It is disheartening to play the part of the parent with a undisciplined child who after being put to bed is the focus of what to do with Donald. "He is a bully, who is not taking responsibility for his destructive behavior, he shows no empathy or sympathy or even simple caring for anything outside what might enrich himself. I think we need to have him see a counselor, and or a psychologist or psychiatrist, what do you think?"
23
Trump behaves like a spoiled child when he does not get his way. He doesn't understand our system of checks and balances either.
His behavior toward the courts(and anyone who disagrees with him) is deplorable and evil.
His behavior toward the courts(and anyone who disagrees with him) is deplorable and evil.
18
If the Supreme Court, with Gorsuch as a member, rules that this ban is in fact unreviewable then possibly the Department of Homeland Security can establish a quasi-judicial administrative hearing so as to facilitate more restrictions from the Leader. Maybe we should even call this the special or folk court in that we will be protecting True Americans from the deprivations of the hordes who the Leader is keeping away from our shores.
I do hope that the irony here is not invisible.
I do hope that the irony here is not invisible.
4
many commenter say the President is dumb, or that he suffers from one or more emotional or psychological problems. I don't know - it seems to me he is mainly single-minded, focusing on what is good for himself and his family, up to and including appealing exclusively to his narrow base of supporters for adulation and continuing support. He has made little effort (disclosure :none) to reach out to anyone else. He's a lifelong autocrat and seems startlingly selfish. Personally, I think he's an awful person, but neither stupid nor crazy, just a Republican who can more easily get away with it.
10
When Trump conducted an Apprentice - type show to introduce Gorsuch last week, it was obvious that Trump was telling Gorsuch how to rule on cases when Trump compared him to Scalia around a half dozen times. It made liberals like me shudder, but with Gorsuch standing up to Trump even before he's confirmed maybe there's a flicker of hope that he'll be a moderate and maybe even a swing voter like Kennedy on the court. The guy has the credentials but the last thing this country needs is a Trump lap dog on the Supreme Court.
9
even the most docile dog will bite your you scare it enough.
4
The belief in the courts seems wildly fantastic. The Courts of Inquisition and the courts of Nazi Germany come to mind. Salem was not that long ago and had not the Rosenbergs been distinctly the other they no doubt have died of natural causes. The courts not only echo the society they amplify the anger and fury.
2
Trump has no credibility whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Three weeks into his presidency (so-called), and his outbursts have already rendered him as insignificant, if as annoying, as a gnat on a ball field. Are we really stuck with him for four years? The rest of the world surely isn't. One by one, watch as our allies walk away. Lucky them.
23
I must STRONGLY protest your statement that "Mr. Trump — who has a toddler’s aversion to the word “no” "! My grand daughter who is now 10 never had any aversion to the word " no" from either me or my wife or from her parent ever since she passed the age of three. Ditto for our grandson who is going to be six in April. I am sure there are many many more toddlers who behave like them.
So please, please, do not lump all the toddlers in the same group as Putin's so-called president who thinks he is an emperor! After all today's toddlers are tomorrow's inheritors of our country, long after the so-called president is gone!
So please, please, do not lump all the toddlers in the same group as Putin's so-called president who thinks he is an emperor! After all today's toddlers are tomorrow's inheritors of our country, long after the so-called president is gone!
11
Trump's reasoning is quite logical. He implicitly and often explicitly asserts that when the electorate voted for him they knew what they were going to get. He didn't keep that a secret. In his mind, the people of the United States endorsed someone who spoke like a king and asked for regal powers. The people cheered! And now we have a king. In electing a man who would be king, it seems logical to the "president" that he can now assume a majestic standing and, of course, dictatorial powers. Trump reasons that our constitutional government, with all its weakening checks and balances, was overthrown at the behest of the voters in November. As a result, he feels that the courts should no longer have constitutional standing and a window-dressing congress is simply to be intimidated into submission. Alone, a heroic man takes control, and moves the country onward. That is the situation that we need to address.
16
I pose the following question to advocates of Trump's EO because it will "make us safer from terrorism:"
All of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 that have any connection to ISIS or other foreign terrorist group have been carried out by American citizens who became radicalized (except for one of the two San Bernadino terrorists)
So how is preventing foreigners from these particular countries from entering the U.S. going to stop young U.S. citizens from becoming radicalized and carrying out domestic terrorism?
All of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 that have any connection to ISIS or other foreign terrorist group have been carried out by American citizens who became radicalized (except for one of the two San Bernadino terrorists)
So how is preventing foreigners from these particular countries from entering the U.S. going to stop young U.S. citizens from becoming radicalized and carrying out domestic terrorism?
5
one might argue some Americans could be protected from being radicalized by immigrant imams and rabble-rousers, but it would be a weak argument.
Mainly this is all about establishing Trump's power and independence and throwing some red meat to the base in upholding the campaign promise to ban Muslims that proved so appealing to gullible voters. Think Reagan and the air traffic controllers, or a pirate immediately killing a hostage on a ship hijacked on the high sea. Throw a little fe a r in 'em to insure later compliance.
Mainly this is all about establishing Trump's power and independence and throwing some red meat to the base in upholding the campaign promise to ban Muslims that proved so appealing to gullible voters. Think Reagan and the air traffic controllers, or a pirate immediately killing a hostage on a ship hijacked on the high sea. Throw a little fe a r in 'em to insure later compliance.
1
Farce: "A comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations." All that's lacking is the horseplay, as far as I know.
But, actually, this all seems more like a tragedy ("a drama in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances") if one conceives of the main character as these United States of America....or the Congressional Republicans.
But, actually, this all seems more like a tragedy ("a drama in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances") if one conceives of the main character as these United States of America....or the Congressional Republicans.
4
All of us now been have been exposed to the character of this 'so-called President'...his impetuous ramblings exhibit the character of a six-grader...abusive, vindictive, self serving.. I cannot find any more words to describe how incompetent President Trump is, and will continue to be.
I wonder if it is time to ignore this person and focus on critical issues that Congress and the Judiciary have to deal with, instead.
I wonder if it is time to ignore this person and focus on critical issues that Congress and the Judiciary have to deal with, instead.
10
with the Grand old Party in charge and Pence in the wings, Trump probably feels very safe.
7
"And the south shall rise again"'. No thanks.
5
Give him enough rope and he will hang himself.
9
In response to Douglas Rosier: when will he hang himself?? How much "rope" is enough rope. I just can't imagine 4 long years with this brainless goon in charge. I'm exhausted now just watching the news, which I used to enjoy, by the way. He's even managed to kill that!
2
Winston Churchill said the main reason we fought World War II was for the rule of law, something Hilter and his ilk, then and now, disdain. The toddler in the White House should do a lot more reading and a lot less TV viewing and tweeting.
12
The,"Quiet Grandeur of the Courts."? Please, they get it wrong about as often as they get it right. They have filled the jails with African Americans, and they are ridiculously political under the guise, let's call it myth, of impartiality. The deserve plenty of criticism, and it should be unrelenting.
2
It's been a long time since lawyers as a class have been portrayed as heroes. Expect full advantage to be taken of this rare opportunity by members of the bar. Never has tedious attention to complexity and nuance been more favorably received. Whatever else one may think of Donald Trump, he has performed a public service in forcing American society to undertake a timely exploration of its long ignored and often hidden premises.
8
In simply demanding that the courts "do the right thing" it's apparent that Trump has no idea what that means beyond simply everyone--citizens, legislature, courts--follow his writ, no questions asked. Simply because he says so.
Is there any truer sign of the narcissism of dictatorial tendencies?
The only thing shabbier than that is the congressional GOP, apparently more afraid of a narcissist's tweets than the continuity of law and good governance in our constitutional democracy. For all their faux patriotism and flag-waving, the true colors of the GOP are showing clearer and more distinctively every passing day.
Is there any truer sign of the narcissism of dictatorial tendencies?
The only thing shabbier than that is the congressional GOP, apparently more afraid of a narcissist's tweets than the continuity of law and good governance in our constitutional democracy. For all their faux patriotism and flag-waving, the true colors of the GOP are showing clearer and more distinctively every passing day.
16
As with many people who enter government with limited experience in how it operates, but with "business" background, they have trouble accepting that they cannot just utter a command and it happens.
10
The level of Trump's lack of understanding of, or appreciation for, the mechanics of democracy is staggering. He seems utterly incapable of connecting the dots between a system of government with established rules and procedures, sometimes ponderously deliberate, and a reasonably well ordered, prosperous and stable society. Does he honestly believe all of this was build on the whims of adolescent megalomaniacs with ADD like himself?
It was built by hard-working, smart, decent people. Something, it is becoming increasingly obvious, Trump knows absolutely nothing about.
It was built by hard-working, smart, decent people. Something, it is becoming increasingly obvious, Trump knows absolutely nothing about.
11
Everything so called President Trump knows about governing he learned in kindergarten; namely the three B's: bully, brag and bluster. None of these require any intellect.
6
Too many Americans are too lazy, too stupid and/or too full of themselves to appreciate that getting to (or close to) the truth of legal, political, scientific or other matters is complicated and not black and white. Unfortunately Donald Trump appears to be one of them. What's worse is that as President, he encourages such non-thinking with his inane tweeting and other ignorant or down right false utterings. (Of course, these same Americans are too lazy or too stupid to realize what a dufus we have for a President.)
15
45 has had over 3,500 actions in federal and state court, which was covered by USAtoday. I question the honesty of his assertions about our courts, the inside of which he's seen plenty of times. But as many of us know, the facts don't appear to be a burden to his reality.
10
Why is he still president if he doesn't believe in our Constitution and our rule of law?
15
it only been three weeks. he wont last long.
$$$
1
I have been a govt. lawyer for 30 years. I have never been so proud.
Only a person in power, who is so profoundly dismissive regarding the function of law, and clueless as to the separation of powers, could have provided the foil against which only the most ignorant can fail to see the profound value, and necessity, of a nation that is ruled by laws, not by men.
Only a person in power, who is so profoundly dismissive regarding the function of law, and clueless as to the separation of powers, could have provided the foil against which only the most ignorant can fail to see the profound value, and necessity, of a nation that is ruled by laws, not by men.
22
The orange one's recent comments on judges and judicial proceedings clearly demonstrates that he is not satisfied with being elected president, he wants to appoint himself Emperor, unreviewable of course.
19
And when the court upholds the restrictions?
The Trump Admin will Appeal.
Did you mean to say then the states will file for another stay on a new pretext?
It's my understanding that this is headed to the Supreme Court eitber way.
As a lawyer who has appeared in state and federal courts across the country, I am grateful for this editorial. The judiciary has neither the power of the purse nor an army (the U.S. Marshalls aside); it relies on the consent of the citizenry and its moral authority. To attack it as Trump has done is an attack on the rule of law.
33
The fact of the matter is that we and Congress have created a structure where the President has the power to unilaterally damage the United States and the lives of millions around the world for no good reason, without consulting anyone with any sense. I don't envy the courts having to rule either way on this dilemma.
4
@Ron
That's why we call 'voting' a sacred duty. It's not to be taken lightly, precisely because of your comment. The Executive IS a powerful office of public power.
If things were as easy as Trump imagines them, we would've long ago solved the nation's and the world's problems. Sadly, the fact that we haven't simply attests to the unbelievable hubris and Gorgon-sized ego of the current pr*sident, to imagine, after a lifetime of living on the public dole of multiple bankruptcies, that he and he alone knows everything about everything better than anyone.
That's why we call 'voting' a sacred duty. It's not to be taken lightly, precisely because of your comment. The Executive IS a powerful office of public power.
If things were as easy as Trump imagines them, we would've long ago solved the nation's and the world's problems. Sadly, the fact that we haven't simply attests to the unbelievable hubris and Gorgon-sized ego of the current pr*sident, to imagine, after a lifetime of living on the public dole of multiple bankruptcies, that he and he alone knows everything about everything better than anyone.
4
Please! Impeach that imbecile! Our flag is in tatters.
19
Thank god for the foresight of our forefathers in framing the Constitution. Checks and balances will hopefully insert some sanity in place of Mr. Trumps insane and inane Tweets!
8
Thank God for our judiciary!
12
The assumption that trump is going to adhere to the US Constitution is a false one. he has no intent of doing that, and a sizable number of his followers are agreeable to him taking down all the institutions that have served this nation so well, if imperfectly, throughout its history. Reading through these comments, one comes across the occasional trump supporter, who cries out, "Bring it (a Constitutional crisis) on!" These people care not a whit for facts, honesty, discussion, or anything but their own self-centered sense of being deprived - trump was able to recognize and tap into that poisonous vein to the detriment of our country.
18
In matters of national security, judges may literally decide whether the Constitution is a “living” document for Americans.
4
I agree Ed! They will decide if this is legally an impermissible ban directed at Muslims. Thus, to some degree their decision may serve as a bulwark against the alienation and radicalization that ISIS tries to inflame in young Muslim-Americans. It may prevent them from going down the same path of those Americans who became radicalized and actually carried out terrorist attacks in the U.S.
That's what you meant too, right?
That's what you meant too, right?
1
Mr Trump has somehow managed to avoid the checks all people face in life. Even the relatively wealthy from whom he comes have to meet certain standards of behavior or they are held to account.
The President has been allowed to perpetrate the fraud that he is a successful businessman for decades in spite of the fact that every "big" deal he has ever made was never completed as it was supposed to be from the start. I'm not referring to the normal design and build changes in building I mean the deal itself had to be changed because he did not or would not live up to his part in it.
His ability to make money is securely rested in his ability to game the rules and laws of tax, banking and business to the point that those foolish enough to sign contracts with him have to pay him to get disentangled from him.
This man is in the Whitehouse and it seems he intends to be just like Mr Erdogan in Turkey whom has by similar methods dismantled much of their democratic system.
It is funny to me that he is considering making the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group as he is just as they did in Egypt acting like winning the election gave him the power to do as he pleases rather than be the leader of an existing system in which his authority is limited that will still be there when he is gone 4 or 8 years down the road.
The President has been allowed to perpetrate the fraud that he is a successful businessman for decades in spite of the fact that every "big" deal he has ever made was never completed as it was supposed to be from the start. I'm not referring to the normal design and build changes in building I mean the deal itself had to be changed because he did not or would not live up to his part in it.
His ability to make money is securely rested in his ability to game the rules and laws of tax, banking and business to the point that those foolish enough to sign contracts with him have to pay him to get disentangled from him.
This man is in the Whitehouse and it seems he intends to be just like Mr Erdogan in Turkey whom has by similar methods dismantled much of their democratic system.
It is funny to me that he is considering making the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group as he is just as they did in Egypt acting like winning the election gave him the power to do as he pleases rather than be the leader of an existing system in which his authority is limited that will still be there when he is gone 4 or 8 years down the road.
8
Yes you are right. In the event he continues with this type of behavior. I truly believe he will not complete his first term.
5
The best response to out so-called President would be laughter. That would gey under his skin bore than anything else.
7
If you really want to see his tiny ego addled brain explode, use the phrase "president Bannon" as often as you can.
3
The enormous power of an emergency restraining order invested in each of several thousand Federal District Court judges to instantly shut down a presidential order in its entirity effecting all 50 states is anything but "quiet grandure".
It is a tribute to the juidicary that only one judge of thousands went balistic like Trump is wont to do while the rest either held their fire or restrained only a few carefully targeted features in order to protect the innocent.
So no, sweeping Federal restraining orders are not quiet nor to be admired when used for revenge to club a president who has castigated judges and about everybody else i might add.
Trump's behavior will eventually take him down without judges being required to act disproportionately which is what i would call the epitome of "Quiet Grandure".
"Surtout, pas trop de zel", Talleyrand's advice on diplomacy rings loud in my ears as i watch these recent events.
It is a tribute to the juidicary that only one judge of thousands went balistic like Trump is wont to do while the rest either held their fire or restrained only a few carefully targeted features in order to protect the innocent.
So no, sweeping Federal restraining orders are not quiet nor to be admired when used for revenge to club a president who has castigated judges and about everybody else i might add.
Trump's behavior will eventually take him down without judges being required to act disproportionately which is what i would call the epitome of "Quiet Grandure".
"Surtout, pas trop de zel", Talleyrand's advice on diplomacy rings loud in my ears as i watch these recent events.
2
Your hyperbolic post doe snot show the evidence of the false assertion it is based on. Namely you do not provide the evidence of the alleged political motives of the Judge whom is a Conservative Republican.
5
Not every district court judge was asked to rule on the ill thought out sweeping Federal restraining EO.
And, while you are sure of the of district court judge's motive, the Appellate Court needs a little more time.
And, while you are sure of the of district court judge's motive, the Appellate Court needs a little more time.
4
In making the order nation wide, the judge relied on a similar nationwide order by a federal judge in Texas stopping an executive order by President Obama related to immigration. I didn't hear any right wing zealots complain about that one.
2
It's comforting to know that there some adults, somewhere, ready and possibly willing to reign in the runaway "enfant terrible" that is our president. We are going to have to rely on the judiciary like never before in the coming years. The Democrats are unable to help, being too weakened and outflanked by a Republican party that has drunk the Kool-Aid and double-downed on a suicide pact with the walking, bleating tragedy that is Donald Trump.
We're better than this.
We're better than this.
14
Thank you for your spot on reprisal of Trump's public comments and of his direct attempt to intimidate a judge BEFORE a decision has even been rendered .
We must be vigilant and strong as what he is trying to do is to " wear us down " into submission .
We must be vigilant and strong as what he is trying to do is to " wear us down " into submission .
4
Mr. Trump has never before in his life had to answer to anyone other than himself. Accepting responsibility for his actions is...amazingly, as he's 70 years old...apparently an entirely new experience for him. What on earth did he expect? Did he never observe how previous presidents ran into obstruction and disagreement, and how they dealt with it? I believe, more likely, he never actually expected to win, and thus to have to govern. He simply has no idea how it's done.
11
So all it took for the NY Times to find the Courts Grand was for them to defy President Trump! I guess they've gotten over Bush v Gore when the Times thought the courts anything but Grand. The editorial board of the Times exists merely to provide facile ideological positions for the weak minded to agree with.
I would think "the courts" might suffer whiplash from following the Times variable opinions. As usual the best predictor of the Times opinion is whose ox is getting gored!
I would think "the courts" might suffer whiplash from following the Times variable opinions. As usual the best predictor of the Times opinion is whose ox is getting gored!
6
@Steve W from Ford
That's only true if you live in a world where everything is either Black or White, and nothing in between. And with no one able to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time.
In the real world, criticism is seen as critical; the moment when an idea or opinion is tested more thoroughly than those who simply demand obedience, to find it either with merit, or lacking merit. We're all stronger and wiser for the effort.
After all, nothing is learned if mistakes are never made, right?
That's only true if you live in a world where everything is either Black or White, and nothing in between. And with no one able to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time.
In the real world, criticism is seen as critical; the moment when an idea or opinion is tested more thoroughly than those who simply demand obedience, to find it either with merit, or lacking merit. We're all stronger and wiser for the effort.
After all, nothing is learned if mistakes are never made, right?
1
The rule of law and defying (so called) president Trump are two different things.
2
Dear Mr. President,
I know you want to pass the blame to the court system for any future terrorist attacks because they struck down your executive order. You should know however that most Americans will rightly hold you accountable for failing to really collect the "best people" around you who could write an executive order that is consistent with the constitution you vowed to uphold and that could withstand a challenge in the Judicial branch of our government for more than a few days.
We didn't ask you to run for the Presidency. You wanted to be our President. We remember the words Harry Truman said while sitting in the office you are in now... "The buck stops here". You are responsible Mr. President for the safety of all Americans and at the same time you are responsible for acting within the system that has served millions and millions of Americans well for 170 years before you were even born.
I know you want to pass the blame to the court system for any future terrorist attacks because they struck down your executive order. You should know however that most Americans will rightly hold you accountable for failing to really collect the "best people" around you who could write an executive order that is consistent with the constitution you vowed to uphold and that could withstand a challenge in the Judicial branch of our government for more than a few days.
We didn't ask you to run for the Presidency. You wanted to be our President. We remember the words Harry Truman said while sitting in the office you are in now... "The buck stops here". You are responsible Mr. President for the safety of all Americans and at the same time you are responsible for acting within the system that has served millions and millions of Americans well for 170 years before you were even born.
12
He had to go to Mar-a-Lago the other day just to get away from the protesters;
Melania isn’t living at the White House;
His tweets are growing crazier by the day, and he’s putting out more and more of them;
Nobody at State or Defense seems to know what’s going on at the White House, so they are making up policies of their own;
He’s still insulting judges;
He’s got a nutty alt-righter and KellyAnne Conway scaring the bejesus out of people all over the world;
He’s believes Frederick Douglas is still alive and well and accomplishing amazing things;
The people at Google, Amazon, IBM, Carrier and Harley Davidson don’t really want to have anything to do with him;
He loves Hollywood, and Hollywood can’t stand him;
Nobody is buying Ivanka’s handbags anymore.
Everybody who knows a lawyer is suing him;
His poll ratings are in the toilet;
He still can’t get over the fact that he won the election but more people voted for Hillary;
Pence keeps going into the Oval Office to try out his chair;
He misses being on Celebrity Apprentice where his ratings were much better.
Soon his crack-up will be complete and visible in all of its bleak manifestations;
Things could hardly be much better.
I like the way this is going.
Melania isn’t living at the White House;
His tweets are growing crazier by the day, and he’s putting out more and more of them;
Nobody at State or Defense seems to know what’s going on at the White House, so they are making up policies of their own;
He’s still insulting judges;
He’s got a nutty alt-righter and KellyAnne Conway scaring the bejesus out of people all over the world;
He’s believes Frederick Douglas is still alive and well and accomplishing amazing things;
The people at Google, Amazon, IBM, Carrier and Harley Davidson don’t really want to have anything to do with him;
He loves Hollywood, and Hollywood can’t stand him;
Nobody is buying Ivanka’s handbags anymore.
Everybody who knows a lawyer is suing him;
His poll ratings are in the toilet;
He still can’t get over the fact that he won the election but more people voted for Hillary;
Pence keeps going into the Oval Office to try out his chair;
He misses being on Celebrity Apprentice where his ratings were much better.
Soon his crack-up will be complete and visible in all of its bleak manifestations;
Things could hardly be much better.
I like the way this is going.
18
Don't forget to mention "President Bannon" that really gets under his orange skin.
6
Donald Trump has the attention span of a gnat, and I realize I am insulting gnats.
He wonders why the legal process is "taking so long." Considering his thought process consists mostly of shoot-from-the-hip pronouncements on Twitter, it must seem glacially slow.
He's a disruptor all right. But it's easy to shake up things when you have no conception of how they work, and no concern whatsoever how people will be affected. Just as long as he and his family are not affected. To the 40% who voted him into office: are you happy now? Or will it take our democracy to come crashing down on your heads before your realize the folly of your being taken in by this con man.
He wonders why the legal process is "taking so long." Considering his thought process consists mostly of shoot-from-the-hip pronouncements on Twitter, it must seem glacially slow.
He's a disruptor all right. But it's easy to shake up things when you have no conception of how they work, and no concern whatsoever how people will be affected. Just as long as he and his family are not affected. To the 40% who voted him into office: are you happy now? Or will it take our democracy to come crashing down on your heads before your realize the folly of your being taken in by this con man.
9
No more "Good Morning America" --it's more like "Good God America, what have you done?!" After a night out on a mind-numbing bender America is is waking to see who they've bedded. The 'Morning After President'. There is no over-the-counter morning after pill. Head spinning, nausea --take two aspirins and call me in the morning. But morning after morning, it just keeps getting worse. Chronic morning sickness exacerbated by the news. OK, America, you made your bed now you must lie in it. But the "lie" part -surely the punishment should have to fit the crime? Thank God for the courts!
