Pages

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Support emerging for Trump to ignore courts on immigration..

If the Maryland judge were to order the administration to admit 100,000 refugees per year, and if this ruling somehow were to survive judicial review, I can see President Trump adopting Andrew Jackson’s defiant approach. There is something particularly egregious about judges deciding how many immigrants must be injected into American communities. I’m not sure Trump would tolerate this.

More generally, if liberal judges continue to wage war against the Trump administration through the kind of ridiculous, made-up law being fashioned in the immigration order cases, it seems quite likely that at some point in the not-too-distant future President Trump will refuse to obey the robed politicians.

Andrew Jackson got away with it. He won his fight with John Marshall. If Donald Trump picks his case shrewdly, he might well win too. - Paul Mirengoff 
_______ 

What’s more, the idea that these courts are putting forth that restricting entry to a country with a majority religion suggests bias against that entire religion would make any and all immigration policy unconstitutional. Very few countries don’t have a majority religion, after all. 
Regardless of one’s views on the particulars of this executive order and its efficacy, the ability to determine who can enter the country is one of the most obvious and important sovereign decisions a people makes. That power is vested in the executive branch and should not be enjoined by rogue judges. Unelected and unaccountable judges ignoring the law in favor of their feelings is a threat to self-government and rule of law. It needs to stop. - Mollie Ziegler Hemingway
_______
Arguably President Trump has a duty to disregard the Hawaii and Maryland courts’ illegal injunctions, and direct the executive branch to carry out his order. His obligation under the Constitution is to exercise his powers in defense of the American people.

If that proposition seems debatable, it is only because the president’s travel order has such minimal impact. If, for example, the United States were under attack, and a judge ordered the president to ground the U.S. Air Force–perhaps because using the Air Force would “discriminate” against the country that attacked us–the president would disregard the injunction. No one would criticize him for doing so. - John Hinderacker
_______ 

Considering our previous President at least temporarily ignored immigration rulings that went against him, I don't believe it's too big of a stretch to consider that President Trump might choose to do the same thing. Certainly it would be in his wheelhouse to ramp up the fight with the judiciary. As pointed out Paul Mirengoff, there is Presidential precedent for this.  

Nobody would really want this sort of constitutional crisis. But the blame for such a situation would likely (like everything else) fall largely down partisan lines, with conservative blaming the judicial branch for overreach, and liberals blaming Donald Trump for being President.

Moreover it seems at this stage that such a constitutional crisis is ultimately unavoidable. Our unelected branch of the Government has increasingly become political and at this point is wading into the unconstitutional concept of arbitrating "policy disputes" - which is not their role.

When the Constitution clearly provides checks and balances, and one branch clearly overreaches their powers...it's up to the other branches to rectify it. The concept that there is no means to stand up to the Judicial branch would be scary if taken at face value.

If this concept becomes more of an open reality, then avoidance of this sort of crisis should become part of the equation at the USSC level. It would be up to them to set aside politics, personal feelings, political correctness, and go back to the basics of constitutional and statutory law. This is the oath of office that they swore to when they accepted their responsibility as Justices. Is it too much to ask that they follow that oath?

Any decision that is not firmly rooted in those two areas may be what triggers such a crisis.

28 comments:

rrb said...




some of our judiciary is suffering from Trump-Induced Anxiety Disorder.:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/sleepless-in-seattle-and-other-places-trump-induced-insomnia-stalks-blue-state-america-050014746.html

Anonymous said...

Sunday is a day of thanking God.

So, God thanks for never ever having Hillary near the US Presidency again and keep Trump Safe, the nuts are gunning for him.

Am I the only one that thinks the planting of the Secret Service Lap top to be stolen was not by accident and was done to further hurt the Family of the President?

opie said...

Am I the only one that thinks the planting of the Secret Service Lap top to be stolen

Yep, you are the only one who thinks melodia and the brat should be living in NY at tax payers expense. Idiotic....

Roger Amick said...

http://billmoyers.com/story/dont-act-now-fascism-will-doorstep-says-yale-historian/

Roger Amick said...

How close is President Donald Trump to following the path blazed by last century’s tyrants? Could American democracy be replaced with totalitarian rule? There’s enough resemblance that Yale historian Timothy Snyder, who studies fascist and communist regime change and totalitarian rule, has written a book warning about the threat and offering lessons for resistance and survival. The author of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century talked to AlterNet’s Steven Rosenfeld.

