 Sorry, I know some here still want to pretend violence is never legit... no matter how many times the other side unleashes it with obvious success and no consequence, but until you can propose a totally non-violent solution with a non-zero chance of success...... might I suggest you open your mind to reality? This is a war, we didn't start it, it has been simmering since before most of us here were even born and they are fighting it to win; it is about damned time we suited up and at least made a half hearted attempt to resist? A few harshly worded tweets, perhaps a veiled implication of violence or two might be in order at this point?

And if anyone thinks this new power the progs are attempting to create will only be used to rewrite immigration policy you haven't been paying attention. Scuttle the Paris Accords? How many milliseconds until a Federal Judge somewhere says "Nay" once this new power has been fully accepted. Defund the NEA? Oh Hell no, they have a Constitutional right to that funding so have a temporary restraining order until SCOTUS can divine what penumbra it emanates from. Probably because somebody objected to Piss Christ and obviously that means it was religious if they are ever defunded. Even if this new power only gives them the ability to delay anything they don't like for a year it is a huge concession of power to the Progs.

They always take every piece of ground we concede, because of course it "isn't the hill to die on", and instantly advance. Stop looking for that perfect hill to die on and start fighting on the one you are on now because if you take a look, we are about to run out of hills, the sea approaches.

Posted by: John Morris at March 17, 2017 08:15 PM (sCRhB)

389 Legal Insurrection has a great article on this:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/mynazzj

More on the concept of "ultra vires" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires

Posted by: Beverly at March 17, 2017 08:18 PM (5dG+K)

390 This can be ended very simply. Trump writes me a Presidential Pardon and swears me in as a Federal Marshal. I go to the air port and fly to Hawaii. Once there I go arrest the Lefty Judge who over turned Trump's Travel Ban and haul his sorry ass out onto the court house lawn and proceed to make an object lesson to the rest of the Judiciary. Problem Solved

Posted by: southdakotaboy at March 17, 2017 08:18 PM (9qei7)

391 Unfortunately, 387, if President Trump ignores, the House will easily impeach, and the Senate will easily remove. That is EXACTLY what the Rove Republicans want.

Posted by: Mark Matis at March 17, 2017 08:38 PM (LzG0h)

392 Ace, you and at least half the commenters on this thread are forgetting something:

This is battlespace prep to impeach Trump:

Trump: The judiciary have made their decision, now let them enforce it!

Ryan and Pelosi: it is with great reluctance that we declare Trump has overreached and impeachment is a reluctant last resort we're driven to.

Schumer, McConnell, and McCain: Confirmed. Bye, Donald.

Or he doesn't say that: "Trump lied about immigration and isn't keeping his promises!!!!" --- the Cuckservative Chorus and the Left.

Posted by: SDN at March 17, 2017 08:48 PM (z3gg+)

393 http://moonbattery.com/?p=81974

John Morris 388: That battle has already been lost.

Posted by: SDN at March 17, 2017 08:57 PM (z3gg+)

394 The FBI let Hillary walk and arrested a guy today for sending a gif in a tweet.

Why should we respect law enforcement at this point?

Us conservatives were the last people left who did respect them as the Left calls for their murder daily.

But if law enforcement will now be used to arrest conservatives and protect left wing terrorist groups, then why do we still support them?

I hope the LEO community at every level wakes up!

Posted by: Duncan Macleod, The Highlander at March 17, 2017 09:01 PM (NAv1Q)

395 One thing that seems to have fallen under the radar about Trump's administration is the general lack of Friday dumps of OShit stuff that the media can ignore over the weekend, then ignore as old news....

The Media then takes this snooze time to plan the next week of BS to put out and organize it between themselves...

Instead, Trump isn't going along with the PMS plan (Propaganda and Media Snooze), leaving the Media in a disarray like herded cats as Trump moves ahead on so many fronts that the Media can't keep up with their spin...

Posted by: Seipherd at March 17, 2017 09:31 PM (mG1nl)

396 At Volokh's: "The states' argument is in essence that Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws. This would mean that Trump is automatically disbarred, from the moment of his inauguration, of exercising certain presidential powers, not because of his actions as president, but because of who he is..."