To paraphrase our worst fears.. First they came for the media but the tweets and outrages were so entertaining we did nothing. Then they came for the immigrants. And we being second, third, fifth generation did nothing. Then they came for the Native Americans and built a pipeline over them. Then they took away winter and took the names of Climate Change proponents. And we did nothing because we have thermostats after all. And then they told us they would take away poor and middle class health care and public schools and give them to their friends. But we were covered by employer insurance and our kids were in good schools we thought so we did nothing. And then they came for our courts but my spouse isn't pregnant again or LGBT so we did nothing. And then they came for us and there was no one to stand up for us because nobody was left who cared any more. Not even us
To paraphrase our worst fears.. First they came for the media but the tweets and outrages were so entertaining we did nothing. Then they came for the immigrants. And we being second, third, fifth generation did nothing. Then they came for the Native Americans and built a pipeline over them. Then they took away winter and took the names of Climate Change proponents. And we did nothing because we have thermostats after all. And then they told us they would take away poor and middle class health care and public schools and give them to their friends. But we were covered by employer insurance and our kids were in good schools we thought so we did nothing. And then they came for our courts but my spouse isn't pregnant again or LGBT so we did nothing. And then they came for us and there was no one to stand up for us because nobody was left who cared any more. Not even us
8
Sorry NYT, but I heard more subtle and sophisticated legal arguments from the gifted students participating in Stuyvesant H.S.moot court, than in the televised 'telephone' hearing event.
I would match those teenagers against the appellate judges and/or the plaintiff attorney any day of the week.
I would match those teenagers against the appellate judges and/or the plaintiff attorney any day of the week.
3
But at least they were presenting civilized arguments like adults within a fair system! The point is that the whole process is one that befits our democracy. Its quality is a rebuke to the petit dictator.
3
"Oral arguments on the president’s travel ban reminded America what the rule of law looks like."
Unfortunately this is not true, most American's have little to no understanding of "the rule of law". Neither the what or the why of it, they do not know nor are they interested in the history that our system of justice is derived from.
Unfortunately this is not true, most American's have little to no understanding of "the rule of law". Neither the what or the why of it, they do not know nor are they interested in the history that our system of justice is derived from.
Right-wing nuts used to rail against putting fluoride in drinking water. They claimed it was a part of a Russian plot to undermine American health, weaken American will, and diminish American resistance to Russian expansionism. Well, given how many of them voted for the Russian patsy, Donald Trump, maybe they were right after all.
7
it's truly tragic that the republican-controlled House of Representatives and republican-controlled Senate will never impeach and convict Donald Trump. Every check and balance that the founders envisioned is failing. Only the courts are left. I never thought I'd see this.
5
If we have three equal branches, and Congress can criticize the President and his administration, as many Congresses have, so can the President criticize Congress, and therefore also the judiciary.
Is the judiciary more equal than the other two branches?
We also have a precedent, which seemed to bother only Republican. Here is the NYT"s Adam Liptak:
"It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.
President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer.
President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.
Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him."
I guess it all depends on whose ox is gored.
Is the judiciary more equal than the other two branches?
We also have a precedent, which seemed to bother only Republican. Here is the NYT"s Adam Liptak:
"It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.
President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer.
President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.
Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him."
I guess it all depends on whose ox is gored.
2
The difference here is that the examples you cite are of prior presidents respectfully voicing their disappointments over individual decisions rendered by a court. President Trump doesn't have a decision yet (and may or may not be happy with it when he does). Instead, he called the court itself "disgraceful" for doing what it was appointed, Senate-confirmed and sworn to do--considering the Justice Department's appeal of the trial court's decision against his executive order in light of the Constitution and applicable law. It is that disdain for the institution--a co-equal branch government set up by the framers of our Constitution to balance and check otherwise unfettered power--that so many of us, both Democrat and Republican, find appalling.
4
Repeat after me. "With all do deference", then compare that with "a mexican judge" and "a so-called judge" and his own SCOTUS nominee saying that his remarks are harmful to the judicial system and get back to me.
2
Hamilton's, getting back to you: none of this is relevant. Due deference matters not a whit. What matters is whether a President, not THIS president, has the power to set policy in this area and subject to what constraints, if any, and not motive, or intelligence or decision making prowess or hair color or size of hands or the number of liberals stomping their feet.
1
As President, Mr. Trump should respect the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. The natural childlike impulsive dictator in him is having a difficult time psychologically coping with his status of being subservient to his erstwhile "subjects". The courts will drive him insane until he takes the blindfold off of Blind Justice and gags her with it. Next he will rid Americans of the free press by attacking the First Amendment. Next up is the Second Amendment protection the Founders placed in the Constitution - then Civil War & anarchy. Apocalyptic Bannonism will then preside as the next dysmorphic rule of law.
3
Despite some extraordinary exceptions in history, people whose responsibilities are to lead great nations and to administer courts are serious and intelligent people, they are not careless people who have no patience to do the work and to think through what they are doing. Most adults with serious responsibilities are the same. What Trump's past should reveal is that he has never cared a damn what effect his behavior has had upon others so long as he comes out okay. When he ran a complicated and highly indebted diversified company, he ran into big trouble and only because he owned huge sums, his creditors helped him work it out. After that he kept his businesses simple, did not involve any stocks traded on exchanges, and could run it like a personal business and still have time to develop a career as an entertainer. Until he ran for President, he kept things in his life easy for himself. Now he has one of the most demanding jobs in history and he's just unable to do it. We have a man who does not like nor want the job, just the celebrity of it.
84
Sooner or later the callousness of Mr. Trump will do him in and he will cross the line and he will be found to have technically committed a high crime - and a well deserve impeachment and removal from office will take place. I have no doubt that things will devolve to that. Between now and then, I believe that this man has already committed several morally odious high crimes: he has repeatedly insulted the other two branches of government, has repeatedly personally attacked and threatened individuals, has attacked and threatened private companies, has directly financially benefited from being president, and the gravest of the moral crimes he has committed: he has created and is working hard to consolidate a truly frightening rift in this country. We will remember these dark times with astonishment one day -- and they will be a cautionary tale for the ages, once our national nightmare is over.
8
Trump is a contagion and cancer attacking the body of the United States of America. It's aim is to break down our nation by strangling the freedom of the press, assaulting the independence of the judiciary, poisoning our minds by introducing hourly tweeting in a lethal and unending stream of exaggerations and trivia, and firing deadly lies into living facts.
We cannot afford many more days of this. We are on life support as a nation, and the fate our country, and indeed the world, depends on our resolve. And the true character of our people who are better, smarter and more informed than their current "president".
Our reputation, our word of honor, is now stained with shame, like the blood soaked suit of Jackie Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Yet, we, like she, must walk with dignity back into the light and rescue our nation and the world from this self-inflated wound of ignorance and arrogance.
We cannot afford many more days of this. We are on life support as a nation, and the fate our country, and indeed the world, depends on our resolve. And the true character of our people who are better, smarter and more informed than their current "president".
Our reputation, our word of honor, is now stained with shame, like the blood soaked suit of Jackie Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Yet, we, like she, must walk with dignity back into the light and rescue our nation and the world from this self-inflated wound of ignorance and arrogance.
4
The fundamental problem now before us is that we have a "president" who demonstrates daily his unwaivering enmity for all things traditionally associated with our traditional democratic values and processes. His instantaneous willingness to denigrate the judiciary is indicative of his displeasure that members of the judicial branch have a higher calling -- protecting our laws and values, preserving fairness in our society -- and cannot be stuffed into his pocket like the current Republican Congress.
The irony here is that all of the "president's" manic, anti-social behavior, including his willingness to abuse members of the judiciary (remember his rantings about the "Mexican" judge?) was on display before he was elected. Mr Trump revels in trying to one-up Peck's bad boy' -- he is not only an incorrigible rule-breaker, he revels in flaunting his incorrigibility as a symbol of his self-professed superiority ("I alone can fix this").
The problems with Trump's self-professed superiority perspective are two-fold: first, it is clear he has no plan to fix anything, let alone solve what is broken in our society -- hence the chaos. Second, he has surrounded himself with sycophants (many of his Cabinet and staff picks) who also are committed to upsetting the American applecart. These tendencies can only be seen as a preview for the huge disaster looming in America's future -- the rise of autocratic rule.
If the judiciary succumbs and loses its independence, we are doomed.
The irony here is that all of the "president's" manic, anti-social behavior, including his willingness to abuse members of the judiciary (remember his rantings about the "Mexican" judge?) was on display before he was elected. Mr Trump revels in trying to one-up Peck's bad boy' -- he is not only an incorrigible rule-breaker, he revels in flaunting his incorrigibility as a symbol of his self-professed superiority ("I alone can fix this").
The problems with Trump's self-professed superiority perspective are two-fold: first, it is clear he has no plan to fix anything, let alone solve what is broken in our society -- hence the chaos. Second, he has surrounded himself with sycophants (many of his Cabinet and staff picks) who also are committed to upsetting the American applecart. These tendencies can only be seen as a preview for the huge disaster looming in America's future -- the rise of autocratic rule.
If the judiciary succumbs and loses its independence, we are doomed.
5
There have been few Presidents who could handle the job when they were first sworn, but one thing even the most overwhelmed have done is remember that blaming others for one's own shortcomings tells everyone that they cannot handle the responsibilities, so they suffer to learn how to manage their responsibilities, privately. Trump seems to lack the self control needed to work through this difficult time and insists upon asserting that he's in control but everyone who claims otherwise are fools. It does not bode well for his future as President. On the campaign trail he was misstating or misrepresenting facts without any concern, every day, and his supporters accepted everything that he said believing that accuracy was unimportant if the agreed with what he said. Now that he's President he seems unable to grasp that when he makes decisions, people's lives are affected in such a decisive way that if he is in anyway mistaking the realities, he is going to create problems which could cost people their property, their liberty, or their lives, yet, he is no more careful now than when he was campaigning. It's leading considerate people to mistrust what he says unless it can be independently confirmed. Our policies and practices regarding Executive Actions have evolved with the presumption that the President is a serious person who accepts responsibility for what he/she does. Now we have a President who is careless about facts and seeks to blame others when he's frustrated.
2
Put a blindfold on the image of Justice.
Steven
Steven
That would suggest impartiality -- as a "blind trust" to avoid conflicts of interest. And Trump doesn't believe in those things. Justice is not blind. Its job is to look out for his financial interests.
Dear Mr. trump,
In case you haven't read theConstitution recently, or if for the first time, the gov is composed of three equal branches.
POTUS is designed to carry out the laws voted on by Congress. As the country has developed POTUS may also suggest an agenda to Congress. No where,though, does it say a president should attack a store that drops his daughter's brand of clothes. My suggestion: cut up your Nordstrom card and while you're at it, Neiman Marcus and TJMAXX because they too have dropped her line.
Also, while you may not like what Sen Blumenthal said to the press, he was quoting your nominee's reaction to your belligerent behavior about a fellow judge. Shouldn't that give you pause to think? I would hope so, but realize not...despite the Rep leadership who has rolled over, there are still some who have backbone. And Dems. Your posturing doesn't mean a thing- at least to them (and me).
While 'shaking' up Washington, all you have done is put another group of rich folks into the swamp. Most of your cabinet has no idea what their agencies do. Maybe deVos will learn the value of public education and Perry can dance while conducting meetings.
While this may be somewhat off the mark of the article, your attitude toward the other branches of gov is one of disrespect and ignorance. Maybe you should ask your sister how to treat fellow judges. Your legacy will be one of chaos, ignorance and disrespect to the US.
In case you haven't read theConstitution recently, or if for the first time, the gov is composed of three equal branches.
POTUS is designed to carry out the laws voted on by Congress. As the country has developed POTUS may also suggest an agenda to Congress. No where,though, does it say a president should attack a store that drops his daughter's brand of clothes. My suggestion: cut up your Nordstrom card and while you're at it, Neiman Marcus and TJMAXX because they too have dropped her line.
Also, while you may not like what Sen Blumenthal said to the press, he was quoting your nominee's reaction to your belligerent behavior about a fellow judge. Shouldn't that give you pause to think? I would hope so, but realize not...despite the Rep leadership who has rolled over, there are still some who have backbone. And Dems. Your posturing doesn't mean a thing- at least to them (and me).
While 'shaking' up Washington, all you have done is put another group of rich folks into the swamp. Most of your cabinet has no idea what their agencies do. Maybe deVos will learn the value of public education and Perry can dance while conducting meetings.
While this may be somewhat off the mark of the article, your attitude toward the other branches of gov is one of disrespect and ignorance. Maybe you should ask your sister how to treat fellow judges. Your legacy will be one of chaos, ignorance and disrespect to the US.
7
Actually Blumenthal was quoting what he heard from someone who had talked to the Supreme Court nominee. The administration claims this person says he was misquoted. It entirely possible that Blumenthal simply lied about what he heard. He lied for years about being a Vietnam War veteran.
1
And how are those bone spurs, Mr. president?
1
Well Mr Case your report is different from mine- the article states Judge Gorsuch stated his dismay to Sen Blumenthal (with Sen Aguirre concurring about the statement).
While you are correct about Sen Blunenthal's Vietnam experience, the veracity of the trump campaign and presidency (so far) leaves one wondering if this man even knows truth from reality.
While you are correct about Sen Blunenthal's Vietnam experience, the veracity of the trump campaign and presidency (so far) leaves one wondering if this man even knows truth from reality.
1
The NY Times goes a bit overboard here.
The efficacy of rule of law via a vis credible representation is greatly dependent on one’s financial means; throngs of Americans are thwarted in their ability to find legal redress because they simply can not afford to take overly complex, convoluted, and staggeringly expensive legal action.
That aside, this offensive fiasco over the Trump EO imposing an immigration hiatus for the sake of supposedly reevaluating and bucking up the vetting of those seeking entry into the US from terrorist infected nations was mostly politically motivated and shoddy theater — a way for Trump to flex his presidential muscle right out of the blocks. National Security necessity and credibly addressing the terrorist threat were hardly the primary motivations in the first place.
Further, the defense of this action coming out of the DJT administration is almost entirely canned dribble.
They keep pointing to the situation in the EU where tens of thousands streamed into the European Union without viable screening or controls. They also point to the very real difficulties verifying immigrant backgrouonds in nations like Syria and Somalia where there is no credible governance or sources, pointing to this as though some fixes would be possible in these clearly impossible situations.
Current vetting works, in those impossible situations where credible information is not obtainable, the screening process pairs out those questionable individuals.
The efficacy of rule of law via a vis credible representation is greatly dependent on one’s financial means; throngs of Americans are thwarted in their ability to find legal redress because they simply can not afford to take overly complex, convoluted, and staggeringly expensive legal action.
That aside, this offensive fiasco over the Trump EO imposing an immigration hiatus for the sake of supposedly reevaluating and bucking up the vetting of those seeking entry into the US from terrorist infected nations was mostly politically motivated and shoddy theater — a way for Trump to flex his presidential muscle right out of the blocks. National Security necessity and credibly addressing the terrorist threat were hardly the primary motivations in the first place.
Further, the defense of this action coming out of the DJT administration is almost entirely canned dribble.
They keep pointing to the situation in the EU where tens of thousands streamed into the European Union without viable screening or controls. They also point to the very real difficulties verifying immigrant backgrouonds in nations like Syria and Somalia where there is no credible governance or sources, pointing to this as though some fixes would be possible in these clearly impossible situations.
Current vetting works, in those impossible situations where credible information is not obtainable, the screening process pairs out those questionable individuals.
30
Judges in the UK were recently dubbed 'enemies of the people' by a leading tabloid newspaper when they insisted, on almost unarguable grounds, that only Parliament, and not a referendum, had the legal authority to revoke existing legislation and trigger Brexit negotiations. Other newspapers made spurious assertions as to their bias. Theresa May's government said nothing in response to these attack failing to stand up for the rule of law.
Orwellian talk of the 'will of the people' now resonates on both sides of the Atlantic as key people in public life demonstrate either a lack of knowledge of, or a disturbing readiness to ignore, core principles of parliamentary democracies.
In the face of this, both in the US and the UK, one of the most heartening developments of recent months has been the steadfastness of the judiciary in holding on to these core principles.
Orwellian talk of the 'will of the people' now resonates on both sides of the Atlantic as key people in public life demonstrate either a lack of knowledge of, or a disturbing readiness to ignore, core principles of parliamentary democracies.
In the face of this, both in the US and the UK, one of the most heartening developments of recent months has been the steadfastness of the judiciary in holding on to these core principles.
50
Has anybody determined, as yet, if Donald Trump is a Huckster, or is he our President? I truly believe "huckster" is the more fitting. I AM EMBARRASSED, America! I spent more than 20 years in our military service, and I do not reveal that unless asked specifically. Trump is supposed to be our "Commander in Chief". Believe me, he is not. Just ask any GI right now, today, how he feels...........
5
Humility, what a concept.
Good for you.
Good for you.
What if we all HAD taken what Trump was saying seriously when he was running, instead of playing the hopeful game of "when will he pivot". Wasn't he telling us that he would ban Muslims, deregulate on banks and environment, get rid of healthcare, favor Russia, and do it all while insulting everyone in sight, on a regular basis? And he won. And we see that the majority party is happy to have this agenda hammered through. And we see that the populace often favors the throughless approach. So, all that is left is justice, the press, foreigners, and the people for this fight.
What scares me with justice is that they can parse and twist the gray areas of any argument, and the decisions are so random that the next level of court is just as likely to decide the opposite, no matter who is right. What they will miss, however, is the obvious, because it won't be said. Our president is a liar and a bully, and our legislature is allowing it. We won't win in the courts at the end because the courts are too slow, and they cannot get down to the level needed to call this guy out for what he is. Once people take the collective heads out from under the covers and really look at how insane this guy and his party are acting, and stop hoping and pretending that it might come out okay, the real fighting will begin. That fight will be for the hearts and minds of the people, but I just don't think the courts will be the long run answer. They are too "smart".
What scares me with justice is that they can parse and twist the gray areas of any argument, and the decisions are so random that the next level of court is just as likely to decide the opposite, no matter who is right. What they will miss, however, is the obvious, because it won't be said. Our president is a liar and a bully, and our legislature is allowing it. We won't win in the courts at the end because the courts are too slow, and they cannot get down to the level needed to call this guy out for what he is. Once people take the collective heads out from under the covers and really look at how insane this guy and his party are acting, and stop hoping and pretending that it might come out okay, the real fighting will begin. That fight will be for the hearts and minds of the people, but I just don't think the courts will be the long run answer. They are too "smart".
2
Perhaps all of this madness will lead to a better-informed population after all! Three cheers for Trump!!!
1
Our courts, and an increasingly stronger Press, may save us yet! It doesn't look very hopeful that the GOP controlled Congress will have any part of saving our country from this tragedy of a President whose strings are pulled by the White Supremacist Bannon!
2
Shakespeare's line ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' was stated by Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73. Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he side stepped the lawyers and judges and disturbed law and order, he could become king. Well, we now see the very similar sentiment, by our very own demagogue, or our so-called president. Resist & persist, as best as you can. The truth shall win.
4
I had never heard this interpretation of Shakespeare's line. I always took it at its' most simplistic. Thank you for fleshing it out. This is why I read the NYTimes comments sections. Because of people like you. We are inundated with "pundits" who have agendas and who lie regularly, Kellyanne and Spicer and Pence, to name a few. But there are people like you who make the US a living, breathing democracy.
1
Had Miller and bannon taken half the time to design an Executive Order, that the Judges are taking to review and determine its validity and process, we may not be here today. During an interview, Miller said the Declaration of Independence did not apply to immigrants, only US citizens. If he was a kid, I say, he has a lot to learn, but he is an attorney, and for that, I was amazed.
trump doesn't understand how law works, or how a democracy works, and has a short attention span. When he signs a document, that "deal" is done, he made the decision and he is used to people simply carrying out his orders. To have a judicial system publicly thwart his order is anathema to him. His style historically is to sue people into submission - here he hopes to intimidate the judges into deciding in his favor; and they may.
If the judges do decide in his favor, he will believe he succeeded by bully-tweeting and speaking out against the system. Then he will start speaking about how little people can stand up and win while he declares that "I fought the law and 'I' won."
trump doesn't understand how law works, or how a democracy works, and has a short attention span. When he signs a document, that "deal" is done, he made the decision and he is used to people simply carrying out his orders. To have a judicial system publicly thwart his order is anathema to him. His style historically is to sue people into submission - here he hopes to intimidate the judges into deciding in his favor; and they may.
If the judges do decide in his favor, he will believe he succeeded by bully-tweeting and speaking out against the system. Then he will start speaking about how little people can stand up and win while he declares that "I fought the law and 'I' won."
1
Most schoolchildren know the difference between the Constitution and he Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence doesn't apply to immigration. During the Fourth Circuit oral argument, the Justice Department attorney pointed out that the Constitution confers no rights to foreign nations residing outside the United States. Residents of foreign countries have no Constitutional right to immigrate to America.
If you can read French.
Interview of Etienne Balibar in Le Monde today.
Etienne Balibar : « L’universel ne rassemble pas, il divise »
Of course not what you interpret first ....
En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2017/02/09/etienne-balibar-l-univers...
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2017/02/09/etienne-balibar-l-univers...
Interview of Etienne Balibar in Le Monde today.
Etienne Balibar : « L’universel ne rassemble pas, il divise »
Of course not what you interpret first ....
En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2017/02/09/etienne-balibar-l-univers...
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2017/02/09/etienne-balibar-l-univers...
Trump will crash and burn, it's not if but when ,,,
4
I hope he takes Pence, Ryan et al down with him.
1
"No gratuitous insults, no personal threats or childish tantrum...It was the sound of grown-ups taking responsibility for governing the country, and for people’s lives."
Politics USA--separation of powers, checks and balances--is a blend of "free marketing" to the masses for votes [free from law and logic] and dialectical discourse--idea, logical interpretation and critique, better idea--on and on. The goal is rational belief.
Rational belief is the best belief given the available evidence, argument and conceptual scheme. It's the essence of rules of court--courtesy--due process in civil and criminal law--as well as academic "disciplines," professions and skilled crafts. The goal is continuously better ideas; not glorification of some dogma, ancient text, or popular opinion.
Without it, raw democracy--majoritarianism--degenerates into "populism". Populism is not government FOR the people--promoting their welfare; it's government according to the prejudices, phobias and delusions of those unaccustomed to dialectical discourse--which is also the standard of personal maturity.
The scientific method is but a refinement on dialectic--institutionalized in Plato's original academy--in almost continuous existence for 900 years until shuttered by Justinian upon his conversion to Christianity. It formalizes the role of empirical data and sets standards of proof--all subject to replication and criticism. So do rules of court.
Tyrants always deride it; but the joke's on them.
Politics USA--separation of powers, checks and balances--is a blend of "free marketing" to the masses for votes [free from law and logic] and dialectical discourse--idea, logical interpretation and critique, better idea--on and on. The goal is rational belief.
Rational belief is the best belief given the available evidence, argument and conceptual scheme. It's the essence of rules of court--courtesy--due process in civil and criminal law--as well as academic "disciplines," professions and skilled crafts. The goal is continuously better ideas; not glorification of some dogma, ancient text, or popular opinion.
Without it, raw democracy--majoritarianism--degenerates into "populism". Populism is not government FOR the people--promoting their welfare; it's government according to the prejudices, phobias and delusions of those unaccustomed to dialectical discourse--which is also the standard of personal maturity.
The scientific method is but a refinement on dialectic--institutionalized in Plato's original academy--in almost continuous existence for 900 years until shuttered by Justinian upon his conversion to Christianity. It formalizes the role of empirical data and sets standards of proof--all subject to replication and criticism. So do rules of court.
Tyrants always deride it; but the joke's on them.
2
Trump is God-King he don't need no stinkin' laws. He just makes it up as he goes along. And his whimpering lapdogs in the GOP just say.."What he said..."
4
Are we ready yet to face up to the fact that someone with an easily recognizable (and in this case dangerous) pyschogenic disorder has been elected to the most powerful position in the world?