Steven Rosenfeld: Three weeks ago, you said that the country has perhaps a year “to defend American democracy.” You said what happens in the next few weeks is crucial. Are you more concerned than ever that our political culture and institutions are evolving toward fascism, resembling key aspects of the early 20th-century European regimes you’ve studied?

Timothy Snyder: Let me answer you in three parts. The first thing is that the 20 lessons that I wrote, I wrote on Nov. 15. The book, On Tyranny, was done by Christmas. Which means if people read it now, and people are reading it, and it’s describing the world they are in, that means I’ve successfully made predictions based on history. We’re going to talk about what is going to come, but I want to point out that timeline — it was basically completely blind. But the book does describe what is going on now.

wphamilton said...

It seems to me that these rulings, aside from their lack of basis in established law, are based on the non-sequitur of conflating "reacting to" with "discriminating against".

Roger Amick said...

The year figure is there because we have to recognize that things move fast. Nazi Germany took about a year. Hungary took about two and a half years. Poland got rid of the top-level judiciary within a year. It’s a rough historical guess, but the point is because there is an outside limit, you therefore have to act now. You have to get started early. It’s just very practical advice. It’s the meta-advice of the past: That things slip out of reach for you, psychologically very quickly and then legally almost as quickly. It’s hard for people to act when they feel other people won’t act. It’s hard for people to act when they feel like they have to break the law to do so. So it is important to get out in front before people face those psychological and legal barriers.

Am I more worried now? I realize that was your question. No, I’m exactly as worried as I was before, in November. I think that the people who inhabit the White House inhabit a different ideological world in which they would like for the United States not to be the constitutional system that it now is. I was concerned about that in November. I’m concerned about it now. Nothing that has happened since has changed the way I see things.

SR: Let’s talk about how this evolution takes place. You’ve written about how “post-truth is pre-fascism.” You talk about leaders ignoring facts, law and history. How far along this progression are we? I’m wondering where you might see things going next.

TS: That’s tough because what history does is give you a whole bunch of cases where democratic republics become authoritarian regimes; sometimes fascist regimes, sometimes communist regimes. It doesn’t give you one storyline: A, B, C, D. It gives you a bunch of clusters of A, and a bunch of clusters of C. But factuality is really important and more important than people realize, because it’s the substructure of regime change.

We think about democracy, and that’s the word that Americans love to use, democracy, and that’s how we characterize our system. But if democracy just means going to vote, it’s pretty meaningless. Russia has democracy in that sense. Most authoritarian regimes have democracy in that sense. Nazi Germany had democracy in that sense, even after the system had fundamentally changed.

Roger Amick said...

I know you will think that this is hyperbole. But if you actually read it, without closing your mind to alternative thoughts, it is frighteningly possible.

I always start out skeptical about this kind of story, but the actual historical events, and how they came about, are accurate. I think that our nation has survived longer than any other nation and will survive this, but....

Fire up the alky carp.

KD, A said...

" melodia and the brat " Opie

Who are you referring ?


I don't have a decoder ring for liberal made up BS.

KD, Winning so freaking much said...

I know you will think that this is hyperbole." Roger Krugman

Naw, just non=sence rant from the side that lost, Hillary Had it ALL< right?

C.H. Truth said...

Roger... a travel ban that is no different than any of the previous bans used by numerous other Presidents is not tyrannical. Nor is anything else this President had done so far.

By objective standards, Obama was much more tyrannical in his use of executive orders, and set new standards for being unanimously overruled in court.

The issue at hand still is simple. You don't like that he won.

KD said...

For those of you that never Visit Roger Krugman's demented child blog, here is the entire update:

The Trump Lie Of The Day - Roger Krugman
•Trump will bury Kermit and Miss Piggy and more - Roger Amadick
Trump Lies and Lise and Lies,. - Roger Krugman
•Trump Lie Debunked By Intel Committee - Roger AmADick


Unlike this blog where we actually talk about a host of issues, RK's side looks like CNN-Pac.

KD said...

You don't like that he won. " CHT

That is it in a nut shell, Hillary , in the words of Roger "Hillary Has it all" he was referring to having the ground game, the UP NUMBERED STAFF, the Superstars with in the Dem party , you know King Obama, Big Dog Bill and others , she had all the money in the world from wall street to Rodeo Drive , she had the HollyWierdo's.

She had 90 percent of the female vote locked up, because the woman were told "there is a special place in hell for those that don't vote for Hillary"

Hell, she had the DNC pimped out for her, they provided her question pre debate and she HAD the Lame Stream parroting her ever view on every subject and covering for her endlessly.

She forgot one thing, to look at an Electoral Map , to go to the states and get the vote required to WIN .