President Trump's motives don't matter. Whether it is pure bigotry, pure wisdom or pure random choice made by throwing darts at the wall, reading goat entrails or spinning Obama's Wheel of Treason, it is the Executive's decision alone to make.

If we are going to address motives, however, let's also address the radical political motives of these "judges".

They want to ruin Trump, create a Constitutional Right to Enter the United States by every person on the planet and establish group quotas that say if Muslims are a fifth of the world's population, then they must also constitute a fifth of all immigrants to America.

In short, they want to Abolish America. The Constitution, Trump and us all stand in their way.

If Campaign Promises are the standard, Your Honor, what about the promises Mohammed made to his followers during his military campaigns; that they could treat themselves as first-class citizens, their women as second-class citizens, infidel men as third-class citizens and infidel women as fourth-class property?

Posted by: The Gipper Lives at March 17, 2017 10:05 PM (Ndje9)

397 The power to decide who is and isn't allowed into our nation is best suited for one person, the President. There are a couple of very good reasons our Founding Fathers chose to go this route...

1. The primary duty of the President to protect our nation from foreign invasion. This is why he's the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Without the authority to deny entry to this nation to whomever he chooses, he cannot effectively do his job.

2. If judges are the ones who really hold this power, what happens when two judges disagree on whether certain people should be allowed into our nation, and nobody appeals either decision?

The President holds ultimate and unilateral power over these policies, because he must. There's really no other way to go about it.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler. Welcome to Trumpdome, bitch! at March 17, 2017 10:06 PM (0OG8D)

398 Incidentally, these rulings against Trump are a very different matter from the visa-related rulings against Obama during his Presidency.

The President has ultimate power to deny entry to our nation; he does not have ultimate power to allow anyone in. Obama overstepped his bounds by saying he would allow pretty much everyone into our nation.

Denying entry to certain people makes our nation safer, and thus is a Presidential power. Congress gets to set limits on entry by people not specifically forbidden by the President. Obama was always ignoring this power of Congress, and that's why the courts had to slap him down.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler. Welcome to Trumpdome, bitch! at March 17, 2017 10:16 PM (0OG8D)

399 The last time a Court tried to usurp the Executive's power over citizenship and borders like this was in 1857.

Keep pulling that thread, traitors...

Posted by: The Gipper Lives at March 17, 2017 10:19 PM (Ndje9)

400 At Volokh's: "The states' argument is in essence that Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws. This would mean that Trump is automatically disbarred, from the moment of his inauguration, of exercising certain presidential powers, not because of his actions as president, but because of who he is..."

***************

That's something similar to this:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/revolt-judges-what-

happens-when-judiciary-doesnt-trust-presidents-oath

What we have here--are judges that have no respect for the Electorate--the people--that elected Trump as the President.

The article above has a conclusion that these judges think they can separate Trump from the deference due the office of the Presidency because somehow they have decided that he is unfit.

Well--the electorate cannot be determined to be unfit, and crazy for electing Trump by a few unelected judges.

Hopefully better judges get a hold of this and end the hysteria.

Posted by: Holmes at March 17, 2017 11:05 PM (fi5nC)

401 Rejecting the whole premise behind this must be the response and it must be equal to the provocation and such that they fear to attempt such a thing for generations. Violence should NOT be off the table. Only by the veiled threat of a violent response can the only peaceful solution hope to be achieved. It is clear Justice #9 will not be permitted to be seated until this attempted coup succeeds or fails so any plan depending on that is defective. Four-Four means Progs win and they know it and fully intend to exploit the situation. This means it is vital that one of the prog justices see a good reason to want to defuse the situation and the notion in the back of their mind that a midnight helicopter ride might be the price of doing Soros' bidding on this one is the best one I can think of.

***********************

You'd be playing right into their hands.

Don't match the hysteria of three judges with this "logic".

Posted by: Holmes at March 17, 2017 11:11 PM (fi5nC)

402 Lengthy, but definitely worth scanning. Very eye-opening

8 U.S. Code � 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 18, 2017 12:48 PM (SRKgf)

403 ... it is sedition and treason, "straight up".

Word....straight up.

Posted by: paladin at March 18, 2017 02:39 PM (0F2Qq)

Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.059 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0184 seconds, 411 records returned.
Page size 228 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.