5
My greatest concern is that Trump's continued battery of the judiciary and the media will permanently undermine the American people's belief in them. They are an important part of the underpinning of our American democracy and if we lose faith in them, we lose part of our faith in our country.
49
It's kind of sad that, in this day of Scalia (yes, his nasty, sarcastic, demeaning approach to lawyers, the law, politics, and the petty, ignorant citizens of the nation lives on in Republican politics), is more aspirational, almost nostalgic, than accurate.
Everything you say rings true, and the majesty of a system that permits rapid and intense questioning of even Presidential actions is a shining light in the world, but you speak too soon.
We have to wait and see by what evil combination of public abuse, political threat, tortured twisting of law, and abandonment of precedent the Supreme Court will weigh in on the issue.
And there's still the nascent campaign to abolish the ninth circuit, one of the few remaining thorns in the side of this the fascists plotting to take over our nation.
Everything you say rings true, and the majesty of a system that permits rapid and intense questioning of even Presidential actions is a shining light in the world, but you speak too soon.
We have to wait and see by what evil combination of public abuse, political threat, tortured twisting of law, and abandonment of precedent the Supreme Court will weigh in on the issue.
And there's still the nascent campaign to abolish the ninth circuit, one of the few remaining thorns in the side of this the fascists plotting to take over our nation.
2
Two important civic lessons (in less than elegant language): 1. The judicial system operates on facts at least for now. I am not clear that the new AG will continue in this honored tradition. 2. The office of the President of the United States has broader powers than I realized because, generally (with the exception of Nixon), the person holding that office has acted in accordance with respect for the spirit of the law or, at least, concern for censure by the congress. 3. In today's White House and Republican congress all practice is based on how far one can push against any tradition (vs. laws) that has upheld the constitution
1
Many many readers and citizens both love and loathe our new President.
So at this point how do you try to make sense out of what is happening and what thought do you need to help keep your world on an even keel? This is the assessment and result. There is test and it's not just jobs.
President Trump has lived most of his life in an adversarial and contentious environment and he is carrying this load into the White House and these are driving his strident policy moves.
His posture is "drain the swamp," repeal Obamacare, get rid of 75% of the regulations, build the wall, block immigrants, ban Roe v Wade, and put down any criticism with derogatory comments and innuendo. He does not have a word bank or thought processes for presidential expression.
The man is 70 years old and has surrounded himself with a weak inside team and has made no effort or move to bring unity to over 50% of our population.
He does not see the destructive force of mocking judges and calling the media the "dishonest media" when the vast majority of these people are doing a good job at investigation and reporting. He glorifies FOX News and the GOP conservative echo chamber.
No one seems to believe that he will change his stripes which are so deep. His children or wife don't seem to guide him, and his staff are exceptionally weak as is the current GOP leadership.
Yes he won the election but he employed and continues to use protocols that are outside sustainable norms and that is the test.
So at this point how do you try to make sense out of what is happening and what thought do you need to help keep your world on an even keel? This is the assessment and result. There is test and it's not just jobs.
President Trump has lived most of his life in an adversarial and contentious environment and he is carrying this load into the White House and these are driving his strident policy moves.
His posture is "drain the swamp," repeal Obamacare, get rid of 75% of the regulations, build the wall, block immigrants, ban Roe v Wade, and put down any criticism with derogatory comments and innuendo. He does not have a word bank or thought processes for presidential expression.
The man is 70 years old and has surrounded himself with a weak inside team and has made no effort or move to bring unity to over 50% of our population.
He does not see the destructive force of mocking judges and calling the media the "dishonest media" when the vast majority of these people are doing a good job at investigation and reporting. He glorifies FOX News and the GOP conservative echo chamber.
No one seems to believe that he will change his stripes which are so deep. His children or wife don't seem to guide him, and his staff are exceptionally weak as is the current GOP leadership.
Yes he won the election but he employed and continues to use protocols that are outside sustainable norms and that is the test.
2
As to "Many many readers and citizens both love and loathe our new President:" no, almost none do.
And almost nobody loves him; he's about as unloveable as a man could be. His kids ... perhaps? Melania?
Most of Trump's supporters see very clearly that he's a narcissistic groper billionaire, 6-times bankrupt, perpetrator of the Trump University fraud -- thees aren't "bugs" to his supporters, these are "features."
Trump supporters want what they Think Trump will give tbem, but they don't love Trump ... they aren't that crazy.
And almost nobody loves him; he's about as unloveable as a man could be. His kids ... perhaps? Melania?
Most of Trump's supporters see very clearly that he's a narcissistic groper billionaire, 6-times bankrupt, perpetrator of the Trump University fraud -- thees aren't "bugs" to his supporters, these are "features."
Trump supporters want what they Think Trump will give tbem, but they don't love Trump ... they aren't that crazy.
2
Enjoy the Country's Division, Mr. President
What The President seems to want is a completely unified electorate, Congress, and Judicial system behind him. For all of our sakes, we should not want this and neither should the President.
If you reference Gallup weekly polling (available on their website) going all the way back thru Truman's tenure, you will see that the only times that Presidential approval was really high >75% and unified was in times of war - e.g., while the country was still trying to win WWII, as well as in a 'spike' to 90% after the 9/11 attacks. Basically, a country either collectively hunkered down, or in shock, trying to defeat a foreign influence.
We do not want, and President Trump should not want, to go back to Sept-Nov 2001, as he seems to want by lamenting how the public and the media are not focused enough on terror (in a unified way). He should especially not want that if he wants a growing economy - note the post 9/11 2001-2002 terror economy yielded rising unemployment. Better to hold at the current 4.9%, or go lower, then to rise to 6%, right?
It is a good thing that Americans do not feel besieged now. Enjoy the division.
What The President seems to want is a completely unified electorate, Congress, and Judicial system behind him. For all of our sakes, we should not want this and neither should the President.
If you reference Gallup weekly polling (available on their website) going all the way back thru Truman's tenure, you will see that the only times that Presidential approval was really high >75% and unified was in times of war - e.g., while the country was still trying to win WWII, as well as in a 'spike' to 90% after the 9/11 attacks. Basically, a country either collectively hunkered down, or in shock, trying to defeat a foreign influence.
We do not want, and President Trump should not want, to go back to Sept-Nov 2001, as he seems to want by lamenting how the public and the media are not focused enough on terror (in a unified way). He should especially not want that if he wants a growing economy - note the post 9/11 2001-2002 terror economy yielded rising unemployment. Better to hold at the current 4.9%, or go lower, then to rise to 6%, right?
It is a good thing that Americans do not feel besieged now. Enjoy the division.
1
"He then warned that the judge, and the entire court system, could be responsible for any future terrorist attacks that might occur"
This seems very reasonable to me. Syria and large parts of Iraq, Libya, and Yemen are safe havens for ISIS. Just like Afghanistan was a safe haven for al-Qaeda.
ISIS has specifically said that it will attack NYC and DC, even releasing videos showing how it might do so with suicide bombers in Times Square. ISIS has killed hundreds in Europe, bypassing easy immigration laws, so I think we have to take their threat extremely seriously here.
The judge has overturned Trump's executive judgment over immigration, granted to him by the Constitution. If during this lapse, a Syrian or Yemeni individual sneaks by (it's easy to fake ID papers in such corrupt countries). And if that person mows down 100 people a truck or explodes himself in a subway, how is that judge NOT responsible? That judge obviously is.
This seems very reasonable to me. Syria and large parts of Iraq, Libya, and Yemen are safe havens for ISIS. Just like Afghanistan was a safe haven for al-Qaeda.
ISIS has specifically said that it will attack NYC and DC, even releasing videos showing how it might do so with suicide bombers in Times Square. ISIS has killed hundreds in Europe, bypassing easy immigration laws, so I think we have to take their threat extremely seriously here.
The judge has overturned Trump's executive judgment over immigration, granted to him by the Constitution. If during this lapse, a Syrian or Yemeni individual sneaks by (it's easy to fake ID papers in such corrupt countries). And if that person mows down 100 people a truck or explodes himself in a subway, how is that judge NOT responsible? That judge obviously is.
1
The judge is not responsible for the execution of the laws, only their interpretation under the Constitution.
3
@Rob - ok, let's read the law then. Here it is:
"8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens - (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of ANY CLASS OF ALIENS into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may BY PROCLAMATION, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, SUSPEND THE ENTRY of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or IMPOSE on the entry of aliens ANY RESTRICTIONS he may deem to be appropriate."
Like Trump said, even a bad high school student could understand that.
"8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens - (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of ANY CLASS OF ALIENS into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may BY PROCLAMATION, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, SUSPEND THE ENTRY of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or IMPOSE on the entry of aliens ANY RESTRICTIONS he may deem to be appropriate."
Like Trump said, even a bad high school student could understand that.
1
Jay Lincoln - Nice try but the President can't just decide to call someone threat, he has to have reasonable proof that someone poses a threat. Trump hasn't produced any reasonable proof.
Perhaps we can finally have some sobriety about trying to "spread democracy."
Democracy is a METHOD of sending new directives (statutes) into an established legal system. But the great protection of human rights and stable existence is the UNIVERSAL submission of all citizens (yes, even presidents) to the legal system.
We should NOT have overthrown Hussein, Gaddafi, or Assad. Instead, we should have used their fear of us to force them to expand legality and to end their extra-legal actions. Only after you have a legal system can "democracy" be something more intelligible than mob rule.
Trump represents a moment of mob rule, due to the economic failures of our elites in both parties. Our Founding Fathers expected "convulsions" caused by mass "enthusiasms." This is such a moment.
Our system of checks and balances is a very deliberate design to slow the stream of new directives into a legal system that is full of inter-locking rights, and judge-made law. Trump will test it, but apparently fail to overthrow it.
Let us recall, after this Trump-ordeal ends, that we need to spread legality around the world before we push "democracy."
Democracy is a METHOD of sending new directives (statutes) into an established legal system. But the great protection of human rights and stable existence is the UNIVERSAL submission of all citizens (yes, even presidents) to the legal system.
We should NOT have overthrown Hussein, Gaddafi, or Assad. Instead, we should have used their fear of us to force them to expand legality and to end their extra-legal actions. Only after you have a legal system can "democracy" be something more intelligible than mob rule.
Trump represents a moment of mob rule, due to the economic failures of our elites in both parties. Our Founding Fathers expected "convulsions" caused by mass "enthusiasms." This is such a moment.
Our system of checks and balances is a very deliberate design to slow the stream of new directives into a legal system that is full of inter-locking rights, and judge-made law. Trump will test it, but apparently fail to overthrow it.
Let us recall, after this Trump-ordeal ends, that we need to spread legality around the world before we push "democracy."
2
I see someone has fixed Lady Justice's blouse as well, just in time for the storm. Last thing we what is for her to catch cold.
Years ago, I read a biography of Sir Edward Coke. Four hundred years ago, during the reign of King James I. James and his advisors were conferring. The question of king versus law came up. The king, James declared, is the protector of the laws. Sir Edward disagreed. "The King," he said, "is protected BY the laws"--that is, he is as much under the law as anyone.
James' face went red with rage. "That is treason," he shouted, springing to his feet. His abashed courtiers fell on their knees. "Treason!" But Coke never backed down. He lived on to plague both James I and Charles I. T
All this led, of course, to the English Civil War. A perennial question! is the executive under the law? Or are the laws (as declared by Sir Francis Bacon--Coke's inveterate adversary) merely "lions under the throne"? Time was, Coke's writings and decisions were studied and pondered--even by young American lawyers. Maybe the courts are hatching any number of Sir Edward Cokes, waiting to throw a monkey wrench into all these presidential orders and directives. You listening, Mr. President? You listening?
James' face went red with rage. "That is treason," he shouted, springing to his feet. His abashed courtiers fell on their knees. "Treason!" But Coke never backed down. He lived on to plague both James I and Charles I. T
All this led, of course, to the English Civil War. A perennial question! is the executive under the law? Or are the laws (as declared by Sir Francis Bacon--Coke's inveterate adversary) merely "lions under the throne"? Time was, Coke's writings and decisions were studied and pondered--even by young American lawyers. Maybe the courts are hatching any number of Sir Edward Cokes, waiting to throw a monkey wrench into all these presidential orders and directives. You listening, Mr. President? You listening?
52
Trump was wise to rebuke the "ninth circus" a group of judges that are mostly political hacks with cheap law degrees bent on imposing their liberal agenda on America, our safety be damned. The dasy of silence from the Executive branch in the face of judicial tyranny are over. Trump is not a potted plant. He will call out lawlessness even when it is propagated by radical judges. That was on the ballot. America voted. Trump won. Get over it.
1
So Steve, can we count on your criticism and disparagement of the ruling handed down by the 9th Circuit should it happen to go in favor of Trump and his EO?
2
But Trump is the very embodiment of lawless conduct in business and government -- some of it unethical if technically legal, some of it flagrantly crossing the line. He is in no position to criticize the courts for the politicization of the legal system, since he is the leading example of that very tactic. From his fraudulent "Trump University" (yeah, he settled that one quickly enough -- because he could have been called to testify about his business practices), to his myriad bankruptcies and the nuisance lawsuits he files with abandon against his perceived "enemies," to his profiteering from his new job (holding events in his own properties to generate private revenue at government expense) in the past few weeks.
The taxpayers who elected him and are now paying to support his companies, and he doesn't even have the decency to place them in a blind trust, as all other modern presidents have done to avoid even the appearance of legal and ethical conflicts. On that score alone Trump has been in criminal violation of the Emolument Clause of the U.S. Constitution -- the highest law of the land -- since day one. We all know that former high-office holders have profited from past government service, but Trump can't wait. He's doing it right now,nwhile occupying the Oval Office (or whatever Trump Tower digs he chooses). He has continued to use and abuse the courts as it suits his personal financial interests. So political!
The taxpayers who elected him and are now paying to support his companies, and he doesn't even have the decency to place them in a blind trust, as all other modern presidents have done to avoid even the appearance of legal and ethical conflicts. On that score alone Trump has been in criminal violation of the Emolument Clause of the U.S. Constitution -- the highest law of the land -- since day one. We all know that former high-office holders have profited from past government service, but Trump can't wait. He's doing it right now,nwhile occupying the Oval Office (or whatever Trump Tower digs he chooses). He has continued to use and abuse the courts as it suits his personal financial interests. So political!
4
He won the long out-dated electoral college. He lost the popular vote, so, no, we won't get over it. More of us intend on making sure he doesn't destroy our country by keeping the pressure on our Congress to stem the damage,
2
I am seriously wondering what this man's next step will be if ruled against now and ultimately at the Supreme Court? We have witnessed the complete inability to exercise any self-control: Lashing out; leaking little "tid bits" of information about impending actions: "I have a secret- but I'm not gonna tell you- but here's a hint."
Will be be so enraged as to declare Martial Law? Having no idea what it means- except he is going to "Force" people to obey him? Who would stop this madness? Would the military defy an order? In this man's mind- he can do anything he declares by the stroke of his magic marker.
Sadly, those who believe "this" is an example of leadership, are not capable of remotely relating what has happened so far- with their own lives. The orders are for others:
What happens when relaxing FDA standards on food and pharmaceuticals kills one of their family members? What happens when the new Labor Secretary repeals Federal Minimum Wage laws (he doesn't believe in a minimum). What happens when the water they drink is contaminated and no enforcement? What happens when their public school is closed and there aren't enough Vouchers or Charters for their children? The list is large. We have too many millions of Americans believing the immigration ban is target-specific. In reality- it is merely a practice run for much more.
Will be be so enraged as to declare Martial Law? Having no idea what it means- except he is going to "Force" people to obey him? Who would stop this madness? Would the military defy an order? In this man's mind- he can do anything he declares by the stroke of his magic marker.
Sadly, those who believe "this" is an example of leadership, are not capable of remotely relating what has happened so far- with their own lives. The orders are for others:
What happens when relaxing FDA standards on food and pharmaceuticals kills one of their family members? What happens when the new Labor Secretary repeals Federal Minimum Wage laws (he doesn't believe in a minimum). What happens when the water they drink is contaminated and no enforcement? What happens when their public school is closed and there aren't enough Vouchers or Charters for their children? The list is large. We have too many millions of Americans believing the immigration ban is target-specific. In reality- it is merely a practice run for much more.
3
"Mr. Trump appears as uninterested in this as he is in so much else about the democratic process."
I dare say Mr. Trump even appears uninterested in reading the documents to which he affixes his signature as President of the United States. I keep getting the impression when he signs an Executive Order document, that that time is the first time he actually sees it, and he does not appear to understand fully its content.
I just hope I'm wrong.
I dare say Mr. Trump even appears uninterested in reading the documents to which he affixes his signature as President of the United States. I keep getting the impression when he signs an Executive Order document, that that time is the first time he actually sees it, and he does not appear to understand fully its content.
I just hope I'm wrong.
4
You're not wrong. trump is bannon's front and we can be assured that trump signs when bannon gives the ok. What comes out of the White House will not be good for our country, therefore, we have to keep ourselves involved in making sure our representatives and senators are up to the task of defending the constitution and our country.
1
Does anyone know how the reasonable Republicans in Congress - I know there must be at least a few - can be inspired to stand on two human feet and tell their titular head-of-party NO. It will make DT very upset but that is the point, partially. It is also the point to find those who are willing to put the good of their country ahead of their access to the Rebpublican Party campaign money. Some of us Dems would be glad to help them out.
3
I do not care about this case but feel it is absurd to attempt to glamorize any Article III proceeding as if the Rule of Law has existed in the US in the last century.
I agree with the idea that the Judicial Branch will provide some counter-measure against the excesses of Trump and the Republican Congress. But, as can be seen in this case, even when moving "fast" by its own standards, the Judiciary moves relatively to painfully slow because it is designed that way, including it's many levels of appeal. And, sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have a 5-4 conservative majority again, which will lean toward upholding such Presidential and Congressional initiatives in all but the most egregious cases.
2
This case will get to the supreme Court and will be decided by them before we have a ninth justice. It will either vote 5-3 against Trump (Kennedy tie breaker) or vote 4-4, which will leave the 9th circuit decision standing.
I am so eagerly waiting for the judges to work this out.
I still have faith the the proponents of the American democracy and constitution did the correct balancing acts with the executive ,legislative and judiciary branch.
I think the next 4 years will be a serious test for all three while Putin tries to undermine american values with his twists.
Security in our country is utmost important as is "no guns" in schools.
I still have faith the the proponents of the American democracy and constitution did the correct balancing acts with the executive ,legislative and judiciary branch.
I think the next 4 years will be a serious test for all three while Putin tries to undermine american values with his twists.
Security in our country is utmost important as is "no guns" in schools.
2
Start the impeachment hearings. You know Trump will cross or has crossed the emoluments clause. I am going to blame Trump for terrorist activity because he's more concerned about Ivanka's clothing line being banned at Nordstroms than the courts. Any middle school student can see the relationship between her clothing line and terrorism. It makes about as much sense as Trump's rationale for attacking the courts. Or to make it clearer, Trump's I.Q. is about 2 levels below plant life.
8
unfortunately, the republican-controlled House of Representatives will never impeach a Republican president. Not even a republican in name only like Trump. The founders had too high an opinion of their political descendants. The republican-controlled house will only impeach democratic presidents. The electoral college should have refused to vote for Trump since he is so obviously unfit for office. That check failed. The impeachment check will fail.
2
The courts will not. Thank you Marbury v. Madison.
Wrong. There will be a time when Trump's actions are indefensible. And it would be political suicide for them to support him. But everybody has an opinion.
I have no idea why I went to law school when I was 50. Part of the reason was that I was watching my beloved profession, Psychiatry, being destroyed by liars and cheats and thieves who called themselves insurance companies, pharmaceutical comanies and hospital companies. My never-fulfilled quest was to fight back against their unbelievable evil attempt to destroy medicine as a helping profession and turn it into insane profits for them. I obviously failed. But as I went through law school, even though I learned that it, too, was also corruptible, one subject transfixed and inspired me. Not torts, not labor law, not nor disability or health care law or real estate or wills and trusts, but Constitutional law.
What a magnificent document our Constitution is was breathtaking. More so because it was written more then 200 years ago and stands proudly to this day.
I took more then a half a dozen courses, including 3rd year highly speialized seminars.
While I read this op-ed piece today, I was suddenly struck with the realization why Trump hates and attacks the courts. It was my favorite of all my courses and it was called Evidence. Over more then two centuries, it has held fast.
Sure, it has been shaped and adjusted, but the essence of Evidence is that there must be a factual basis. Trump hates facts because they repudiate his narrative. So he berates and demonizes courts because his alternative facts are not admissable. Only verifyable ones, Poor Trump.
What a magnificent document our Constitution is was breathtaking. More so because it was written more then 200 years ago and stands proudly to this day.
I took more then a half a dozen courses, including 3rd year highly speialized seminars.
While I read this op-ed piece today, I was suddenly struck with the realization why Trump hates and attacks the courts. It was my favorite of all my courses and it was called Evidence. Over more then two centuries, it has held fast.
Sure, it has been shaped and adjusted, but the essence of Evidence is that there must be a factual basis. Trump hates facts because they repudiate his narrative. So he berates and demonizes courts because his alternative facts are not admissable. Only verifyable ones, Poor Trump.
171
It will be ruled if not by the 9th Circuit then by SCOTUS that the President has the right to set policy in the area of national security and immigration, that his motives or the soundness of the policy (rather than legality) cannot be questioned by the other branches, that Congress always has the right to rein the President in subject to the constitutional separation of powers and can do so if it so chooses, and that the decision as to the possible quality or lack thereof of Presidential decision making is at election time, not every day by courts and states after the President is elected and sworn in.
If the ruling were otherwise, its logical extension will be that POTUS is no longer commander in chief, and that his field command decisions can be managed by the courts (or the state of Oregon, for example).
In other words, the end of the Republic.
And foot stomping liberals will be to blame.
This is so important, that if I were Trump, I would provoke a constitutional crisis over this.
If the ruling were otherwise, its logical extension will be that POTUS is no longer commander in chief, and that his field command decisions can be managed by the courts (or the state of Oregon, for example).
In other words, the end of the Republic.
And foot stomping liberals will be to blame.
This is so important, that if I were Trump, I would provoke a constitutional crisis over this.
6
It is people like who we should be afraid of. You who would throw away judicial review throw away the nuts and bolts of democracy in favor of raw power that can be easily applied to suppress us all.
2
That Constitutional crisis is known as the beginnings of autocracy which in this case is kakistocracy.
2
Totall, complete and utter baloney. No person in the United States is above the law. Period.
It looks like the survival of our Democracy is in the hands of our free and courageous press, our Judiciary branch and American citizens of sound mind. The Republicans are fully in bed with Trump and President Bannon. There is no one to save us folks! We must demand impeachment, take to the streets and flood the Republicans with our demands. Our press much continue to report every Trump lie and outrageous behavior and the Judiciary must continue to function. Furthermore, it sounds like Trump wants a terrorist attack so he can have carte blanche to implement Bannon's apocalyptic vision. Trump will blame any terrorist attack on Obama, the judges or maybe even Nordtroms! The man is a loon! IMPEACH NOW!
5
It should be obvious that we have installed a person with an emotional age of about 6 into the most powerful office in the world. This person has all manner of emotional needs, not least of which are personal aggrandizement, layered over with an overt interest in the unethical use of the office for his personal financial benefit. The concept, if true, that no person or other governmental office can review his actions would be a guarantee that he will be our dictator. Thankfully, our system of laws is such that there are reviews of his actions and those actions can be curtailed when they are illegal. It certainly appears that the Republicans in Congress have no desire, and lack the courage, to take any actions to constrain the 6 year old. Amazingly, even though they have legal standing independent of him, even though he cannot "FIRE" them, and even though they control his budget, the Republicans are cowed by a 6 year old. Big heroes, right?