KD, Roger Krugman Hillary wins with 300 Plus said...

Roger Krugman

"The “flyover country” voters who are mostly dupes and bigots who morphed into a snarling mob that chose Trump as the GOP standard-bearer.

In the end, it's this CH. If he was a legitimate candidate, it wouldn't even be in doubt. But your party chose this pathological, anti-eerything American ass.

In the next week, the educated white suburbs are not going over to Trump, nor will any of the ethic groups who can't stand your anti-Clinnton hero. They are motivated, and are responding to Bernie and Michelle Obama, and the President. Who does Trump have to get out the vote, other than himself and Pence. Keep dreaming my friend.

It will be close in the popular vote, 5% or less. But he won't get PA, NC, NV FL, and CO in sufficient numbers to approach 270. He will come in second in Utah, so those ECV won't be on his side. His path, considering the early vote that you dismissed out of hand and the far superior get out the vote efforts across the swing states, Clinton will get more than 300 ICV.

October 30, 2016 at 8:08 PM"
But he won't get " RK
PA = Trump
NV = Hillary
FL = Trump
CO = Hillay

And yet, who got to 306, well IF you believe like Roger Krugman, Hillary won, because she did something meaningless, she had more over all votes, either she did not understand the game or just out of arrogance out of hand dismissed the rules of this game. Winning.

Roger Amick said...

"I told you so.


Hillary Clinton has mastered the art of the short and (not so) sweet jab on Twitter. On March 17, the former Democratic presidential nominee demonstrated once again how easy it is to shade President Trump's leadership without saying much at all.

The only powers he has outside those granted by the constitution, is blunt power to force congress critters to support his agenda.He does not have that power, because his credibility is at a record low, and getting worse. He is stubbornly resistance to admitting error, or see beyond his opinions. To him, he does not make mistakes. and will never admit error, because he can't. A growing number o psychologists, who are normally reluctant to discuss their beliefs in public, think he is mentally ill. The almost pathological denial of reality is dangerous and a lot of Republicans know it is true, even those who won't admit it in public.

Beyond the constitutional powers granted, the President needs to have political power to get their agenda through the congress. He's losing that punch every day. Most of those who opposed him are thinking like Clinton. "I told you so". He's squandering every bit of his clout, with hie irresponsible behavior And to make that even worse, is we may have to address North Korea and their nuclear weapons. He has said that he might give South Korea or Japan, nuclear weapons. Wold War III? With Trump in charge, O My God. no

H won in a narrow electoral college victory, unlike he claimed incorrectly. Hillary Clinton won almost three million more popular votes. He never admitted he was wrong.

He is at historical lows in population or a President since he was sworn in, and he lied about the crowd size. He never admitted he was wrong.

He said he will bring the cease deficit to zero in four years. The CBO report shows that it will It will remain on the same path. . He never admitted he was wrong.

He said that 'I will not cut your Social Security and Medicare and Medicade.
He never admitted he was wrong.

The most ridiculous claim that he and the White House will not admit that there was no supporting evidence on the alleged wire tapping by President Obama The entire Republican congressmen have said there is no evidence. FBI director Comey will put the final nail in the coffin. But i am going to make this prediction with complete confidence.
He never admitted he was wrong.

As the President, he represents the country in foreign relations. Every one of our allies have expressed their fear that he's not a man of his word. In the event we face a serious international problem, no one is going to trust him. He will put the nation at a risk that may be as bad as the Axis. North Korea is going to be a huge problem unless China steps in, and they have avoided that for the last ten years or more.
He never admitted he was wrong.

I really don't understand why our host remains in support ot Trump, no matter what. His self proclaimed cold hearted truth in pursuit of the real truth Instead he's in the same space Trump is. What he believes is the absolute truth, no matter what evidence proves ir is not correct. It reminds me of the Catholic Church, when Galileo said the earth was not the center of the universe. Nothing could be right about what the Church of Trump says here.

I don't think that VP Pence will use the 25th amendment, but it's far more possible with each day of irrational behavior of the President. We can push our congressmen and senators to consider impeachment for incompetence.

James said...

Just saw that Trump's approval rating has now dipped to 37%.

James said...

and that was with 58% disapproval

Roger Amick said...

TRUMP APPROVAL
37% -3%

Real unemployment U6 9.2%

Credibility Given his behavior in the short time in office?

Not polled. But it can't be high, because only of those like someone here, is it above ground. I suspect that you would need a Caterpillar to find any. Dig deep.

Roger Amick said...

If we had a parliamentary system, a vote of no confidence might lead to another election.