We are at the beginning of a 4 year mandatory lesson in civics. You may not have intended to sign up for this, but your seat in this class is assured. The cost of tuition is free (but there may be many other peripheral costs that you never thought you were agreeing to). Hopedully, by the time we get to the midterm exam (in November 2018) and the final exam (in November 2020) we will have learned something.
This experience will also show us the truth of the old adage:
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
We are at the beginning of a 4 year mandatory lesson in civics. You may not have intended to sign up for this, but your seat in this class is assured. The cost of tuition is free (but there may be many other peripheral costs that you never thought you were agreeing to). Hopedully, by the time we get to the midterm exam (in November 2018) and the final exam (in November 2020) we will have learned something.
This experience will also show us the truth of the old adage:
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
8
In view of Mitch McConnell's cowardly and pitiful dismissal of Senator
Elizabeth Warren....I think Editors ....we should remind outselves of the
vital feminine qualities of Justice as symbolized by Lady Justice...who holds the
scales of just reasoning....
I think McConnell has simply been in the SWAMP....too long to remember what
Justice represents...and so has Jeff Sessions...and the other like bottom
swamp dwellers...
Elizabeth Warren....I think Editors ....we should remind outselves of the
vital feminine qualities of Justice as symbolized by Lady Justice...who holds the
scales of just reasoning....
I think McConnell has simply been in the SWAMP....too long to remember what
Justice represents...and so has Jeff Sessions...and the other like bottom
swamp dwellers...
2
The Times rightfully approves of the recent court hearing on the presidential executive order: "No gratuitous insults, no personal threats or childish tantrum — only judges and lawyers debating complex legal issues with respect and restraint. It was the sound of grown-ups taking responsibility for governing the country…."
The editorial reasonably criticizes President Trump: "Contrast that with the unfiltered outbursts Americans have endured from President Trump."
The editorial is only telling half the story. Recall Justice Ginsburg's interview with the Times last July, in which she stated "… I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.... Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand." Justice Ginsburg made similar comments to other media outlets.
The Times, to its credit, responded with an editorial critical of Justice Ginsburg, and the Justice herself apologized. But you can't unring a bell.
Mr. Trump is now our President for the next 4 years. Justice Ginsburg enjoys lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court.
While President Trump’s comments are indeed unpresidential, it's worth remembering that there's blame due on both sides of the political spectrum.
Further, if the editorial board of the Times truly wishes to encourage "the sound of grown-ups" in the vital debates that now engage the nation, it should tone down its own often overwrought editorials, which often feature unnecessary gratuitous insults of all things Republican.
The editorial reasonably criticizes President Trump: "Contrast that with the unfiltered outbursts Americans have endured from President Trump."
The editorial is only telling half the story. Recall Justice Ginsburg's interview with the Times last July, in which she stated "… I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.... Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand." Justice Ginsburg made similar comments to other media outlets.
The Times, to its credit, responded with an editorial critical of Justice Ginsburg, and the Justice herself apologized. But you can't unring a bell.
Mr. Trump is now our President for the next 4 years. Justice Ginsburg enjoys lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court.
While President Trump’s comments are indeed unpresidential, it's worth remembering that there's blame due on both sides of the political spectrum.
Further, if the editorial board of the Times truly wishes to encourage "the sound of grown-ups" in the vital debates that now engage the nation, it should tone down its own often overwrought editorials, which often feature unnecessary gratuitous insults of all things Republican.
1
No, you can't normalize Trump. The pendulum has not swung the other way, it has become detached and fallen on the floor.
I have for several years taught with great pride our Constitution and legal system to foreign lawyers, many from dictatorships. Our legal system is golden. The Obnoxious One (I can't even write his name, much less speak it) has no understanding or respect for it. He shames us all so much and threatens the most wonderful aspects of our system: the separation of powers and our golden legal system.
Until the Obnoxious One leaves office, I can no longer speak of our country's present with pride; and I am terrified of our future if he remains unchecked, if he even remains in office.
Until the Obnoxious One leaves office, I can no longer speak of our country's present with pride; and I am terrified of our future if he remains unchecked, if he even remains in office.
9
Correction - those "unfiltered outbursts" have poured over us since he took the oath. They are so incredibly disgusting, distracting, unproductive, uncalled-for - The level of the swamp is rising to cover us all in his filth.
6
The argument for more restrictive immigration policy, even to the extent of brutalizing a class of people, seems to be along the lines of "we must do everything possible to be 100% safe, and the president has absolute authority to set the rules". Therefore, anything that interferes with that authority is putting citizens at risk.
However, the judiciary has an obligation to ensure that the president follows the law when issuing executive orders. It's not at all about protecting / not protecting us from terrorists, it's about preventing abuse of power.
Are people saying they are willing to risk losing their own rights in exchange for the wholly unrealistic goal of perfect safety? Robert Bolt, in the play "A Man For All Seasons" has Sir (Saint) Thomas More eloquently argue the point:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
However, the judiciary has an obligation to ensure that the president follows the law when issuing executive orders. It's not at all about protecting / not protecting us from terrorists, it's about preventing abuse of power.
Are people saying they are willing to risk losing their own rights in exchange for the wholly unrealistic goal of perfect safety? Robert Bolt, in the play "A Man For All Seasons" has Sir (Saint) Thomas More eloquently argue the point:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
69
The main problem here is tat on matters of national security, you don't need 3000 judges second guessing the President. Regardless of your feelings or thoughts on the matter, the federal regulation cited was clear and not really open to interpretation. The President has this power.
Unfortunately, President Trump may be correct in this case. Any acts of terrorism caused by this halt is on the states and judiciary who misinterpreted this order. If you feel safer knowing that 100 Syrian refugees were admitted to the US while this halt was engaged after being vetted by the UNITED NATIONS, I would say you are not looking at the real world.
Unfortunately, President Trump may be correct in this case. Any acts of terrorism caused by this halt is on the states and judiciary who misinterpreted this order. If you feel safer knowing that 100 Syrian refugees were admitted to the US while this halt was engaged after being vetted by the UNITED NATIONS, I would say you are not looking at the real world.
5
The president has only had this power since when??? 9/11? I seem to remember 1992 somewhere.
It is increasingly obvious that the president has too much power.. Time for real change.
It is increasingly obvious that the president has too much power.. Time for real change.
Migrants to the United States are vetted by the Department of Homeland Security, not the United Nations. The vetting process may take as long as two years. While no process is perfect you can rest assured that every effort is made to eliminate those that would do us harm.
4
"However, the judiciary has an obligation to ensure that the president follows the law when issuing executive orders. It's not at all about protecting / not protecting us from terrorists, it's about preventing abuse of power. " Quoted from another letter
2
The Moslem immigrants will probably not commit crimes, but their children may. This has been the trend in Europe. Aside from this, there is some justification for limiting overall numbers of moslems in the US. Enough vocal people want sharia laws, and when community numbers become large, they petition governments and courts. And with the threat of violence, sometimes they succeed. France is in big trouble because of this.
This kind of idiocy is pretty stunning. Are you suggesting that we sterilize them or institute forced abortions?
France doesn't have anywhere near the murder rate we have in the U.S. thanks to the fact that we're awash in guns, many of them in the hands of bigots, thugs and the mentally ill.
France doesn't have anywhere near the murder rate we have in the U.S. thanks to the fact that we're awash in guns, many of them in the hands of bigots, thugs and the mentally ill.
1
Trump has managed to destroy everything and everyone lying in his path up until now. The question is, will he be able to have his way with the judicial system in this country? To quote one of his chief sources of inspiration:
"I'll HUFF. And I'll PUFF. And I'll BLOW YOUR HOUSE IN."
"I'll HUFF. And I'll PUFF. And I'll BLOW YOUR HOUSE IN."
2
President Trump is merely pointing out the truth. They are liberal judges and ideologues or they wouldn't be sitting on the Ninth Circuit.
We elected him to to ignore the garbage fictions, such as the neutrality of the robe. And I will do the same: you did not mention quiet grandeur when Obama's decrees were getting knocked down in the Texas federal district courts or the Fifth Circuit.
By the way, your headline is disrespectful. You invariably referred to the previous incumbent as "President Obama". Kindly use the title on first reference, in headline or story, to President Trump.
We elected him to to ignore the garbage fictions, such as the neutrality of the robe. And I will do the same: you did not mention quiet grandeur when Obama's decrees were getting knocked down in the Texas federal district courts or the Fifth Circuit.
By the way, your headline is disrespectful. You invariably referred to the previous incumbent as "President Obama". Kindly use the title on first reference, in headline or story, to President Trump.
Would you settle for "President" Trump?
1
The electoral college elected him. trump did not have the majority support of the voters. So, trump does not have a mandate to ignore the Constitution or our laws.
3
What makes you think President Trump deserves respect?
It's been about six months since Khizr Khan spoke at the Dem convention, and Trump STILL hasn't read the Constitution. SAD!
4
"After Mr. Trump’s Din, the Quiet Grandeur of the Courts."
Amen to that! It remains unclear if it will hold, but at least for now 'the Quiet Grandeur of the Courts' has put a stop or at least slowed "president" Trump's worst instincts and reasserted the heretofore sacrosanct concept of checks and balances of the American democracy that has stood for more than two centuries as the country's shield against authoritarianism or 'imperial presidency.'
After two weeks 'sans pareil' in modern times, 'the Quiet Grandeur of the Courts" may have restored some faith in the resiliency of our system of government!
Amen to that! It remains unclear if it will hold, but at least for now 'the Quiet Grandeur of the Courts' has put a stop or at least slowed "president" Trump's worst instincts and reasserted the heretofore sacrosanct concept of checks and balances of the American democracy that has stood for more than two centuries as the country's shield against authoritarianism or 'imperial presidency.'
After two weeks 'sans pareil' in modern times, 'the Quiet Grandeur of the Courts" may have restored some faith in the resiliency of our system of government!
2
How pastoral a setting! Here's an adult view of judicial supremacy on interpreting the Constitution:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/our-overly-sanctified-vie...
In the end, it's the people who decide.
Trump understands that the first time a legal or illegal immigrant shoots up Grand Central Station or some other location, the NYT will be blaming him and his administration. It was Truman who said the buck stops with the President, but if the courts are tying the president's hands on matters of national security, how can you blame him when the safety of our citizens is violated?
Trump was requesting time to temporarily conduct a review of the situation of immigration from countries that are now increasingly chaotic due to Obama's retreat from Iraq and hands off approach in Syria. The executive order was not extreme. It was prudent.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/our-overly-sanctified-vie...
In the end, it's the people who decide.
Trump understands that the first time a legal or illegal immigrant shoots up Grand Central Station or some other location, the NYT will be blaming him and his administration. It was Truman who said the buck stops with the President, but if the courts are tying the president's hands on matters of national security, how can you blame him when the safety of our citizens is violated?
Trump was requesting time to temporarily conduct a review of the situation of immigration from countries that are now increasingly chaotic due to Obama's retreat from Iraq and hands off approach in Syria. The executive order was not extreme. It was prudent.
For some reason I didn't read the executive order as a "request."
Perhaps Trump should shut down the economy while he reviews the situation.
Totally rigged, total disaster, totally dishonest media, BAD! Mr President, has anyone told you what a petulant little whiner you are?
4
President Trump respects the rule of law, as long as the laws and the judicial interpretations of those laws favor him. Those of us who voted for Hillary Clinton knew this is the nature of the man who ran and won as the nominee of the Republican Party. There is no surprise.
What is surprising – mildly – is the lengths to which educated Republicans will go to give Donald Trump everything he wants, even though they also knew the serious flaws in the man long before he was elected.
The Republicans on Capitol Hill are even worse than the educated conservatives in the private sector.
If they can get big tax cuts for their donors and for themselves, and if they can orchestrate a more complete return to crony capitalism – without any oversight on behalf of consumers and ordinary citizens -- Republican politicians will put up with everything Mr. Trump dishes out.
It has been decades since any Republican politician has seen any “grandeur” in the law.
What is surprising – mildly – is the lengths to which educated Republicans will go to give Donald Trump everything he wants, even though they also knew the serious flaws in the man long before he was elected.
The Republicans on Capitol Hill are even worse than the educated conservatives in the private sector.
If they can get big tax cuts for their donors and for themselves, and if they can orchestrate a more complete return to crony capitalism – without any oversight on behalf of consumers and ordinary citizens -- Republican politicians will put up with everything Mr. Trump dishes out.
It has been decades since any Republican politician has seen any “grandeur” in the law.
4
Let's see what the court system does with the President's power grabs first before becoming too effusive about it. It could be argued that the rise of Donald Trump was enabled by our court system, he being the prime example that justice can be bought in the USA, as he often uses the court system to his own personal advantage.
Our court system is the same one that has turned the United States into the world's greatest jailer, and made the American people the most criminalized in the world. Is that really something for a Democracy to brag about, that you've put more people in jail and manufactured more criminals than Russia and China?
When civil rights activists like Colin Kaepernick take a knee for justice for all Americans regardless of their ethnicity or economic station, Supreme Court justices like RBG denigrate him for wanting US citizens civil rights to be respected? Really? How can atrocities like what happened to Tamir Rice and Walter Scott, just two out of numerous recent miscarriages of justice in our country, happen in a truly just society?
Trump wants to keep America safe through extreme vetting? Is this why he shares all American citizens misdemeanors with Canada, so terrorists don't cross our borders, or so millions of Americans can no longer freely fish in Canada?
The law was used in fascist Europe to do all sorts of bad things to the common man who wasn't a part of the gangsters in power, let's see what our courts do with their present test before them.
Our court system is the same one that has turned the United States into the world's greatest jailer, and made the American people the most criminalized in the world. Is that really something for a Democracy to brag about, that you've put more people in jail and manufactured more criminals than Russia and China?
When civil rights activists like Colin Kaepernick take a knee for justice for all Americans regardless of their ethnicity or economic station, Supreme Court justices like RBG denigrate him for wanting US citizens civil rights to be respected? Really? How can atrocities like what happened to Tamir Rice and Walter Scott, just two out of numerous recent miscarriages of justice in our country, happen in a truly just society?
Trump wants to keep America safe through extreme vetting? Is this why he shares all American citizens misdemeanors with Canada, so terrorists don't cross our borders, or so millions of Americans can no longer freely fish in Canada?
The law was used in fascist Europe to do all sorts of bad things to the common man who wasn't a part of the gangsters in power, let's see what our courts do with their present test before them.
2
"It was the sound of grown-ups taking responsibility for governing the country, and for people’s lives."
You really do live in an echo chamber, don't you?
Look at the NYT's front page today, or yesterday, or tomorrow. Look what passes for "headlines" and for "all the news that's fit to print." It is histrionic, partisan, shameless pandering to the Times' base, often selfish and childish, and just plain wrong (you printed proof to rebut Trump's claims that you did not fully cover Jihadi attacks, and then tellingly failed to include the Fort Hood slaughter in which the former administration described the murder as "workplace violence").
You only last month apologized for a litany of errors in your pre-election coverage, and then decided, just like Trump, to "double down" on your errors by embracing the Democratic party Left and congratulating yourselves as the newspaper of "the resistance."
All you do by abandoning your journalistic integrity and failing to limit your editorial opinions to only your editorials, is to manage to sound just like Trump.
And besides ill-serving your readers, you encourage a further widening of societal fault lines over which everyone shouts and no one listens.
I remain as a subscriber because the NYT does still offers some excellent impartial news gathering.
But your light is dimming as you cater to your own ideologues. And you become complicit in our further decline.
You really do live in an echo chamber, don't you?
Look at the NYT's front page today, or yesterday, or tomorrow. Look what passes for "headlines" and for "all the news that's fit to print." It is histrionic, partisan, shameless pandering to the Times' base, often selfish and childish, and just plain wrong (you printed proof to rebut Trump's claims that you did not fully cover Jihadi attacks, and then tellingly failed to include the Fort Hood slaughter in which the former administration described the murder as "workplace violence").
You only last month apologized for a litany of errors in your pre-election coverage, and then decided, just like Trump, to "double down" on your errors by embracing the Democratic party Left and congratulating yourselves as the newspaper of "the resistance."
All you do by abandoning your journalistic integrity and failing to limit your editorial opinions to only your editorials, is to manage to sound just like Trump.
And besides ill-serving your readers, you encourage a further widening of societal fault lines over which everyone shouts and no one listens.
I remain as a subscriber because the NYT does still offers some excellent impartial news gathering.
But your light is dimming as you cater to your own ideologues. And you become complicit in our further decline.
3
You're sure it's the coverage that's "histrionic"? Have you read any of our President's tweets lately? Listened to any of his speeches? (And it's hard to tell what your point is with the Fort Hood reference. That attack, or "attak" as Trump might spell it, was covered by the Times, contrary to the Administration's general claim that terrorism was being underreported.)
A competent administration would have predicted legal objections and would have carefully built in answers to those objections in its order. This White House menagerie, instead, turned over the think-through of its impulses to the courts. Lazy and ineffectual. During this administration it could be the courts will become the only functional governing body.
17
Trump is consolidating power en route to his goal of complete autocracy. The bulwarks of a free press and independent federal judiciary stand in the way. Thus, they are demeaned, dismissed and discredited at every opportunity. If the strategy succeeds, and the public loses faith in both, the boy king will reign supreme. At that point, even his tax returns won't matter.
10
Why does the Times, in addition to other media outlets, even have to engage with our President's moronic tweets. (I've never actually seen a tweet, don't know how to get one, don't care to, and am quite satisfied with my thinking.) If his impulsive governing is just ignored, in favor of sager decision-making documents, then we might force him to change.
He's going to have to change, whether he likes it or not, because these tweets and his opinions are becoming boring and page two material. He's in real danger of becoming an irrelevant joke that the majority of Americans, and now the rest of the world, can't take seriously. How can he be seriously regarded?
Grow up now, Mr. President!
He's going to have to change, whether he likes it or not, because these tweets and his opinions are becoming boring and page two material. He's in real danger of becoming an irrelevant joke that the majority of Americans, and now the rest of the world, can't take seriously. How can he be seriously regarded?
Grow up now, Mr. President!
3
trump is not going to change, since he is intellectually limited and in his 70's. Too late for any brain-growth spurt. We are stuck for now with a man of low intellect, who was fortunate to be born into wealth, and thinks that, as president, he gets to determine how to interpret our laws.
1
What you refer to as "Mr. Trump's Din" is actually the sound of our democratic system slowly crumbling under the abuse and indifference of many of our so-called 'public servants'. From denying Merrick Garland his Constitutional right to be considered for the Supreme Court, to Donald Trump's sniping at members of our judiciary who do not please him, to his war on the media, a free press being a vital part of our First Amendment rights, Donald Trump and the ideological toadies in the GOP are slowly murdering the rule of law and respect for our system of checks and balances. We deserve better.
Trump's sister is an esteemed Federal Jurist . Is it possible she might shed some light on her brother's unsettling and unwarranted criticism of the Judiciary. It is all very strange indeed.
7
Finally, this morning a generally conservative voice (Scarborough) begins, with this example of DT and the courts, suggesting that what is going on here is "chilling for anyone who knows anything about history and the importance of judicial independence," and went on to make over gauzy comparisons with 1930s Germany. Some of us saw this coming as it descended on the escalator to talk about Mexican rapists. My mantra continues. Before the inauguration it was that we were careening toward tragedy with eyes wide open. Now it is: This Man Must be Removed from the White House. We know this and we need to do it.
15
The court system is not so grand when it becomes enmeshed in partisan politics. The Democratic party and the liberal media are rabid in their opposition to Trump. They don't give him credit for anything he does but are determined to tear him down. Amidst all this turmoil and travail the courts should preserve their distance and objectivity. Instead, the Ninth Circuit blindly steps into the maelstrom. The TRO never should have been granted and the case itself should have been dismissed. But Trump's enemies are bent on destroying every institution that we have because they are unable to accept the fact that they lost in the elections at every level of government and apparently don't even have a clue how to win elections in the future.
Does it occur to the Conflict-in-Chief that he might win? or, that he will win one day? By diminishing the judiciary, he undermines his own position as well as our constitutional republic.
7
If he wins, the judiciary will have diminished itself. Robart's TRO was exemplary for its foot stomping lack of any analysis or legal reasoning. This has been pointed out by every legal scholar that opined on his order. Robart said that the States of Washington and Minnesota made their case that they will be irreparably harmed by Trump’s EO, without saying why. Robart also said that the plaintiffs are likely to win their case, again without stating any reason. If the TRO were a law school paper, it would get an F.
On to the 9th Circuit. The whole thing was held by phone (wow, what dignity!) and the vast majority of the judges' questions were irrelevant, attempting to question the justification for the President's policy rather than probing whether the President has a right to set policy in this area, what his limits are, and whether the plaintiffs have any standing to question not the policy but the President's right to set and execute it.
Sad day for the judiciary, the rule of law and America.
On to the 9th Circuit. The whole thing was held by phone (wow, what dignity!) and the vast majority of the judges' questions were irrelevant, attempting to question the justification for the President's policy rather than probing whether the President has a right to set policy in this area, what his limits are, and whether the plaintiffs have any standing to question not the policy but the President's right to set and execute it.
Sad day for the judiciary, the rule of law and America.
1
OG, you're right. It's hard to imagine why Trump would denigrate beforehand an institution that is at least capable of giving him a victory. If he wins, is he going to say he didn't mean any of it?
Adult talk, rational debate, evidence-based arguments -- these are the values Donald Trump has vehemently opposed his entire life, campaign, and now presidency. Some call the dumbing-down of discourse at the highest levels of government a form of "populism." But in a country ostensibly founded on the rule of law, I can't imagine anything more anti-American -- or more dangerous -- in a president.
17
One of Trump's campaign promises to himself should have been to respect the branches of our government including the sanctity of judicial independence and as the editorial points out, act like an adult, not a toddler. Trump thrives on the unquestioned snap decision. He fired employees at will, refused to pay his contractors and laborers, made quick deals without a business plan, he is the man of immediate gratification. Unfortunately, he's in charge of a highly complex system that requires diplomacy, critical thinking, and compassion, qualities that he sorely lacks. Must we suffer this man and Steve Bannon for four years? If I could snap my fingers and wish them all away, I would. But I have at least learned that I don't always get my way and that compromise, however unpleasant, is sometimes necessary.
7
What has become shockingly clear to me (well, maybe not that all that shocking), is that Mr. T has no idea that there are three CO-EQUAL branches of government - one to make the laws, one to administer the laws, and one to clarify the laws, should there be questions. He is ignorant of this very basic civics lesson, one which anyone hoping to pass the US citizenship test is required to learn. He believes, instead, that he rules as an elected King, and that any disagreement by any person or entity, is a treasonous offense.
15
True. But the Republican-dominated Congress is facilitating Trump's contempt for the other branches of our government by truckling to his wishes, abetting his corruption, and entirely abdicating their Constitutional duty to act as a check on the President's abuses of executive power.
1
"The president continues to demean his office in 140-character increments, firing off nasty and reflexive broadsides at anyone who doesn’t agree completely with him."
Your depiction of the method by which the President is demeaning the office, on almost a daily basis, is understated substantially.
Your depiction of the method by which the President is demeaning the office, on almost a daily basis, is understated substantially.
8
The president is only concerned with the rule of law when he's suing someone. His whole act is to attack, attack, attack until the opposition is either worn down or out of funds. His rule of law is that he is always the winner, and you are "dumb", "nasty" or "so called" if you oppose him.
10
As far as I can tell, he gets sued a lot more than vice versa.
So how long before someone engineers a terrorist act on US soil in order to give the president the authority to overrule the courts?
6
You can be forgiven because you are unaware of the US constitution. It's the one we wrote to protect us from the monarchy that you supported. It was a step froward from Kings and Queens deciding the law. In OUR Constitution, the President CANNOT be given the authority to overrule the courts. Can your Prime Minister overrule the courts?