Roger Amick said...

According to CNN’s Jeff Zeleny, Trump got furious reading a Breitbart report that regurgitated a theory by conservative radio host Mark Levin that Barack Obama and his allies had staged a “silent coup”.

It is surpassingly strange that the president would not simply pick up the phone and call his intelligence chiefs before spitting out an inflammatory accusation with no proof, just as it was bizarre that Trump shrugged off the regular intelligence briefings after he was elected. He preferred living in his own warped world.
Sean Spicer offered a shaky Jenga tower of media citations to back up the president, including the contention of Fox’s Judge Andrew Napolitano that Obama had used GCHQ, a British intelligence agency, to spy on Trump. In a rare public statement, the GCHQ called the claim “utterly ridiculous”.

Fox News also demurred, with anchor Shepard Smith saying it “knows of no evidence of any kind that the now president of the United States was surveilled at any time, in any way. Full stop.”

Even Devin Nunes, chairman of the house intelligence committee, gave up the Sisyphean effort of defending Trump’s tripe. He said that if you took Trump’s remarks “literally” – as we expect to do with our commander-in-chief’s words – “clearly the president was wrong”.


He is not growing into the job.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/maureen-dowd-instead-of-growing-up-in-office-trump-is-regressing-1.3016375

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
TRUMP APPROVAL
37% -3%

Real unemployment U6 9.2%
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ah, yes. we have arrived at the place where after 8 loooooooooong years of flatly ignoring the BLS U-6 number, it suddenly, miraculously, has meaning once again.

rrb said...




"It seems finally to be penetrating the minds of his more perfervid enemies that Trump will serve his term, and the hope for a quick destruction of his presidency by inciting the country, through their nasty parrots in the media, to believe that it had inadvertently, and through shabby manipulation of the electoral system with the collusion of the Kremlin, had foisted upon it government by Frankenstein, isn’t making it. Given all that has happened, the hysteria over the migrant order, the whole farrago of Russian nonsense, and this de-escalation has been another heavy defeat for Trump’s enemies. He has been facing a media that is 90 percent hostile and invents more news than it fairly reports...

...it has been a baptism by fire and defamation that have failed."

--Conrad Black


it appears that mr. black has your number, rog.



rrb said...


Adam Schiff‏Verified account
@RepAdamSchiff

Follow
More

Adam Schiff Retweeted Donald J. Trump

Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered. No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is called "fact".


Roger Amick said...

FBI is continuing the investigation the possible connections between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

There is no timeline on the investigation.

Still waiting on the alleged wiretapping program made by the President.

The FBI does not have any information on the alleged wiretapping.

The former President did not have the authority to order wiretapping.

We do not have any information supporting the allegations by President Trump in the tweets.

No evidence of illegal wiretapping.

If our President does not withdraw the tweets, we should ask for a criminal investigation.

President Obama did not ask British cooperation in wiretapping.

Roger Amick said...

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,

?the judicial power shall be extended to ALL cases, in law and equity"

I also read the rest of this Article III.

We aren't lawyers, but we can read and it clearly says ALL cases in law and equity. Does that mean that it can decide only the Constitutional decision on laws passed or perhaps executive orders? It's not as clear as you said

When the Constitution clearly provides checks and balances, and one branch clearly overreaches their powers...it's up to the other branches to rectify it. The concept that there is no means to stand up to the Judicial branch would be scary if taken at face value.

If this concept becomes more of an open reality, then avoidance of this sort of crisis should become part of the equation at the USSC level. It would be up to them to set aside politics, personal feelings, political correctness, and go back to the basics of constitutional and statutory law.


This stands out: "Constitution clearly provides checks and balances, and one branch clearly overreaches their powers." in the section of Article III does not limit their role to the point you see it.

We shall see, but i think you are overreaching in your interpretation because you it appears that you obviously did not read Article III


Commonsense said...

Determine who and who cannot enter the country is not a case in law and equity it is policy.

And therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court.

wphamilton said...

"Hillary Clinton has mastered the art of the short and (not so) sweet jab on Twitter." - Who really cares what Hillary tweets? Except for threatening New Yorkers with running for office again, she is completely irrelevant.

She should be grateful that she's free to enjoy her pay-offs and accept that there's no going back to that well for her.

wphamilton said...

"The FBI does not have any information on the alleged wiretapping."

I have the feeling that Comey was parsing his words carefully, and he didn't actually say this. He said that the Trump Tower was not wiretapped, as far as he knew.

Yet residents and officials of the Trump Tower were under various forms of surveillance. Including, potentially, wiretapping.