1
Hamilton's greatest fear - Don't think that Trump won't try.
1
Of course he will. And he will fail.
Ah, yes, the sound of grown ups! The grandeur of the court! Dear God, how I miss grown ups at the helm!
8
TRUMP Is channeling the worst of his mentor, the notorious Roy Kohn, who was an attorney who destroyed many lives as the sidekick to Joe McCarthy. They were both given their distorted material as evidence by J. Edgar Hoover. Three of the most evil people in the history of our government. Kohn was Trump's mentor. His influence was to teach Trump to attack aggressively, never admit to mistakes or wrongdoing. Kohn encouraged Trump and his father to sue the Office of Civil Rights for $100 million when they were cited for not renting their apartments to blacks. Yes folks, this is the character of the person foisted on us by 70+ votes in the electoral college, effectively silencing the 2.9 million vote majority won by Hillary. Predictions by Allan Lichtman, professor who's called the last 8 presidential elections accurately is that Trump will be impeached by the GOP. Can't happen fast enough for me! King of the Tweet-o-Sphere. Where does he tweet? Is it on the gold plated throne he's installed in the Presidential bathroom?
10
When does this president's behavior of berating all who dare to question him or his opinions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors?
The intimidation of our judges and judicial system, the undermining and bullying of any checks and balances, the lying and misleading the publiic, the mixing his personal and family financial interests with the power of the office of president and provoking both our enemies and allies into potential conflicts..
indicates to me that we are there already.
The intimidation of our judges and judicial system, the undermining and bullying of any checks and balances, the lying and misleading the publiic, the mixing his personal and family financial interests with the power of the office of president and provoking both our enemies and allies into potential conflicts..
indicates to me that we are there already.
18
Unfortunately it gets there when the Republican-led Congress believes it to be the case. So, practically speaking, no time soon.
3
You seem to believe that the charge of "high crimes and misdemeanors" arises from an accumulation of boorish acts and words instead of from a specific criminal act. It's better not to carelessly throw around terms and hastily make charges that one does not even know the meaning of out of mere dislike and animus.
ed - Fraud, treason, graft, bribery..... These are all crimes. Just because Trump hasn't been formally charged or convicted yet doesn't mean he won't be at some point.
1
There's a great cartoon (by Sousa and Machado) making the rounds. It responds to Trump's travel ban and shows Lady Justice, blindfolded, calm, and strong, holding back a little Donald Trump with one hand as he flails against her (his eyes are squeezed shut, arms windmilling, big red tie blowing in the wind). Her head is turned to the motionless scales in her other hand. Lady Justice says simply "I got this" to the Statue of Liberty, a fellow concerned lady, who stands behind her with arms crossed, looking weary.
I've checked out this cartoon a couple of times in the last twenty-four hours and look to it whenever I'm not watching the newest anti-Trump (and anti-Spicer and Conway) skit by Randy Rainbow, featuring Randy, of course, singing "Fact checker, fact checker, find me a fact" to the Fiddler tune of "Matchmaker, Matchmaker," in response to a piece of nonsense burbled by Kellyanne Conway.
One must find comfort where one can.
There's also a rumor going around that Saturday Night Live may put together a monumental skit using women to portray all of Trump's close allies. Melissa McCarthy, of course, gets Sean Spicer, since she started this game (which allegedly drove The Donald crazy). Ellen DeGeneris is Mike Pence. Rosie O'Donnell briefly inhabits the mind and body of Steve Bannon. Who plays Donald Trump himself? Of course ... Meryl Streep.
I've checked out this cartoon a couple of times in the last twenty-four hours and look to it whenever I'm not watching the newest anti-Trump (and anti-Spicer and Conway) skit by Randy Rainbow, featuring Randy, of course, singing "Fact checker, fact checker, find me a fact" to the Fiddler tune of "Matchmaker, Matchmaker," in response to a piece of nonsense burbled by Kellyanne Conway.
One must find comfort where one can.
There's also a rumor going around that Saturday Night Live may put together a monumental skit using women to portray all of Trump's close allies. Melissa McCarthy, of course, gets Sean Spicer, since she started this game (which allegedly drove The Donald crazy). Ellen DeGeneris is Mike Pence. Rosie O'Donnell briefly inhabits the mind and body of Steve Bannon. Who plays Donald Trump himself? Of course ... Meryl Streep.
7
The "Terrible Twos" are what every parent faces when their child, seeking to develop his/her independent self, asserts it by saying "No!" to everything. They tantrum when they don't get their way until they learn that they will never get their way that way. The wise parent patiently and adamantly refuses to give in, and, if the toddler won't stop, puts them in a time out and takes away "fun" things in increasing order until the child stops. Usually, by the time the child is 3 they have learned some self control and other more benign means to get their way, and some acceptance that "no" is the prerogative of the parent.
Unless the child is Donald Trump, who, at 70, behaves like my kids did at 2. They grew out of it. He never did. Even iron-fisted dictator Fred Trump was forced to send his 2nd son to New York Military Academy to try to beat some self-control into Donnie. I guess that didn't work either.
Now, 320 million Americans who depend on the President to look out for their best interests and security have, for the first time, a totally selfish self-involved narcissistic 2 year old who demands love, respect and ABSOLUTE obedience and in return...gives nothing.
One problem with most Federal judges (for Trump), from far left to far right, is that they take their role as THE arbiter of what the Law and the Constitution means seriously and don't suffer challenges to that authority lightly. Dubya learned THAT the hard way!
Unless the child is Donald Trump, who, at 70, behaves like my kids did at 2. They grew out of it. He never did. Even iron-fisted dictator Fred Trump was forced to send his 2nd son to New York Military Academy to try to beat some self-control into Donnie. I guess that didn't work either.
Now, 320 million Americans who depend on the President to look out for their best interests and security have, for the first time, a totally selfish self-involved narcissistic 2 year old who demands love, respect and ABSOLUTE obedience and in return...gives nothing.
One problem with most Federal judges (for Trump), from far left to far right, is that they take their role as THE arbiter of what the Law and the Constitution means seriously and don't suffer challenges to that authority lightly. Dubya learned THAT the hard way!
7
It was, indeed, refreshing to hear adults in our government, on opposing sides, debate an issue on which emotions run high, without letting that emotion control their language, or let the debate devolve into person or partisan attacks.
Adults, with an area of expertise, a Constitutionally mandated place and mission, equal to that of the Executive branch and superior to it in questions of Constitutionality, looking for logic, precedent, statutes, facts (not alternative nor the redundant "true facts" just facts) and evidence on which to make a decision.
Trump can blather on, and I would be more alarmed by his poorly disguised threats if I wasn't more experienced in that system. These people have been physically threatened by people who have the power and will to carry them out. Even I don't think Trump has gone around that bend - yet.
After Trump and his historically histrionic performance, and the WH alternative fact and fake news world, and the GOP with stunts like the shushing of Senator Warren on the Senate floor, I too was relieved to hear the sound of one branch or government facing a problem and making a decision as it was intended by the founding fathers and the thousands of years of jurisprudence.
Adults, with an area of expertise, a Constitutionally mandated place and mission, equal to that of the Executive branch and superior to it in questions of Constitutionality, looking for logic, precedent, statutes, facts (not alternative nor the redundant "true facts" just facts) and evidence on which to make a decision.
Trump can blather on, and I would be more alarmed by his poorly disguised threats if I wasn't more experienced in that system. These people have been physically threatened by people who have the power and will to carry them out. Even I don't think Trump has gone around that bend - yet.
After Trump and his historically histrionic performance, and the WH alternative fact and fake news world, and the GOP with stunts like the shushing of Senator Warren on the Senate floor, I too was relieved to hear the sound of one branch or government facing a problem and making a decision as it was intended by the founding fathers and the thousands of years of jurisprudence.
When I saw the term "grandeur" I had to remind myself that we were talking about the Ninth "Circus" court. It is the most politically driven, constantly overturned group of politicians in robes ever assembled in any court.
Respect? The Ninth has not earned any respect.
Grandeur? Please, my sides are aching. Stop it already!!!
Respect? The Ninth has not earned any respect.
Grandeur? Please, my sides are aching. Stop it already!!!
4
Thank you. One thing that keeps me grounded in all this is the fact that we are a nation of laws, not men (or media). It's a foundational tenet for American life and it's become so easy to lose sight of that in our unfortunate us-vs-them, "look at me!," hair-on-fire-24/7 milieu.
Stu from Amherst calls it an "overdue civics lesson," and I'm in agreement, particularly when secondary-school civics education appears to be no longer compulsory. The GOP long game...
Stu from Amherst calls it an "overdue civics lesson," and I'm in agreement, particularly when secondary-school civics education appears to be no longer compulsory. The GOP long game...
I EVEN miss Bush.
What frightens me a little bit is that many Americans are too poorly educated to know the horrors of totalitarianism.
Many Americans know very little History, and even less about other countries. So they don't really know what totalitarianism is like, and they cannot recognize the signs of its emergence.
Americans have never experienced raw fascism, and so they think "it can't possibly happen here" - the last words of a dying democracy.
Regarding Trump's travel ban, I believe he, or at least Bannon, knows what he is doing.
The travel ban at once alienates Muslims - increasing the probability of terrorism - and was designed to run into trouble with the courts.
An act of terrorism in America would work to Trump's advantage, just like 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to pursue its goals more easily. It allows them to expand control over the US population domestically - suspending or revoking rights and civil liberties. And at the same time it allows them to start another war - distracting the population from the harm the Administration is doing to them.
And now they can blame any terrorist act - not on their own incompetence - but on the courts for blocking their ridiculous ban.
Many Americans know very little History, and even less about other countries. So they don't really know what totalitarianism is like, and they cannot recognize the signs of its emergence.
Americans have never experienced raw fascism, and so they think "it can't possibly happen here" - the last words of a dying democracy.
Regarding Trump's travel ban, I believe he, or at least Bannon, knows what he is doing.
The travel ban at once alienates Muslims - increasing the probability of terrorism - and was designed to run into trouble with the courts.
An act of terrorism in America would work to Trump's advantage, just like 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to pursue its goals more easily. It allows them to expand control over the US population domestically - suspending or revoking rights and civil liberties. And at the same time it allows them to start another war - distracting the population from the harm the Administration is doing to them.
And now they can blame any terrorist act - not on their own incompetence - but on the courts for blocking their ridiculous ban.
12
It was (almost) amusing to hear Himself complain that much of the oral arguments had nothing to do with the ban, or whatever it's being dubbed now. For those of us with law degrees who listened to the procedure and then heard his complaint, we knew, as if we needed further proof, Himself is a dolt.
Another of his complaints was directed at one of the judges who irritated him. Though he refrained from giving a name, those of us with a functioning brain knew to whom he'd referred ~ Judge Friedland, the female.
Another of his complaints was directed at one of the judges who irritated him. Though he refrained from giving a name, those of us with a functioning brain knew to whom he'd referred ~ Judge Friedland, the female.
8
There is no " quiet grandeur" in the courts to counter "Mr. Trump's din".
Anyone who has read a legal "brief" or participated in oral argument knows that they are dealing with the frail limits of mortal human nature and nurture. Along with the power of language and philosophy. From Dred Scott to Plessy to Korematsu to Citizen's United to Shelby County there is a trail of cynical hypocrisy.
The federal judiciary is the least democratic branch of our divided limited power democratic republic. And the partisan political nomination and advise and consent process only lowers the ordinary human beings who become judges to their essence. Judges are not gods nor demigods nor devils nor demons.
The law is gender, color, "race", ethnicity, faith, socioeconomics, politics, education and history plus arithmetic. The law is neither just nor fair nor moral nor objective nor logical. Enslaving and discriminating against Africans in America was legal. Conquering and colonizing Native America was legal. Reservations, internment camps and ghettos were all legal.
The uncertainty of the law and facts with layered individual fact finders and multiple member legal appellate courts focuses on their mundane reality. A 5-4 SCOTUS opinion is not a revelation of the gods and mother nature.
Anyone who has read a legal "brief" or participated in oral argument knows that they are dealing with the frail limits of mortal human nature and nurture. Along with the power of language and philosophy. From Dred Scott to Plessy to Korematsu to Citizen's United to Shelby County there is a trail of cynical hypocrisy.
The federal judiciary is the least democratic branch of our divided limited power democratic republic. And the partisan political nomination and advise and consent process only lowers the ordinary human beings who become judges to their essence. Judges are not gods nor demigods nor devils nor demons.
The law is gender, color, "race", ethnicity, faith, socioeconomics, politics, education and history plus arithmetic. The law is neither just nor fair nor moral nor objective nor logical. Enslaving and discriminating against Africans in America was legal. Conquering and colonizing Native America was legal. Reservations, internment camps and ghettos were all legal.
The uncertainty of the law and facts with layered individual fact finders and multiple member legal appellate courts focuses on their mundane reality. A 5-4 SCOTUS opinion is not a revelation of the gods and mother nature.
4
So you're saying the federal court of appeals is less fair, serious, and grown-up than Donald Trump?
"The demagogue presents a bleak picture, & the even darker future if he isn’t granted the power to act, & act now." Gary Kasparov on how Trump reminds him of Putin.
Congratulations U.S.A. your President is using the well worn handbook of tyrants and giving it a bit of update to make it go down a little easier for the land of the free and the home of the brave. Shameful.
Congratulations U.S.A. your President is using the well worn handbook of tyrants and giving it a bit of update to make it go down a little easier for the land of the free and the home of the brave. Shameful.
14
Apparently White House lawyers are making the argument that a presidential executive order in the name of national security is unreviewable. This must necessarily be a losing argument since it would mean that the president could order anything he wanted by attaching a national security label.
When they lose, their only chance on appeal to the Supreme Court is an argument defending the premise that the ban is a national security issue.
When they lose, their only chance on appeal to the Supreme Court is an argument defending the premise that the ban is a national security issue.
3
Someone in tech-land needs to find a way to shut the man (Trump's) Twitter account down. Shut it down hard. The man is one, big, colossal, insider security leak.
Juuuust sayin' is all.
John~
American Net'Zen
Juuuust sayin' is all.
John~
American Net'Zen
3
He is posting a lot of his tweets from an outdated Android phone, so it seems likely to happen...
It was shocking to see a judge repeating "fake data." The claim that no one from those 7 countries had been responsible for terrorist attacks is either a lie or terribly misleading. In fact, 60 people born in those countries have been convicted of terrorism related crimes since 9/11.
When a judge is repeating false democratic talking points, there's something seriously wrong.
When a judge is repeating false democratic talking points, there's something seriously wrong.
2
I think you will find that the discussion was of refugees or people coming in on visas. Those who have committed terrorist acts, to my knowledge, have been born here and/or were US citizens.
3
You are not characterizing this correctly AACNY and thus yourself guilty of being misleading. Judge Hobart asked how many terrorist attacks were perpetrated *against the U.S.* by people from these countries, and the answer is zero. Similarly, the 9th Circuit asked for the number of Federal crimes committed by immigrants from these countries, and the President's Administration's lawyer did not have an answer.
See how that works? They asked pointed questions, that you don't like the answers to because it does not fit your own politically motivated narrative, so you deflect by giving seemingly contrary facts about a question that was not asked.
See how that works? They asked pointed questions, that you don't like the answers to because it does not fit your own politically motivated narrative, so you deflect by giving seemingly contrary facts about a question that was not asked.
3
In 1950, the Supreme Court, in all its grandeur, found that “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.”
Congress passed a law that eloquently states, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Congress passed a law that eloquently states, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
2
Somehow I missed the part of that federal law where it says "this is the only statute in the United States whose execution is exempt from the application of any provision of the Constitution of the United States." Did that just get left off my copy?
1
Another day in the Trump era, another example of a president manifestly unfit for the office.
Congratulations Republicans: You own him.
Congratulations Republicans: You own him.
5
If Mr. Trump wants to take the "political" out of the courts, there is a simple solution: nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, simply because his non-hearings were nothing BUT political. He would have to withdraw the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, who truly does not deserve any such treatment, but it would send a clear message that the courts should no longer be political footballs. What say you, Mr. Trump? Ready to "walk your talk"?
3
Yes, but. The NYT should do better at reporting on legal decisions by naming the judges and adding after their names an indication of the party that nominated them e.g. (R* or D*}. Stop keeping readers in the dark. Help Americans understand that increasingly the Judiciary is becoming politically polarized. It is your duty to help Americans defend themselves with facts on our reality.
1
But of course Trump is correct. The courts ARE so very political. That is why those of us who loathe him are so depressed that he won. Those of us on the left would have been ecstatic with a Clinton win so she could have appointed judges whom we found more politically acceptable but Trump won so he gets to do the most long lasting damage.
Trump is right about more than that, though, it's just that his "fixes" are even worse than the real problem.
Trump is right about more than that, though, it's just that his "fixes" are even worse than the real problem.
1
Facts have a liberal bias and that's simply the truth.
1
Facts have a liberal bias? What an insanse statement.
The ideal judge for Trump?
Think judges along the mold of Roland Freisler. That is the logical endpoint here. Judges that sit in the role of prosecutor and scream and rage at the doomed defendants in a spectacular performance.
You may not remember this judge. He worked in Germany over 70 years ago.
Think judges along the mold of Roland Freisler. That is the logical endpoint here. Judges that sit in the role of prosecutor and scream and rage at the doomed defendants in a spectacular performance.
You may not remember this judge. He worked in Germany over 70 years ago.
In last Suday's Times, the article about the "cheating" history of the New England Patriots and how two camps of fans and detractors had evolved, a prof from Northeastern was quoted saying, "It's not about the true facts or about how honest you believe a group's past behavior is. It doesn't matter what sport it is, what team it is or even if it's sports at all. Just being part of a group, any group, is enough to excuse moral transgressions because in some way, you're benefiting from it. Your moral compass shifts.
Does that explain the current battle between Mr. Trump and the Democrats/Hillary followers? And about the moral compass shifting, is the Times guilty?
Does that explain the current battle between Mr. Trump and the Democrats/Hillary followers? And about the moral compass shifting, is the Times guilty?
2
Is this really nothing more than a battle between Trump and the Hillary followers? I have a feeling plenty of Republicans, Libertarians, Sanders voters, Constitutional conservatives, and others are appalled at Trump's authoritarian tendencies.
We have a vindictive, short tempered self centered man as president backed by a megaphone and bully pulpit unavailable to almost everyone else. His unfettered tirades against divergent opinions, petty name came calling and presenting self concocted facts unhampered by any self control is in full display.
The amazing escape from reality and acceptance of it by the denizens of the Republican Party is mystifyingly another cause for wonder. Is the craven pursuit of power and achieveing it so important that principles, values and integrity all fall by the wayside.
Worryingly and sadly any of the politicians one thought had a backbone and integrity seem to giving this grandiose example of self absorbed pontificator a miss without challenging the barrage of half truths and damage being incurred on the institutions they represent.
The amazing escape from reality and acceptance of it by the denizens of the Republican Party is mystifyingly another cause for wonder. Is the craven pursuit of power and achieveing it so important that principles, values and integrity all fall by the wayside.
Worryingly and sadly any of the politicians one thought had a backbone and integrity seem to giving this grandiose example of self absorbed pontificator a miss without challenging the barrage of half truths and damage being incurred on the institutions they represent.
4
In my book, attorneys are highly educated. One can certainly empathize with sTRUMPY and those who voted for him. Remember what he said after winning the Nevada Primary.......something like: "I LOVE THE POORLY EDUCATED."
It is interesting to read about what ails mid-Amerika. All they want is jobs. JOBS. But the TRUMP administration has no idea how to do that. 2018 can't come soon enough.
It is interesting to read about what ails mid-Amerika. All they want is jobs. JOBS. But the TRUMP administration has no idea how to do that. 2018 can't come soon enough.
How many times did we hear Trump say that he's the "law and order candidate." And yet he disparages that branch of government when it actually does its job as it weighs the issues in a measured way.
It is mind boggling how immature and unfit he is.
And the republicans, who see him as a useful idiot because he will sign whatever is put in front of him (as Bannon did with the executive order elevating him to NSC), have shown a cynicism that is equally mind boggling.
If 2018 doesn't yield a major shakeup, then I am not very hopeful about our future.
It is mind boggling how immature and unfit he is.
And the republicans, who see him as a useful idiot because he will sign whatever is put in front of him (as Bannon did with the executive order elevating him to NSC), have shown a cynicism that is equally mind boggling.
If 2018 doesn't yield a major shakeup, then I am not very hopeful about our future.
4
What did the minority of voters expect when they voted for a fellow widely known as Don the Con?
Good grief, impeach and convict him and his theocrat running mate, and let's continue with keeping the United States a great country.
Good grief, impeach and convict him and his theocrat running mate, and let's continue with keeping the United States a great country.
Consistent interpretation of the laws is the Constitutional responsibility of the courts. The Trump Administration, along with many Americans, interpret the laws with impunity. Administration naivete supports the assumption that they can take a limited legal phrase, interpret it as fits their present needs and then demand compliance.
Sean Spicer emphasized this opinion yesterday when he read a sentence from the law and then told us that anyone at any level of intelligence can tell that the President has full power to exclude aliens on a whim and without question. Strange since so many well educated lawyers understand that, Constitutionally, the "law" includes not only the letter of the law, as interpreted by grade school minds, but also all of the court decisions interpreting that law and its range of applicability in the presence of the rest of the laws of the United States.
Sean Spicer emphasized this opinion yesterday when he read a sentence from the law and then told us that anyone at any level of intelligence can tell that the President has full power to exclude aliens on a whim and without question. Strange since so many well educated lawyers understand that, Constitutionally, the "law" includes not only the letter of the law, as interpreted by grade school minds, but also all of the court decisions interpreting that law and its range of applicability in the presence of the rest of the laws of the United States.
Yes, the "tedious, necessary work" of the courts did show us "what government based on the rule of law looks like"; but for how long?
I'm not speaking of Trump so much as I am the Republicans in Congress, whose conduct over the last eight years in my view has been nothing short of treasonous. If they can use their influence - and that of the Heritage Center, ALEC, and the other behind-the-scenes conservative think-tanks, to pack the courts, the rule of law will be done.
The right-wing has always understood the power of the courts. The elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen with the Supreme Court in mind, and the decision in Bush v. Gore was so shameful that the majority actually wrote that that case must never be used as a precedent.
I'm not speaking of Trump so much as I am the Republicans in Congress, whose conduct over the last eight years in my view has been nothing short of treasonous. If they can use their influence - and that of the Heritage Center, ALEC, and the other behind-the-scenes conservative think-tanks, to pack the courts, the rule of law will be done.
The right-wing has always understood the power of the courts. The elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen with the Supreme Court in mind, and the decision in Bush v. Gore was so shameful that the majority actually wrote that that case must never be used as a precedent.
1
Trump should be roundly criticized for his statements regarding judges and the courts, as was Obama when he attacked the Supreme Court over the Citizens United decision in his State of the Union address and when he tried to influence the Court in the ACA case.
But let us also not forget that, just like Obama did, the Trump administration is following the court's order.
But let us also not forget that, just like Obama did, the Trump administration is following the court's order.
2
At the end of the day, what would be really great is if the Supreme Court could rule 8-0 that Trump needs to be put to bed with no dessert.
Trump is a squalling angry child, and a bad one to boot. He's failing pre-school; all the get-along-with lessons. It's intolerable in a President of the United States.
There are consequences for opening one's mouth and saying mean things; people take you at your word as to your intent. Trump's muslim ban rhetoric makes this an establishment clause case -- had he kept his mouth shut, it wouldn't be.
For those of you who listened to the appeals court arguments -- why did Washington's Solicitor General Noah Purcell spend so much time arguing for a writ of mandamus to return the case to Robard's Federal Circuit Court? Did you catch the muted comments about "evidence" made by both sides?
Only the initial court process can produce legal evidence, in particular only that court can grant discovery. Purcell really wants to depose Trump, Bannon ... perhaps some others. Wouldn't that be fun, battles over executive privilege and all!
Flentje (DOJ) is desperate to avoid that, for obvious reasons. Think about Trump as a defendant -- he's the last guy you'd ever let testify on his own behalf. If Purcell can depose Trump, this will get serious fast; if Trump makes a dumb mistake it could cost him his presidency.
Trump & Bannon should be learning something about reality here -- we'll see if they do.
Trump is a squalling angry child, and a bad one to boot. He's failing pre-school; all the get-along-with lessons. It's intolerable in a President of the United States.
There are consequences for opening one's mouth and saying mean things; people take you at your word as to your intent. Trump's muslim ban rhetoric makes this an establishment clause case -- had he kept his mouth shut, it wouldn't be.
For those of you who listened to the appeals court arguments -- why did Washington's Solicitor General Noah Purcell spend so much time arguing for a writ of mandamus to return the case to Robard's Federal Circuit Court? Did you catch the muted comments about "evidence" made by both sides?
Only the initial court process can produce legal evidence, in particular only that court can grant discovery. Purcell really wants to depose Trump, Bannon ... perhaps some others. Wouldn't that be fun, battles over executive privilege and all!
Flentje (DOJ) is desperate to avoid that, for obvious reasons. Think about Trump as a defendant -- he's the last guy you'd ever let testify on his own behalf. If Purcell can depose Trump, this will get serious fast; if Trump makes a dumb mistake it could cost him his presidency.
Trump & Bannon should be learning something about reality here -- we'll see if they do.
4
The question is, can he DO anything to impede our system of checks and balances? Will he at some point, as one of my friends has suggested, cite some "emergency," declare martial law, and strip the courts of their power? Can he do that?
Can he refuse to show his tax returns in the face of numerous conflict-of-interest cases? etc, etc, etc. ?
Can he refuse to show his tax returns in the face of numerous conflict-of-interest cases? etc, etc, etc. ?
1
if you've read the transcripts it is clear that the two Leftists on the court were trying desperately to justify the Stay. But they failed at every turn if you rely on the Law. Their emotional arguments were very emotional, but they had no basis in Law.
It is clear from the plain language of the law that the stay is invalid and should be overturned.
It is clear from the plain language of the law that the stay is invalid and should be overturned.
1
But the law you're alluding to doesn't say anything about temporary restraining orders. That's a different law.
Trump is exhibit one for why autocratic businessmen shouldn't be in government. In private life they are used to others following orders, or they lose their jobs.
They brook no opposition.
Poor baby Trump: he can't fire a judge. What agony!
They brook no opposition.
Poor baby Trump: he can't fire a judge. What agony!
3
In the past by using his wealth, the President has used the Courts to defeat litigants, usually contractors on his many projects. He has also often used lawsuits to silence critics, again using his wealth and the courts to achieve his ends. He simply makes their cost of litigation prohibitive.
Because of his history with the Courts, it is not unreasonable to conclude that President Trump views the courts as his tool to be used as he sees fit.
It might be instructive to the President to actually read the Constitution and to see the structure of our government and why it was so designed.
Because of his history with the Courts, it is not unreasonable to conclude that President Trump views the courts as his tool to be used as he sees fit.
It might be instructive to the President to actually read the Constitution and to see the structure of our government and why it was so designed.
1
It's sort of like we woke up one day and Henry VIII was back in charge.
And somebody had handed him this twitter thing.
And somebody had handed him this twitter thing.
3
DT criticises the judiciary, his nominee criticises DT, DT's nominee gets approved. Slam dunk for DT. Hmmm...played again.
Those who think Trump should not be tweeting are wrong. His tweets expose him, reveal his prejudices, expose his mala fides. They will be his undoing. Given that he is the president (one of the greatest disasters ever to strike America) you should all be grateful he is a narcissist who can't control his outbursts and demands constant attention, because if he wasn't, he might get away with what he is trying to do.
15
Great point! I would rather know what 45 is up to and be able to dodge and dart his twisted thinking.
1
Why does Trump denigrate the courts? Is it part of a plan to instill distrust among voters? Is it simply an ill-considered outburst (albeit repeated over and over, and apparently not just said in the heat of the moment). Or is it one more symptom to add to his evident divorce from reality that indicates President Trump is certifiably crazy?
11
Au contraire, the San Francisco court sounded like a first year class of law students trying to impress their professor. Their prejudices were clearly displayed in the questions they asked. No mention of legal rulings or case law or even established law. It was an unfortunate display of how politics and narcisistic thinking has infected the SanFran. court which has an 86% overturn rate. How incredibly incompetent can a court be?
This disrespect that Trump shows for the judiciary is not his making; he's not smart enough. Trump is simply the result of years of Republican whining about "unelected activist judges" making law. This is the golum they have created. They are to blame, and they must be held accountable. Funny how judges are only "activist" when they rule against the Republicans. When they make crazy new law like Citizen's United that is clearly out of the mainstream, they are not activist at all.
10
This editorial was articulate, compelling, and, unfortunately, necessary. Thank you.
8
This is merely a Pragmatic defense of the courts. When the courts reject a Leftist power grab, Leftist will Pragmatically attack the courts. Ideology is a need of man's mind to maintain focus on reality, not a psychological problem. Students should learn about the Constitution's defense of individual rights.
Trump's motive in disparaging the judiciary is one, intimidation, and two, it inflames the passion of his true believer constituency. If he wins it will only be because the court, in spite of it's leftwing America hating agenda, realizes he's a true genius and a patriot who is protecting America from radical Islamic terrorism. If he loses it will only be because as he predicted the court is biased against America while proving the entire judicial branch is a confederacy of dunces in league against his true genius. Just another page from the authoritarian's playbook. Press, check; Judiciary, check.
4
"The President continues to demean his office." When does the impeachment proceeding begin?
5
In 2018.
Whatever the outcome of this case, let us not lose sight of why Trump placed a ban on these countries. According to his adviser, Rudy Giullani, he wanted a legal way to ban Muslims. The so called leader of the free world is a bigot. Plain and simple.
18
Agreed. The reassuring sound of grown-ups taking responsibility for governing the country, and for people's lives. Amen.
12
The man is like a child, Trump wants what he wants right away, he has no comprehension of the complexity of the world. He is, very clearly a profoundly ignorant person, on that score he is in line with his base.
19
Shame on the Trump voters for the damage they have done to what took 200 years to erect
This president is as like he is. He was elected ,Period. 45 presidents were all different. Only obama and trump have twitter. So why be outraged whenever he uses a tweet? We are living a new world order. This president is the image of our time. Everything must be done faster, everything must be known and everything must be quickly fixed.
Maybe the immigration era for the United States is over . With new technologies newly arrived still have tight connections with their roots and their integration in the American society is more difficult . The American melting pot isn't working anymore . Shared values are no more shared and the American society is creating walls not only with Mexico but in within cities , within neighborhoods. New rules for new immigrants must be applied before arriving to the country to avoid the next civil war.
Maybe the immigration era for the United States is over . With new technologies newly arrived still have tight connections with their roots and their integration in the American society is more difficult . The American melting pot isn't working anymore . Shared values are no more shared and the American society is creating walls not only with Mexico but in within cities , within neighborhoods. New rules for new immigrants must be applied before arriving to the country to avoid the next civil war.
3
Elie, America is still the melting pot of the world. Our schools and our towns reflect a new mix of ethnicities. Immigrants always have been and always will be the strength of this great nation. Our Constitution is written to protect people of ALL ethnicities, ALL religions, ALL sexual identities, ALL political beliefs. We are not a country where only some feel welcome but a nation that celebrates diversity and that holds freedom and liberty dear to all . United we stand. There are no new rules needed and there is no civil war on the horizon. Study our history and our government's system of checks and balances to understand that you are being manipulated by the current administration to live in constant tension, doubt, fear. Get educated and break free from the 45th president's miserable, fear ridden existence.
2
Because his tweets are full of lies and because, by tweeting, he cannot be called upon to prove what he is saying. His followers believe lies. When that happens historically, a population is in serious trouble.
Immigrants are already vetted very carefully, more carefully than in the past. But by telling his followers that they are not, King Baby creates an over-emotionalized climate in which he then proclaims himself to be the only savior. Another lie.
This behavior on his part is destructive to a healthy democracy.
Immigrants are already vetted very carefully, more carefully than in the past. But by telling his followers that they are not, King Baby creates an over-emotionalized climate in which he then proclaims himself to be the only savior. Another lie.
This behavior on his part is destructive to a healthy democracy.
Remember Trump the Candidate bragging that he had tied up for years legal cases against him for things like Trump University so that he could settle them eventually for a nominal amount (a mere $25 million for the University scam). Now as president, Trump demands that the courts rule quickly -- and always in his favor. Or what? Will he abolish the judiciary by Executive Order as obstructing his promise to quickly crush ISIS?
11
Canby is a 60's liberal Peace Corps graduate.. Clifton is a law and order guy. Friedland is probably a member of the Green Party. At least 2 votes against Trump. Case goes to SCOTUS ,where a 4-4 split leaves the 9th Circuit decision intact. If I'm wrong I promise to quit comments. Any appearance of neutrality is strictly illusory, I've argued 20 times before the 9th Circuit. Your panel is all you need to know. Case closed.
There once was a president blinded
By beliefs more low- than high-minded
But it’s justice that’s blind
And must not be maligned
As an errant fool without spine did
By beliefs more low- than high-minded
But it’s justice that’s blind
And must not be maligned
As an errant fool without spine did
11
So - the NYT and its readers feel good about an unelected, previously unheard of judge from liberal Washington State being able to stop an executive order from the duly elected President of the USA that addresses a federal issue concerning the safety of the US citizens where he clearly has the authority? Don't be fooled by a minority of angry rabble rousers - the 2018 midterms will not be kind to the Democrats that already face an awful Senate map. The left wing is ensuring a filibuster proof majority for the Republicans as we speak. Take heart - Democrats will do great in NYC and California.
4
Absolutely. The passions of the people occasionally lift up a candidate who is obviously unfit for the office he holds. To point out the obvious, there was NO objection from the right when an unelected, previously unheard of judge from conservative Texas stopped an executive order from president Obama. The courts will rule on whether president Trump has the authority, whether his EO addresses the safety of the US citizens or merely fulfills a campaign promise to impose a religious test on visitors and immigrants. Trump may be ignorant of the separation of powers, may be ignorant of, or "insufficiently briefed" on the executive orders he signs without bothering to read them, but the checks and balances that guard our cherished values remain.
1
Yes, that is exactly what we feel good about: a court made up of qualified adults, adhering to the Constitution and their role as a check and balance against executive power, duly and thoroughly reviewing a hasty edict that may be unconstitutional.
2
Most judges are unelected. This judge has a strong and qualified background.
Quite a large number of our population listened to the exchange between the judges of the 9th Circuit and the lawyer for the government, including myself.
It was indeed a complex lesson of civics.
Unfortunately those that are least informed about the three branches of government didn't tune in, as quite a few comments here show, stating that a president can never be sued over an executive order.
They all seem to forgot that Texas sued president Obama over his EO to spare ca. 5,000 illegals in the country with US citizen children not to be deported tearing families apart, and the 5th Court of Appeals declared his EO unconstitutional.
It was indeed a complex lesson of civics.
Unfortunately those that are least informed about the three branches of government didn't tune in, as quite a few comments here show, stating that a president can never be sued over an executive order.
They all seem to forgot that Texas sued president Obama over his EO to spare ca. 5,000 illegals in the country with US citizen children not to be deported tearing families apart, and the 5th Court of Appeals declared his EO unconstitutional.
8
Trump twitting incessantly may be his downfall.... do not take it away..
5
Who can forget Sonya Soto Mayer's quote, "gender and national origin could make a difference in a decision ". Is that not biased? Has Ruth Ginsberg ever decided with the conservative justices? Why do they call the 9th district court justices the "nutty nine,?"
Trump was correct on the ban especially when the majority of the countries cited are failed states. Even obama's FBI chief said vetting was questionable.
Trump was correct on the ban especially when the majority of the countries cited are failed states. Even obama's FBI chief said vetting was questionable.
2
The "quiet grandeur of the courts" was pretty impressive, America. Thanks, for having a forum for adults, too. Your inexplicable version of Mad King George III was beginning to seem like the only show in town, now that Barnum & Bailey has folded its tents. Good Luck.
3
The frightening part of all this is watching the Democrats boast how smart they all are, and how Trump is wrong about everything. Trump could walk on water and this paper would say he couldn't swim. Why should I trust anything the Democrats say no matter how loud and often they say it when they couldn't even win a slam dunk election? More Democratic voters, more money, incumbent popular President endorsement, and campaign effort and on and on...all I hear is the middle school answer that "we won the popular vote" which is akin to claiming victory at the Yankess game because "we go more hits" they just had more runs. Its juvenile and no wonder you were beaten at every possible level.
4
i dont see a word here about the election...just a disagreement with the policies and style of the sitting president. if you have a problem with people expressing opinions different from yours, it's no wonder you're defending this president.
As usual, Don the Con cannot be bothered to educate himself on the intricacies of our Republic, and our branches of government, resorting instead to his typical infantile, petulant Twitter rants and pejorative, "politics." He is used to having his phalanx of high priced corporate attorneys bully and threaten anyone who decides to seek legal redress against his endless fraudulent and incompetent business deals into submission. Not surprisingly, he thinks he is "king" instead of POTUS, and can imperiously demand that his word be law. Sorry, Con Man - this time, you've hit a wall, and neither Mexico nor we will build or pay for it. It is called the Rule of Law. 2/9, 9:33 AM
8
What scares me the most is the President is possibly in a win, win situation. Think about it for a moment. If there are no terrorist attacks he can say he protected the nation. If there are terrorist attacks he can say I told you. Obviously he does not realize this or he would stop blabbering about some perceived unfair court.
5
This is illogical. If the courts overrule him and there are no terrorist attacks he cannot say he protected the nation. Think about it.
If Mr. Flentje is referring to the Minnesotans "from Somalia" who had been convicted of terrorist crimes, note the following: All of these young men were born in the United States and were natural-born citizens, who were described by those who knew them as fond of American culture and thoroughly Americanized. Moreover, none of the crimes for which they were charged and/or convicted involved harm within the United States. Rather they were charged with giving assistance to terrorist groups abroad, especially Al-Shabab in Somalia, and of attempting to travel abroad in order to join terrorist groups in Somalia or Syria. All had friends, and some had close relatives, even a brother, who had already fought abroad. A few had lost their lives in combat or as a suicide bomber. There was no evidence that any of these men eventually intended to do harm within the United States, but all were prosecuted for federal offenses. They had been radicalized through social media, peer contact, and watching online videos, not through the teachings of imams in Muslim mosques in Minnesota.
4
If normal people (judges in this case) stick to the country's ideals and values
(not to mention it's laws) Trump might end up making America Great Again
after all.
(not to mention it's laws) Trump might end up making America Great Again
after all.
2
A man who was nursed thru his earliest legal battles in the lap of Roy Cohn senator Joe Mc Carthys hit man.
He learned his psychopathic lessons well the country will spend years and millions of dollars fixing the damage done.
A modern day Nero for a modern day Rome.
He learned his psychopathic lessons well the country will spend years and millions of dollars fixing the damage done.
A modern day Nero for a modern day Rome.
If the last three weeks has done anything for me and 300 million other American citizens it is to give us a new appreciation for the absolute beauty of the Constitution. The checks and balances designed into the three branch system are all that is keeping us afloat right now. Our founding fathers anticipated a crackpot like Trump.
5
This executive order is just part of Steve Bannon's strategy.
A major terror attack in the USA is actually what this government needs to establish an authoritarian regime.
"This is the playbook of authoritarianism. The rules are very well established, you create a constant state of crisis which only a strong leader can solve, you encourage fear you divide the populous you scape goat the minorities with appeals to nationalism and isolation you smear your opponents as unpatriotic and you tell the press to just shut up and listen.
The only question is what the people will do next."
Robert Schenkkan
A major terror attack in the USA is actually what this government needs to establish an authoritarian regime.
"This is the playbook of authoritarianism. The rules are very well established, you create a constant state of crisis which only a strong leader can solve, you encourage fear you divide the populous you scape goat the minorities with appeals to nationalism and isolation you smear your opponents as unpatriotic and you tell the press to just shut up and listen.
The only question is what the people will do next."
Robert Schenkkan
4
Yes, look behind any such attack for a "Reichstag burning"
Yes the sound of oral arguments in 9th Circuit was reassuring. Also reassuring: the NYT correspondents' excellent live coverage, translating the legalese into laypersons' terms and providing important context and explanation. Thank you for this important public service.
4
If only Trump had the attention span to read the editorial.
11
What does it take for the President to be held accountable for his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.." If his disparagement of out court system continues should it be grounds for impeachment? The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" included the idea of improper administration. When do Mr. Trump's slams against our courts turn to a threat and begin to undermine the foundation of the Constitution and of our nation. It might have been ok when he was citizen Trump but he is now President Trump and the President has taken a solemn oath.
4
Judicial intervention into executive actions portends
an dangerous trend of non elected elite appointed & not elected running a proxy Government without the need of accountability & are essentially unanswerable to no one.
President Trump,however has to face an electorate & is answerable to the people,which is not the case with the Judges.
Judges have absolutely no issue if Americans are banned from business/travel to Iran.....,
Judges however have issue if America decides to ban entry of
citizens of some countries.
an dangerous trend of non elected elite appointed & not elected running a proxy Government without the need of accountability & are essentially unanswerable to no one.
President Trump,however has to face an electorate & is answerable to the people,which is not the case with the Judges.
Judges have absolutely no issue if Americans are banned from business/travel to Iran.....,
Judges however have issue if America decides to ban entry of
citizens of some countries.
1
You have much to learn about our system. Judges that are "unelected and answering to no one" provide what's knows as "checks and balances". In short, it means that it is crucial that there is one branch of government that examines the issues on an objective and evidentiary basis rather than on popularity or votes.
It was very heartening to hear the debate before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and recognize just what a nation that lives by "the rule of law" is all about. The calm, thoughtful rationality of the court stood in vivid contrast to the petulant bombast of the immature rants of Trump's tweets. This is where the battle for the very soul of our Constitutional democracy will be won or lost. The demonization of the judiciary by the clearly mentally unstable autocrat who occupies the Oval office must not prevail if we are to save our Constitution that is the basis for our civil society.
6
All these crocodile tears from the same media that gave Mr Trump free publicity throughout his campaign, rarely fact-checking the outrageous assertions that are now accepted as fact by his followers because they sold newspapers--it seems I'm no longer able to summon the necessary outrage because I spent it all on the journalists who enabled the ascension of this ridiculous caricature to the presidency. I'll never forget how you undermined Bernie in order to promote your chosen candidate, Mrs Clinton. From my POV in a deep red state, I predicted this outcome early in the primaries if Mrs C was the Democratic candidate. How is it that none of you, nor the members of Congress, couldn't see this coming when an ordinary citizen like I did? And now you weep at the results.
1
It doesn't matter whether the president disrespects and demeans judges verbally or on Twitter. The point is that the president has no respect for the role of law in American politics. Throughout his life he's used the courts and legal threats to attack or intimidate anyone who stands in his way. We saw that in the fraud case over Trump's so-called university. He hasn't changed.
The medium is not the message. We don't care whether his rants are spoken or typed. However they're delivered, the president is making the crazy claim that he should be able to do whatever he wants and that only he knows what's best for America. He thinks the rules do not apply to him.
This is madness. The conclusion is inescapable, America elected a madman to the presidency.
The medium is not the message. We don't care whether his rants are spoken or typed. However they're delivered, the president is making the crazy claim that he should be able to do whatever he wants and that only he knows what's best for America. He thinks the rules do not apply to him.
This is madness. The conclusion is inescapable, America elected a madman to the presidency.
4
"Grandeur" indeed! I watched/listened to the live streaming of the oral arguments. I am not a lawyer but was fascinated by the Q&A. For the first time since the inauguration I actually felt some hope for our system and the country and am grateful that we have the ability to view such proceedings.
To the press and true journalism I say thank you. Please keep reporting and informing us...vital to our democracy.
To the press and true journalism I say thank you. Please keep reporting and informing us...vital to our democracy.
3
Grasping at straws to provide some semblance of order. American courts are generally partisan in some nature. Courts totally dominated by corporate lawyers, no justice as the numbers go higher e.g. The 2008 crash and no one in the prison? Federalist counting the angels on the head of a pin (originalism), gerrymandering, the horrible mix of religion and militarism encouraged by right wing courts, the 2000 Gift to the Bushes and on and on. In contrast to the past when we didn't know what was going on at least the Republicans and Trump aren't hiding their civil war with propriety and justice.
djt has mastered to a T twit-talk allowing him to suggest to his base that, by venting his spleen, he is also standing up to Washington, Inc. as he delivers on his campaign promises. To many of the rest of us, he just seems an increasingly clueless oaf.
Along with Mitch et al., he’s assumed that, because he won the election, the country, Congress and the judiciary should all fall into lock-step behind him. It's not easy to fathom the shallowness of his understanding of how the US government is actually supposed to work. By blustering along, night in day out, I guess he might persuade the minority who got him elected that he's revamping Washington, pulling off some sort of total make-over of government USA. In fact, he's already got himself enswamped in morasses he’d never dreamed of and his minders should have helped him avoid. Unless, of course, he’s been listening too closely to Steve, said to batten on chaos and destruction, in which case, he’s right on course.
Along with Mitch et al., he’s assumed that, because he won the election, the country, Congress and the judiciary should all fall into lock-step behind him. It's not easy to fathom the shallowness of his understanding of how the US government is actually supposed to work. By blustering along, night in day out, I guess he might persuade the minority who got him elected that he's revamping Washington, pulling off some sort of total make-over of government USA. In fact, he's already got himself enswamped in morasses he’d never dreamed of and his minders should have helped him avoid. Unless, of course, he’s been listening too closely to Steve, said to batten on chaos and destruction, in which case, he’s right on course.
1
I worked for a judicial branch of state government for 23 years and have the utmost respect for the judges and justices who give meaning to the checks and balances necessary for our democracy. No matter your politics, any attempt to delegitimize the judicial branch should be a red flag. This is how autocracies are established. With his personal attack on judges and the entire judicial process, President Trump is asserting that he is above the rule of law. It is time for Republicans to speak up and push back. As any school child knows, the only way to deal with a bully is to confront him.
160
The tip off came during his acceptance speech for the nomination when he said "I and I alone can fix these problems..." Sounds a bit dictatorial don't you think?
1
The oral argument in the 9th Circuit was excellent. Regardless of whether one feels the courts are politicized or not, the points made by the advocates and the questions from the judges presented and sought argument and information essential to deciding the issue. The dedication, education, and skill of the attorneys and judges should be praised, not condemned. To claim that a court decision is political is another ad hominem argument, and for the Times to praise the courts for skipping the gratuitous insults and then go on to call Trump a toddler simply encourages the behaviour the Times laments. Regardless of whether one considers Trump a meshugganah cockalorum or something less repulsive, someone needs to make the etiquette initiative and stick to the issues causing disagreement. Do what do you do when someone hasn't picked up after his pet, walk around.
2
The Times is baiting Trump now. It is s good strategy to provoke the thin-skinned so-called president.
I was appalled at the oral arguments. It wasn't the legal references nor aggressive style which I took to be par course. It was the seemingly arbitrary 30-minute time limit which led to a chaotic mess of interrupted openings and incomplete answers. Makes me wonder if the oral review was more geared to fitting into prime time than to arriving at a judicious decision.
4
Judges read the briefs of both sides and all interested parties. They review all the law citations to precedents in the briefs. The oral arguments are for the judges to challenge the lawyers and get clarity about their arguments. If they need more clarification the Court asks for it in writing or scheduled another conference.
That helps clarify things however I still don't understand the need for a strict 30 minute limit. Seems inefficient.
2
Courts are the only existing non-violent bulwark against all the infringements on democracy and freedom. If the current occupant, floated to the throne of the Union by the misguided and shortsighted electorate, wants to act as a neo-Mussolinian dictator, only the courts can stop him.
2
I am missing President Obama's lawyer like mind at work. Now we have a tweet like mind---instead of Oliver W. Holmes we now have Rodney Dangerfield.
2
Trump's attempts to intimidate the judiciary is yet another on a long list of particulars that warrant his impeachment. We've gone from the thoughtful and considered dignified judgement of President Obama to this buffoon.
2
I'm ready to be tired of Trump being so presidential.
I hate to think what the reaction will be if the appeals court rules against the Muslim Ban EO. The ranting, raving tantrum will be something to see. More chilling will be if the Administration asserts that the decision will not affect their actions going forward. Right now, our judiciary seems to be all that is standing between us an authoritarian regime.
3
I thoroughly appreciate the opportunity to hear the judges weigh the multiple aspects of the case. It provides a window into legal process, which is important for each of us to understand. It also makes clear the role of our judiciary in maintaining the balance of power, which is so necessary to democracy. I wish there could be regular tutorials like this.
4
Right now, taking into account together your lead article--confirmation of Sessions--and your lead editorial--the majesty of the operation of the law in a courtroom--it would seem, contrary to the bombast of tweets and angry rallies, that the system of checks and balances is strong and intact. For that we should be grateful. Winning is not always the point.
The REAL crime here is Trump as President! Thank goodness for the courts, they may yet save us from his destructive tendencies.
2
I have always rejected Trump's behavior, simplistic view of complex issues, and subsequent policy decisions with little regard for their far reaching effects on people's lives and the fate of the world. But this editorial encapsulated in stark terms, the menacing essence of this man. He thinks in "headlines," delivers emotionally charged rhetoric, plants the seed of blame on others to cover his tracks, and worst of all, lies with the world watching and listening not caring at all about right and wrong. The technicalities, legal principles, complexities of law and the constitution are simply obstacles that get in the way of his "I alone can fix it" mentality. The judiciary is our last best hope to
reign in his reckless disregard for our country's values.
reign in his reckless disregard for our country's values.
6
Trump is already bored with this new job. Being the President isn't nearly as fun as he thought it would be.
1
I am still hopeful that Republican appointed judges will have the backbone to stand up against this fool. My hope stems from the fact that they are (wisely) lifetime appointees, unlike the cowardly members of Congress who weigh every move they make on how it will be seen by their ignorant base.
2
The twittering used to really annoy me. Now I am actually grateful for it because it daily highlights how unsuitable this person is to be president. Every day with every tweet proves how much this man does not understand how a democracy is supposed to work and what the role of the president of is. Make America great again? Not on his watch.
1
I came of age in the late 1960's and the early 1970's. At that time, lawyers and journalists were my heroes. They were the instruments behind the movement for Civil Rights and the exposure of the Watergate Affair. The period we are currently living through feels like that. To the lawyers and the journalists, I say, "Keep up the good work!" And to the rest of us, I say, "Keep informed, vote, let your elected representatives know your opinions on the issues, and most importantly, GET INVOLVED!"
trump may be leading our great country. but just where is he leading it? He has selected highly UNqualified persons for his cabinet. Wonder what he has against the USA to do and say all he has said and done. The list is longer than The Dead Sea Scrolls.
This issue is like so many other Democrat vs Republican issue in recent history. Unless the decision comes down for your side then the headlines tomorrow will be "Courts Do Not Know What They Are Doing," "____ Influenced Judiciary," "What Has This Country Come To?," "The World is Ending Because We Didn't Get Our Way."
1
Procedure, decorum and class. Words NOT in the so-called presidents vocabulary or " big brain".
2
If Trump "has a toddler's aversion to the word no," he needs to be impeached and removed from office. He is far more of a threat to our security than any immigrant. We cannot allow him to distract us from his dangerous unsuitability to high office by his hyperactive projections of all blame elsewhere.
2
He disrespects the News Media, he derogates judges and our judicial system; he accuses the courts of being political when it is he that is politicizing every issue. He whines through his attack dog Spicer that he wishes the Media would be more respectful and admiring of Trump. Now that is really rich. A belligerent bully who respects nobody nevertheless wants everyone else to respect, even admire, even love him. Yet all his moves to delegitimize the Press, the Courts, the Law, etc. are all the classic moves of an evil dictator trying to remove obstacles to their authoritarian rule and the instituting a police state. It's clear who respects no boundaries of any kind, no limits at all. The whining about Ivanka's clothing line and his son calling for people to cut up their Nordstrom's credit cards shows how he crosses any and all boundaries with impunity. It's not just campaign rhetoric, he's unfit.
2
Awhat this case illustrates is a woeful lack of understanding of the legal system and the Consitutional powers of the President and the Judiciary.
And perhaps a woefully short memory.
The same people talking about the absolute right of Trump to issue Executive Orders, immune from judicial scrutiny, complained about Obama issuing Executive Orders.
Or maybe Republican Presidents are not subject to the same Constitution as Democrats?
And perhaps a woefully short memory.
The same people talking about the absolute right of Trump to issue Executive Orders, immune from judicial scrutiny, complained about Obama issuing Executive Orders.
Or maybe Republican Presidents are not subject to the same Constitution as Democrats?
9
And vice versa. The same people defending Obama's actions because of his terrible, mean-spirited opposition are now clamoring for it. Obama's defenders have done a one-eighty.
Fortunately, Trump is not Obama, who was notoriously ineffective in the face of opposition. Trump's reaction may be to tweet, but he lets nothing stop him.
Fortunately, Trump is not Obama, who was notoriously ineffective in the face of opposition. Trump's reaction may be to tweet, but he lets nothing stop him.
1
Your last thought may be what they think. They did think that only Republican presidents can nominate Supreme Court justices.
2
Unless he signs an EO that he failed to read and have properly reviewed by the various departments and lawyers at his disposal. Then the courts will stop him AACNY, as they have.
Interesting that Trump loved the courts and used them extensively to batter opponents throughout his business career but hates them now that they are challenging him.
4
Now the Republicans are planning to pack the court system with partisans after blocking hundreds of Obama nominees for years. The Democrats must block partisan judges by filibuster if necessary.
2
The danger is that Trump will realize something purportedly said by his new hero Andrew Jackson about Chief Justice John Marshall: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Meaning that courts can say whatever they want but our system depends on the other branches of government respecting those decisions without having to be forced to do so. Scary thought these days.
After weeks of bombast from the Administration, it was a pleasure to hear superbly-educated people use words--English and Latin--with precision, address facts and present reasoned arguments.
Judge Gorsuch should remove himself from the nomination as protest against this "President"'s judgement, if not for the unconstitutionality of the stolen seat he would occupy.
1
Will the NY Times be so sanguine about the quiet grandeur of the court when the politically aggressive far right Supreme Court begins rolling back every bit of civil rights protections (in the broadest sense of civil rights) it can get its hands on?
1
At least one of the branches of government is functioning properly.
1
During the confirmation process Judge Gorsuch will never say anything of consequence which hasn't been pre cleared by Sherpa Ayotte who will never clear his saying anything of consequence w/out instructions from the WH. Any member of the Democratic Party establishment - such as the Times - which finds encouragement in anything he says simply doesn't understand the long con being worked against it.
3
The courts and the rule of Law stand between us and the Abyss.
2
What was conceived in the 18'th century has clearly produced mixed results. All men have not been equal, and women less so. We suffer from a gerrymandered electoral college that prevents us from democratically electing an executive. Given the lunacy of its current occupant, and the children in the legislative, empowering a third branch was sheer brilliance!
1
Voltaire said: "He who can make you believe absurdities, can also make you commit atrocities". Stand up to Trump's absurdities, every day, at every occasion, it is a matter of survival for democracy!
5
I feel, somehow, that we've manage to produce here, the alpha to gamma castes of Brave New World, with the difference, of course, that even an epsilon can become president with the backing of other epsilons.
To the people parroting right wing talking points about the president having plenary power at the border, therefore he can do whatever he wants: Well, kind of. Caselaw demonstrates that folks not yet admitted into the United States have no right to enter the United States. However -- and this is a big however -- if you have been in the United States for a long time (green card holders, e.g.), and have 'substantial connections' with US, you have a legally cognizable interest in entering the US. That means that the government must show some justification before they reject your entry into the US. There is no need for this justification to be very compelling; it just has to be some kind of sound justification. The justifications here seem to have been religious animus mixed with a complete lack of factual support.
2
Our lawyers and the rule of law will keep Mr Trump and his band of characters in check. This is not the dying Roman Republic Mr Trump, it is the United States of America built upon the foundation of the greatest democratic document ever written, the Constitution, and our founders did forsee a day when someone like you would appear and they ensured that our democracy would be prepared to hold you in its web of checks and balances.
One of the president's lesser, but nevertheless important, jobs is to serve as a role model for our children. Unless parents start using 45 as a moral object lesson, our kids will be known as "the brattiest generation."
I wish people would stop saying Donald Trump does not know how the government works, or the courts work, or how anything works. Donald Trump knows exactly how all this stuff works, otherwise he would not be able to so unerringly and efficiently undermine it. He has an absolute genius for exploiting every chapter and verse of the despot's handbook.
1
While I don't dispute the danger he poses, Trump is an idiot whose idea of governing is the three B's: bully, brag and bluster.
I listened to the live-stream of the arguments in their entirety, transfixed by their calm orderliness, and convinced that the judges on the 9th circuit would give Trump's EO banning immigrants more deliberate consideration in weighing its constitutionality than Trump did in issuing it. Our system of federal courts is a jewel; sometimes watching the sausage get made is enlightening.
127
My biggest concern is what Trump learns from this experience. If the court finds for the government Trump will infer that he won because he bullied the court successfully. If the court finds against the government Trump will infer that he lost because he didn’t bully the court enough and will only ratchet up his criticisms.
The American people can also count on two things to rid itself of this petulant Crazy Man. l. Impeachment 2. 25h Amendment. We are not helpless against this monstrosity of a mistake.
1
Thank God for the Judiciary. We must fight to keep them independent and support them against this atrocious assault.
It is chilling that our president is in our courts making an argument for tyranny.
Isn't it partisan (and dicey) in itself for a public employee to depend upon one single mode of communication owned by a private company?
If trump does not know how independent federal judges are, he's in for a rude awakening. Let him show up in court and get hauled to jail for contempt when he starts ranting.
How is the lack of wisdom in this proposed travel ban different than in the travel ban that was suggested by some during the Ebola crisis? Experts warned then that people would just come to the U.S. via other countries and only be harder to track. It seems like the same sort of limited thinking is going on here.
1
The only branch of government that seems remotely stable right now is the Judiciary. With the Executive and Legislatve branches behaving like bratty children, the courts seem our democracy's only bastion for the foreseeable future--or at least the next four years.
3
I think the only thing to do is for Twitter to revoke Trump's access if he's going to use it irresponsibly now that he's the president.
I expect we will regale (or bore) our grandchildren someday with unbelievable tales of the good old days, when our leaders were sane grownups who respected a "Constitution" and there was something known as "the rule of law".
2
Unfortunately, the courts cannot seem to erase the self imposed willingness of over forty percent of the population to relentlessly defend and frequently worship this juvenile demagogue. All politics aside, it is truly astounding how blind they seem to the profound danger blatantly exposed by his rhetoric and severely dysfunctional personality. Left unchecked, Trump's gang of opportunists can still severely erode American democracy's last line of defense. Paranoia apparently runs far deeper on the right than any of us ever suspected. It is a binding and corrosive force when cultivated under the direction of such a skillful fool.
2
Since, in fact, the Appeals Court is dealing with a Presidential Order, the US Attorneys in the court are stand ins for the President himself. Would it not be appropriate to hold the President accountable for his Constitutionally ignorant slanders of the judges by actually legally holding him in contempt of the Court?
What exactly is the problem with the current visa program/vetting system that makes immigration bans necessary?
And may I add that the balance of common sense and principle so well read into the Constitution and separation of powers is echoed by such strong, fighting, well-expressed newspaper editorials as this one? Now, more than ever, the nation depends on the Fourth Estate.
Thank you for reminding us of "the majestic routine of the law." Looking back on the 2016 campaign there have been few government-related moments that can in any way be described as majestic. We are still the America of our national anthem, land of the free, home of the brave. The rule of law must be our beacon for making our way through the next four years.
No it reminded me of what the rule of judicial politicians looks like, the case should have been thrown out on the basis of standing, the fact that the president determines if a national threat exists. The law is quite clear and is the same since the founding of the country some 200+ years ago, and then supplemented by congress in 1952 with the passage of additional laws.
1
How is it possible that Trump could become president of the world's most powerful democracy without understanding how independence of the courts works?
1
The right-wingers here are hilarious ... until it crosses one's mind that they probably aren't joking. They really do want a President (as long as he's right-wing enough for them) completely above the law.
In tone it might have been the rule of law, but in most of the questions it was the sound of politics and over reach by the courts. The law is quite clear, both the constitution and congress have given the president the authority to make such decisions. Now if the decision is a good and effective one is for the congress to decide, not the courts. This court needs to be reorganized into three so that they can work better for the people, they are way behind on their work and the quality of it is questionable. Another thing for the congress and the administration to work on.
1
Between his open admiration for the autocrat Vladimir Putin, his disdain for the US courts, the press, and pretty much any other institution that threatens to get in his way, and his flagrant attempts to influence private businesses for his and his family's personal gain, Donald Trump has, in the short space of three weeks, made abundantly clear that he has absolutely no respect for this country's political, legal, or constitutional norms. In the absence of any identifiable resistance from any of his advisers, cabinet picks, or any Republicans in Congress, this is no longer just grist for Jimmy Kimmel and the Times editorial board. It's a clear and present danger for the entire country.
1
As I sign of rebuke to his invective against the Judicial Branch, I wonder how many SCOTUS judges might skip President Trump's Tweet of the Union Address.
1
It was an hour long breath of fresh air that brought the adults and civility back into the room. It showed us once again that we can disagree politely and respectfully without interruption and maintain our own dignity. It showed us that knowledge is indeed power and facts are truly more important than beliefs. Who knew that we would be thanking the lawyers for their grace under fire for showing us what it means to stick to the truth despite things not appearing to go your way. Would it be asking to much for Congress to also follow this example set by the judiciary and become more statesmanlike?
119
Apparently so...the Reps in Congress are craven and cowardly. We must vote them out!
Like a two engine plane that has lost one of its engines and continues to fly, we are cheered that the judiciary is doing its job where Congress has abdicated
1
There has not been much discussion of the fact that the president's sister is a judge. It would be nice if she could call the president and explain to him the role of the judiciary and the damage that he is doing to it by making this personal. Criticizing a court decision is much different than what he is doing.
As an afterthought concerning "compass shifting," recall if you will the intensity of Mr. Obama's remarks when the ACA was under Supreme Court review.
Obama did not attack the judiciary.
Trump's "My way or the Highway" demeanor and demonstrated verbal attacks indicate to me that he has run out of pavement and is now on a dirt road to a dusty destiny....
This is a record of American history being displayed with little if any fore
thought on the consequences of the actions being taken on a theatrical stage!
America and the world deserve much better than a litany of tantrums and prevarication from our "So Called Leadership" in Washington!
This is a record of American history being displayed with little if any fore
thought on the consequences of the actions being taken on a theatrical stage!
America and the world deserve much better than a litany of tantrums and prevarication from our "So Called Leadership" in Washington!
2
If "politics" are not involved in our judiciary, would someone please tell me why Merrick Garland is not sitting Justice on the the US Supreme Court.
1
The argument should have been more visceral. The President is trying to save the lives of citizens and residents of the United States while the State of Washingon is worried about collecting tuition payments.
1
"Rule of Law"
Oh god, not that legal phrase again. Usually it is referenced by the Right to enforce some corporate law no one wants, so it interesting to see it referenced this time to assert the notion of a balanced Democracy.
Rule of Law - Sounds great until it is used on individual American citizens, which it is all of the time. Obama intentionally referenced Rule of Law when talking about jailing Snowden.
Oh god, not that legal phrase again. Usually it is referenced by the Right to enforce some corporate law no one wants, so it interesting to see it referenced this time to assert the notion of a balanced Democracy.
Rule of Law - Sounds great until it is used on individual American citizens, which it is all of the time. Obama intentionally referenced Rule of Law when talking about jailing Snowden.
4
You may not like the phrase, and, yes, it is used to cover some procedures we find repugnant, but the point here is to contrast a method of decision-making based on precedent, evidence, and reason with arbitrary, hasty, and sometimes autocratic decrees by individuals. At least it allows those who would be adversely affected by a government action to make their case. Is that not worth some respect?
2
So basically, it's only a problem when it's used for something you don't like?
"Rule of Law" refers to the notion that the law is the final arbiter of society, that no on is above it. Don't confuse it with the thinly veiled racism of "law and order" - Rule of Law is the keystone of a republic, wherein even the legislature and the executive are bound by the Constitution. Sure it may be misappropriated, but it refers to the notion of no one being above the law.
2
“He then warned that the judge, and the entire court system, could be responsible for any future terrorist attacks that might occur.”
I seemed to recall the NY Times caving to the Bush-Cheney Regime’s same tactic to place a lid on a James Reston’s article embarrassing to the administration. A restive Reston became so exasperated by the length of the Times’ suppression that he finally resorted to writing a book to get the story out.
I seemed to recall the NY Times caving to the Bush-Cheney Regime’s same tactic to place a lid on a James Reston’s article embarrassing to the administration. A restive Reston became so exasperated by the length of the Times’ suppression that he finally resorted to writing a book to get the story out.
14
I believe you're thinking of James Risen, not James Reston (or Reston Jr.)
As someone who had the privilege many years ago of clerking for a judge in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, I truly appreciate this editorial. I wish more Americans, especially the new President, could sit through a session of oral arguments. I think they might come away with more respect for our judiciary and a realization that an independent judiciary is vital to the success of our republic.
262
However, a President with the attention span of a gnat, couldn't handle anything over 120 words.
1
Well if the court actually focused on the laws this would be true. Questions about how the president made his rule were not appropriate.
1
I am in complete agreement...but President Trump sitting through the entire length of an oral argument in a court?? Not sure he has even managed that when his business interests were the subject of the litigation in question. I mean this literally. I do not think the man can sit still and be quiet for that long, let alone ponder the weight of the arguments raised. Yes, thank God our republic has long had an active and engaged judiciary.
"But that is the majestic routine of the law: applying well-established precedents and principles to decide cases in the present and provide some assurance of predictability for the future."
It is unfortunate that too too often judges in lower level courts that don't get much public scrutiny, and deal with cases and people who are not famous and do not have the financial ability to appeal, operate far differently from majestic principles, full of pique, condescension and bias.
If the legal profession held its lower level judges to higher standards, perhaps the public would have greater faith in this institution.
It is unfortunate that too too often judges in lower level courts that don't get much public scrutiny, and deal with cases and people who are not famous and do not have the financial ability to appeal, operate far differently from majestic principles, full of pique, condescension and bias.
If the legal profession held its lower level judges to higher standards, perhaps the public would have greater faith in this institution.
3
There may be some obstruction of Trump's extremely limited immigration restriction, but in the end he will win public opinion hands down. A new British survey of 10 European countries shows 55% want all --- ALL --- immigration from Muslim countries halted. Only 20% want it continued (25% non-responsive). So a strong majority of Europeans favor much more aggressive measures than Trump. Liberals are way, way out of touch.
2
Just because Americans are not marching, burning and rioting doesn't mean they don't support Trump's actions.
We do not make law based on opinion polls.
Uhmmm T., - do you even have an idea why European countries are against MORE immigration? It might be because of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that are really pouring in there and straining country resources (not the "Trumped" up baloney being offered up here by the US WH administration).
The insidious aspect of Trump's arguments, which I have no doubt he believes, is the laymens plausibility of the insinuation that the courts are political. Having the President who elected each judge plastered above their photograph as the sound was broadcast on MSNBC only reinforced the partisan imagery - i.e. That the republican and democratic judges would only ever rule in favour of the lawyer representing the party of the president who appointed them. Hence the simplistic nature of Trump's worldview, devoid of nuance, results in an attitude which resonates : "you elected a non politician, someone who takes action, who will break down walls to keep the people safe, the law be damned, the muslims also, no more carnage here". But this is not just an attitude, there are fundamentally flawed assumptions behind every assumption : he is a politician, actions have consequences and must be thought through, the law will keep us safe and is more powerful than any president, the Muslim ban only emboldens our enemies and this carnage he speaks of is a distortion - we are in fact safer than we were during the bush years. There has been no 9/11 mark 2. But the power of the presidency is phenomenal, he alone commands the nuclear arsenal. Can the law protect us before it's too late? Will he be taken down, Nixonian style, before he has the ultimate expression of presidential narcicism, the atomic bomb?
2
Whatever in the world made you thing that our Judiciary is anything but a political institution?
Aren't judges nominated by the President, a person in office because of POLITICAL reasons?
Aren't judges confirmed by the Senate, and organization that is structured along POLITICAL lines?
The Courts are intended to reflect the political atmosphere of the day, no matter what direction that might be. Court appointees are afforded a life-time appointment so as to assure that the court, a political as it may be, retains a conservativism (note the lower case "c") that keeps the court from lurching from ideology to opposing ideology at the whims of the Executive and/or Congress.
It seems to me that you are suggesting some sort of coup d'etat, seemingly lead by the judiciary.
Where in the Constitution does the Judiciary get that power? Is that power absolute? Can the judiciary rule by fiat? How does the independence of our three, co-equal branches of government be preserved by our thinking.
Please be explicit in your response and defense of this extraordinarily novel interpretation of our Constitution and our laws. It is unclear where you are getting your legal and social foundations for your suggestions.
Aren't judges nominated by the President, a person in office because of POLITICAL reasons?
Aren't judges confirmed by the Senate, and organization that is structured along POLITICAL lines?
The Courts are intended to reflect the political atmosphere of the day, no matter what direction that might be. Court appointees are afforded a life-time appointment so as to assure that the court, a political as it may be, retains a conservativism (note the lower case "c") that keeps the court from lurching from ideology to opposing ideology at the whims of the Executive and/or Congress.
It seems to me that you are suggesting some sort of coup d'etat, seemingly lead by the judiciary.
Where in the Constitution does the Judiciary get that power? Is that power absolute? Can the judiciary rule by fiat? How does the independence of our three, co-equal branches of government be preserved by our thinking.
Please be explicit in your response and defense of this extraordinarily novel interpretation of our Constitution and our laws. It is unclear where you are getting your legal and social foundations for your suggestions.
I wonder that the new President is the best example of the creed, "I'm OK, but you're not OK". But the puzzling thing about his banters is that he remains a child prodigy who had lived a disturbed past, drawing everything to his advantage through advancements by connections.
The American people were duped into believing that it was not a safe place, whereas all the data points to the fact that actually it was the only safe place on earth. But who can compete with the deluge of 140 character assaults which has institutionalized the practice of "alternate truth"?
The American people were duped into believing that it was not a safe place, whereas all the data points to the fact that actually it was the only safe place on earth. But who can compete with the deluge of 140 character assaults which has institutionalized the practice of "alternate truth"?
4
Please, Mr. Mukherjee, work to make your homeland a better place before you engage in remarking about our internal political affairs. And, by all reports you have a great deal of work to do to assure that your parliamentary democracy represents all Indians and your legal and secuirty systems can protect the man...or more pointedly...the woman on the street.
You would be sorely offended if were to interfere with your domestic politics. Why would you even think that we might be willing to accept yours with open arms?
You would be sorely offended if were to interfere with your domestic politics. Why would you even think that we might be willing to accept yours with open arms?
1
"He then warned that the judge, and the entire court system, could be responsible for any future terrorist attacks that might occur."
This is extraordinarily serious. When an attack occurs--and let's face it, we all know it's "when" and not "if"--this childish, narrow-minded, arrogant man will most certainly try to exploit public fear to claim extraordinary powers that could very plausibly amount to a dismantling of American democracy. And it is completely clear that he is already preparing to blame the courts. (I am sure he will find others to blame as well, because that is one of the the few things he is able to concentrate on.)
But when that attack happens it will have been because the POTUS is too self-absorbed to pay attention to intel and security briefings and because he is mentally incapable of thinking about consequences of his actions and policies beyond the most immediate "ratings" he might receive on TV or social media.
As Americans one of the most important tasks facing us at the moment is not only checking this man's power gropes but also preparing ourselves emotionally and spiritually for the next disaster--to attempt to control our fears so that he cannot exploit them.
This is extraordinarily serious. When an attack occurs--and let's face it, we all know it's "when" and not "if"--this childish, narrow-minded, arrogant man will most certainly try to exploit public fear to claim extraordinary powers that could very plausibly amount to a dismantling of American democracy. And it is completely clear that he is already preparing to blame the courts. (I am sure he will find others to blame as well, because that is one of the the few things he is able to concentrate on.)
But when that attack happens it will have been because the POTUS is too self-absorbed to pay attention to intel and security briefings and because he is mentally incapable of thinking about consequences of his actions and policies beyond the most immediate "ratings" he might receive on TV or social media.
As Americans one of the most important tasks facing us at the moment is not only checking this man's power gropes but also preparing ourselves emotionally and spiritually for the next disaster--to attempt to control our fears so that he cannot exploit them.
27
When does Trump's obvious lack of judgement reach the level of insanity?
You are right that he will try and blame the courts when another terrorist attack occurs. However, what if the perpetrators are from one of the Muslim countries he did NOT put on the list? Who's to blame then?
1
Mr. Trump has always conducted himself without reflecting that anyone could successfully challenge him. When he has been challenged in the past he has been able to use his money and influence to crush his opposition.
Regardless of the merits of the case, I expect the 9th circuit will deny his appeal. Based on the facts, I think he is actually within the constitution to issue the travel ban. He is also correct that the judiciary is very often politically motivated.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to see him rebuked for his egregious whether he is correct in regard to the law or not.
Many presidents have had to learn the hard way that just because they sat in the White House, they were not king. I expect he will not "learn" any lessons and will have to swatted down from time to time by the courts and congress when he in fact is outside the constitution.
Regardless of the merits of the case, I expect the 9th circuit will deny his appeal. Based on the facts, I think he is actually within the constitution to issue the travel ban. He is also correct that the judiciary is very often politically motivated.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to see him rebuked for his egregious whether he is correct in regard to the law or not.
Many presidents have had to learn the hard way that just because they sat in the White House, they were not king. I expect he will not "learn" any lessons and will have to swatted down from time to time by the courts and congress when he in fact is outside the constitution.
4
If you wish to rebuke President Trump for something egregious, I would suggest that you pick some egregious act on which to do so.
The Democrats in the Senate, yesterday, made fools of themselves, with Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) choosing to violate the rules of the Senate...even after a cautionary warning...just to score a political point and to fund raise.
That's not principled dissent. That's demagoguery.
The Democrats in the Senate, yesterday, made fools of themselves, with Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) choosing to violate the rules of the Senate...even after a cautionary warning...just to score a political point and to fund raise.
That's not principled dissent. That's demagoguery.
The Bard once wrote, ''Let's kill all the lawyers,'' mouthed by a character that wanted to become a king. To achieve the control he seeks, Trump must debase the courts and their role in the rule of law. That role is part of a delicate balance between the three co-equal branches of the federal government. Trump has shown disdain for any group that interferes with his notion of governing. Any judge and any advocate who opposes him can expect similar treatment. The effect, however, is to erode one of the institutions that makes America great.
11
The world in 140-character increments dumbs down everything and is perfect for Trump whose attention span does not expand to even reading the orders he signs. If the TV cameras are on and he is surrounded by applauding flunkies, he is in his element.
Twitter is really the invention of an extra-celestial regime that wants to strip our languages of their elegant clothing and reduce our sentences to naked factoids and vulgar attacks. It is the perfect toy for Trump's playpen.
Twitter is really the invention of an extra-celestial regime that wants to strip our languages of their elegant clothing and reduce our sentences to naked factoids and vulgar attacks. It is the perfect toy for Trump's playpen.
13
Remember Jonathan Gruber, PRosenwald, counted on the stupidity of the average American to pass the "Affordable Care Act".
I notice, too, that you are in Brazil. Unless you are a US citizen your remarks regarding our political and legal affairs represents a gratuitous, and eminently objectionable interference in our domestic affairs.
If you are a citizen, why are you hiding behind the shield of the United States to protect you from becoming a Brazilian...or any other nationality...since you view our political affairs with such disdain.
I notice, too, that you are in Brazil. Unless you are a US citizen your remarks regarding our political and legal affairs represents a gratuitous, and eminently objectionable interference in our domestic affairs.
If you are a citizen, why are you hiding behind the shield of the United States to protect you from becoming a Brazilian...or any other nationality...since you view our political affairs with such disdain.
Say one thing for The Donald, he is providing the country - if not the world - with a powerful, first hand, real world lesson in civics, economics, diplomacy, race relations, religious freedom, the Constitution, and the importance of the seperate branches of our government and the checks and balances that (hopefully) exists.
Albeit this was not his intention, we should welcome the test he is placing on the American democracy. Let's this be another fine example of right over might.
Albeit this was not his intention, we should welcome the test he is placing on the American democracy. Let's this be another fine example of right over might.
20
Welcoming this test may be difficult if we don't pass the test!
Back to the future. Donald Trump's current behavior can be gleaned form
his past. The Manhattan real estate wars starting in the fifties, multiple
marriages, the years as the "Apprentice"emperor, the four
bankruptcies , his court appearances, his enormous world wide
real estate empire, his relations with women employees, his cloaked
tax returns, his draft deferments, and the list goes on. The Roy Cohn
influence is palpable to understand him today. Attack, attack,attack and
deny, move on, and settle. A fine philosophy for TV. but fails in
the U.S. democracy of 2017. Donald Trump is 70, and will not
change. What we see is what we have - the President for the
next four years.
his past. The Manhattan real estate wars starting in the fifties, multiple
marriages, the years as the "Apprentice"emperor, the four
bankruptcies , his court appearances, his enormous world wide
real estate empire, his relations with women employees, his cloaked
tax returns, his draft deferments, and the list goes on. The Roy Cohn
influence is palpable to understand him today. Attack, attack,attack and
deny, move on, and settle. A fine philosophy for TV. but fails in
the U.S. democracy of 2017. Donald Trump is 70, and will not
change. What we see is what we have - the President for the
next four years.
19
Maybe not for four years, but then we'll have a Priest-in-Chief with Pence having to fill his shoes for the rest of his term, and that is almost equally frightening.
1
Maybe! Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll get bored or impeached.
1
President Trump showed the world who he was during the campaign. His attacks on Judge Curiel should have been troubling to any thinking person. I am puzzled by how the Republican members of Congress appear to be afraid to disagree with him when he is so strident and factually wrong. President Trump must learn that there is respect for the Office of the President but respect for the man sitting in that Office must be earned. That respect is earned by leadership , fairness and setting an example. I have my doubts he will earn that respect . The Courts and the law looks at each of us as equals. The Courts are not a part of his "Brand". The Presidency is not his "Brand". His cell phone/ tablet puts our Nation at risk.
28
The comments here represent the upper-class experience. The lower and middle classes have a totally different experience in Court.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicytomkins/12/
The negative images centered on perceived inaccessibility, unfairness in the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, leniency toward criminals, and a lack of concern about the problems of ordinary people. There was concern that the courts are biased in favor of the wealthy and corporations. Indeed, the perception of economic- based unfairness in civil cases seemed to rival the perception of judicial leniency in criminal cases as a source of public dissatisfaction. There also was strong evidence of public concern that political considerations, and especially campaign fundraising, exerted an undue influence on the judiciary.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicytomkins/12/
The negative images centered on perceived inaccessibility, unfairness in the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, leniency toward criminals, and a lack of concern about the problems of ordinary people. There was concern that the courts are biased in favor of the wealthy and corporations. Indeed, the perception of economic- based unfairness in civil cases seemed to rival the perception of judicial leniency in criminal cases as a source of public dissatisfaction. There also was strong evidence of public concern that political considerations, and especially campaign fundraising, exerted an undue influence on the judiciary.
8
Yes it could certainly be argued American courts favor the wealthy and white, to not see this is to be blind to American history and justice. It also favors the clever insiders who know how to manipulate the system for their own personal gain. To the average American who has no proclivity to be litigious, the court system can be a corrupting influence that is like most things in America, primarily a money making enterprise for those who know how to use it to their advantage. Perhaps the First Lady is a good present example of how the wealthy and connected can use the court system to try to cash in on some "opponent", in this case a media outlet. This of course is just an observation, the courts will certainly always come to just decisions in all cases, and are not "rigged" as some famous celebrities have said recently and in the past...
2
Trump is the infant President. His inability to deal properly with complex issues and limited vocabulary are clearly evident in almost everything he does. Even his readying ability is quite limited. His choices of where he gets is information is almost laughable-Fox News, Bannon, are choice examples. His choice of Twitter as his man source of expression demeans more of himself than of the Presidency. Actually, his use of Twitter allows us to see his great weaknesses and in fact his predictability-something he claims he is not. It also shows how thoughtless he is and how his staff is unable to control his every outburst. Trump is exhausting himself and is physcologicly driving himself into mental collapse. It is not how many people are praising him that counts-expects that. What is really driving a nail into him is the millions who are criticizing him day in and day out. That will take its toll sooner or later because he cannot deal with that type of rejection. You see day by day that he deals we silly issues from how many people were at his inauguration to Nordstrom taking his daughters line of merchandise of their shelves. Even now rather than letting justice takes is course and to get more involved in his job-he spends hours criticizing the judges
This leads to deameaning of him and the circle continues on. As time goes by Trump will get mentally exhausted to the extent that he will, for health reasons-real or otherwise, resign from office.
This leads to deameaning of him and the circle continues on. As time goes by Trump will get mentally exhausted to the extent that he will, for health reasons-real or otherwise, resign from office.
31
In the spirit of this editorial, I am hoping that the courts act dispassionately, unswayed by the child-like rancor of Trump, and arrive at the only rationale conclusion, which is:
That the judicial branch should never attempt to halt a president from performing a function exclusive to the executive branch - such as the protection of our national security - until the president adequately justifies his action to the court.
Regardless of what you think of this ban, the ruling by the lower court here in San Francisco sets a very dangerous precedent for future administrations.
There is more at stake here than Trump's ill considered 120 day ban.
I am hopeful that cooler heads prevail and the lower court's dangerous stay is reversed.
That the judicial branch should never attempt to halt a president from performing a function exclusive to the executive branch - such as the protection of our national security - until the president adequately justifies his action to the court.
Regardless of what you think of this ban, the ruling by the lower court here in San Francisco sets a very dangerous precedent for future administrations.
There is more at stake here than Trump's ill considered 120 day ban.
I am hopeful that cooler heads prevail and the lower court's dangerous stay is reversed.
9
Uhmmmm... we don't live in a monarchy.
3
It's not " dangerous play" the courts are doing, what Mr. Trump and cohort Steve Bannon is doing very dangerous. The things that this administration is doing is Un American and racist.
Rita, we seemed to have lived in a monarchy for the last eight years, then suddenly we don't? Liberals suddenly find religion.
1
Every outrage Mr. Trump has perpetrated hitherto pales by comparison to the act of the chief magistrate of the United States showing contempt for an Article III judge and hence contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. That, if he fails to apologize, is unforgivable. In blaming the federal court for any terrorist act that may occur as a result of its order, Mr. Trump might as well blame the constitution. Judges can be wrong, but the orders of a court must be obeyed even if wrong. Any other result is anarchy. Even the President can be held in contempt of court - that is if he had the courage to appear in the courtroom instead of tweeting from afar - the desperate act of the coward that he is.
52
Criticizing a judge or court ruling, however ill-advised, does not constitute contempt of court - were that so, then many politicians would be behind bars as we speak.
1
"Contempt for the constitution" is a violation of the oath of office sworn to by Trump. Is such a violation an impeachable offense? Would the GOP Congress ever consider such a thing, however egregious the violation?
At the 1908 Olympics, every country in the opening march was told to dip their flag to the monarchs of the host country (Great Britain). Ralph Rose, the US shot putter, refused to dip the American flag. Martin Sheridan, the US discus thrower, explained: "This flag dips to no foreign monarch."
Today, Americans their age burn the US flag over imagined slights.
In the past eight years more than 100 Americans were murdered by terrorists on American soil for the crime of being an American. We have done virtually nothing to stop the next one. The Boston Marathon bomber and the Fort Hood shooter sit in US jails, watching television and eating the food we pay for; Major Hassan has a beard we allow him, in violation of the oath he took as a US Military officer.
Where is our outrage? How dare these people do this to our countrymen? Why do we just bow our heads and issue weak platitudes like all these whiners who demand we throw our president in jail for the crime of not being nice to their pet political concepts?
Americans are beheaded for being Americans, and we did nothing. A US Ambassador was murdered in his consulate as it burned down around him, and we did nothing.
We are the one great superpower in the world. That world should know that if a single American is harmed because he is an American, we will rain intolerable retribution on all those responsible. No one should be allowed to dare take such an act.
We just mumble "Play nice." "Don't play rough."
What happened to us?
Today, Americans their age burn the US flag over imagined slights.
In the past eight years more than 100 Americans were murdered by terrorists on American soil for the crime of being an American. We have done virtually nothing to stop the next one. The Boston Marathon bomber and the Fort Hood shooter sit in US jails, watching television and eating the food we pay for; Major Hassan has a beard we allow him, in violation of the oath he took as a US Military officer.
Where is our outrage? How dare these people do this to our countrymen? Why do we just bow our heads and issue weak platitudes like all these whiners who demand we throw our president in jail for the crime of not being nice to their pet political concepts?
Americans are beheaded for being Americans, and we did nothing. A US Ambassador was murdered in his consulate as it burned down around him, and we did nothing.
We are the one great superpower in the world. That world should know that if a single American is harmed because he is an American, we will rain intolerable retribution on all those responsible. No one should be allowed to dare take such an act.
We just mumble "Play nice." "Don't play rough."
What happened to us?
10
Just plain nonsense.
"We did nothing". - Oh, really? You haven't been paying attention to the decimation of the leadership ranks of ISIs and foot soldiers. Hey, maybe Trump should have complained about the news media's failure to cover US air strikes and combat missions!
Now, if you had talked about the failure to do anything about the continuing slaughter of Americans at the hands of Americans who shouldn't have had guns because of mental instability - then you have a point.
"We did nothing". - Oh, really? You haven't been paying attention to the decimation of the leadership ranks of ISIs and foot soldiers. Hey, maybe Trump should have complained about the news media's failure to cover US air strikes and combat missions!
Now, if you had talked about the failure to do anything about the continuing slaughter of Americans at the hands of Americans who shouldn't have had guns because of mental instability - then you have a point.
6
I think you may need to study US foreign policy over the last 50 years. The idea that "we didn't do anything" is misinformed. Yes, you are correct, these terrorists should be dealt with but to think America is innocent from manipulating foreign governments and murdering people is ridiculous.
1
You say more than 100 American were murdered by terrorists on American soil for crime of being American. I am unaware of this statistic. What about nearly one million American being killed since 9/11 by gun violence and the hands of our own people?
1
Maybe this is just a an overdue civics lesson for a nation that became complacent about how lucky we are. In any populist moment, the movement is a schoolroom. We are living through a an alt-right populist moment. In the case of this live stream, the oral arguments made every listener into a student of a process that, even for regular readers of the newspapers, is rarely encountered. The contrast to Bannonism is rather stark. Sober disputation and well-informed reasoning instead of bombastic fears leading toward authoritarian solutions.
114
It remains a source of deep anxiety that the president acted in a state of total unawareness of the constitutional and statutory law that govern this case. He appears to think that he is authorized to do whatever his common sense advises him at any given moment.
The only legal rationale that his defenders can offer is that the president's action is "unreviewable" because is a national security matter -- and therefore they decline to even prove that contention. This amounts to the boldest assertion of unlimited presidential authority since the Nixon Era.
It seems that Trump himself will never uphold the rule of law, which is the only thing that keeps civil society from devolving into the jungle violence produced when average citizens also begin to act according to what they consider "common sense."
The only legal rationale that his defenders can offer is that the president's action is "unreviewable" because is a national security matter -- and therefore they decline to even prove that contention. This amounts to the boldest assertion of unlimited presidential authority since the Nixon Era.
It seems that Trump himself will never uphold the rule of law, which is the only thing that keeps civil society from devolving into the jungle violence produced when average citizens also begin to act according to what they consider "common sense."
83
If this were a movie, would it be a tragedy.....or a comedy?
Isn't "Trump's common sense" an oxymoron?
2
"..."unreviewable" because is a national security matter.." This will be POTUS's excuse for all things in the future such as no environmental review (NHPA, NEPA, ARPA, NAGPRA) for anything including that stupid wall.
With an acute allergy to the no word when somebody else says it and, no knowledge of the separation of powers, Trump's authoritarian populism is based on false premises.
The problem is that we tend to elaborate on those false premises instead of destroying them with facts.
Maybe all that experience in US courts were not enough for the President to know that the judicial system in the US is based on evidence, proof and, it is framed by the Constitution and laws. That includes chapter 11 procedures to write off hundreds of million dollars from income taxes. Well, he did not get it.
I am not moved by Trump's sleepless nights watching TV and whining about how cruel the world is to him.
The problem is that we tend to elaborate on those false premises instead of destroying them with facts.
Maybe all that experience in US courts were not enough for the President to know that the judicial system in the US is based on evidence, proof and, it is framed by the Constitution and laws. That includes chapter 11 procedures to write off hundreds of million dollars from income taxes. Well, he did not get it.
I am not moved by Trump's sleepless nights watching TV and whining about how cruel the world is to him.
75
You apparently don't understand the law, this EO is totally legal, it might not be a good idea but that is another issue.
1
Garbage.
The entire case should've been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. You can't sue the president over an EO. Then, these brilliant "men in black robes" are asking about the president's comments on the campaign trail about "banning Muslims". Completely irrelevant. And the president has plenary power here. He could ban left-handed men from Sweden if he so chooses.
This is classic forum shopping by the radical institutional left. There is a reason why the 9th Circuit is by far the most overturned circuit: They are radical progressives who make stuff up to suit their agenda.
The entire case should've been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. You can't sue the president over an EO. Then, these brilliant "men in black robes" are asking about the president's comments on the campaign trail about "banning Muslims". Completely irrelevant. And the president has plenary power here. He could ban left-handed men from Sweden if he so chooses.
This is classic forum shopping by the radical institutional left. There is a reason why the 9th Circuit is by far the most overturned circuit: They are radical progressives who make stuff up to suit their agenda.
12
Executive orders are subject to judicial review like any other federal action. Moreover, there must be some rational basis for the order. If you think about what you are advocating, the executive could function as an unchecked dictator.
182
Oh yes, the famous Nixon Rule, if the President does it, it is legal.
This Rule only applies to Republican Presidents. For Democratic Presidents, the rule of law applies. That is why Obama's Executive Order on immigration got challenged and overturned.
This Rule only applies to Republican Presidents. For Democratic Presidents, the rule of law applies. That is why Obama's Executive Order on immigration got challenged and overturned.
17
J: EOs are subject to JR, as Obama was smacked down several times 9-0 by the SC. But it was Congress who sued. These states can't do what they did, i.e., sue the president. This should have been bounced as soon as it was filed.
5
This spat with the judges just shows up Trump for the coward he is. Attacking the judiciary, a group noted for their restraint and reluctance to get involved in politics, he is attacking those who can't hit back. If Gorsuch had any decency, instead of just criticising the President, he would refuse the offer of the nomination from this president and say he will wait for a nomination from someone who actually has some respect for the role of the judiciary. One has to take a stand against the tyranny at an early stage, before it becomes too late to do so.
Too many people are disagreeing with Trump on certain issues and yet going along with him anyway for the sake of a political appointment. They would not be the first people to think that they could control the beast by getting into the cage. However, it generally doesn't work. Let the despot get too strong and control becomes impossible. By refusing to go along with him at some personal cost, Gorsuch would send a much stronger message and it would be a better defence of judicial independence than any amount of 'demoralising" or "disheartening" quotes. Trump will ignore them and take credit for delivering on his Supreme Court promises. Time to stand up for your beliefs, Mr Gorsuch.
Too many people are disagreeing with Trump on certain issues and yet going along with him anyway for the sake of a political appointment. They would not be the first people to think that they could control the beast by getting into the cage. However, it generally doesn't work. Let the despot get too strong and control becomes impossible. By refusing to go along with him at some personal cost, Gorsuch would send a much stronger message and it would be a better defence of judicial independence than any amount of 'demoralising" or "disheartening" quotes. Trump will ignore them and take credit for delivering on his Supreme Court promises. Time to stand up for your beliefs, Mr Gorsuch.
257
Gorsuch made his remark in private; then it was leaked. If he withdraws Trump could nominate someone much worse. If Trump is impeached, then convicted, we would get President Pence, more measured perhaps, but just as dangerous. Pence doesn't believe in climate change, believes the world was created 6000 years ago, and who knows what other fables. We are living through a political crisis whose resolution could plunge us into tyranny or the removal from power of the most dangerous President in our history.
It's an absurd standard for Judge Grouch to remove himself for consideration for the court because of comments of the president, just as it would be for any other jurist to remove him or herself for consideration because they may not agree with the nominating president on any number of issues. Unlike Cabinet or other appointed officials, once confirmed they are not working for the president or executive branch and thus owe no duty to follow the president's agenda or policies - in short, an independent jurist in an independent co-equal branch.
And while Mr. Trump is, at best, ill-advised in his comments, he is hardly the first president to openly disagree with or disapprove of the high court, from Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama (who criticized the court in the State of the Union in a manner unheard of before).
Judge Grouch declining his nomination would not send any message of worth.
And while Mr. Trump is, at best, ill-advised in his comments, he is hardly the first president to openly disagree with or disapprove of the high court, from Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama (who criticized the court in the State of the Union in a manner unheard of before).
Judge Grouch declining his nomination would not send any message of worth.
No, the best thing he could do is accept the nomination and then use his position to right wrongs imposed by this bully. To vote against a position he's supposed to help grease the wheels for will be harder than the abuse which will be heaped upon him by the bully.
1
Good grief, my reading of our history tells of the courts making decidedly political and contentious decisions in many, many instances. The idea that the courts are pristine and removed from politics does not historically hold.
5
Nancy, you missed the point of the article.
Citizens United is an example supporting your comment. However, the Supreme Court is less nuts than Trump - it doesn't actually see invisible fans and invisible terrorists and invisible illegal voters.
2
He is not suited by temperament or knowledge for for any public service position - he should NOT remain in office. I do not believe that he even graduated from that military academy, far less earned a college degree, without paying someone to do his work - and to keep their mouths shut. His behavior is pathological and dangerous. However should he suddenly clam up, we will have proof that his non-elected entourage is running the show - another disaster ( we already know he doesn't formulate those executive orders - he doesn't even read them). He's our Henry the Eighth, threatening anyone who doesn't bow and scrape, and accede to royal impulses.
He hasn't divested his assets or put them in a blind trust; now there is controversy because of a potential agreement to rent space in Trump Towers to provide presidential meeting space-- as if there are not meeting spaces in Washington, as if we need to subsidize his NYC digs and protection more than we already do ( taxpayer we).
He hasn't divested his assets or put them in a blind trust; now there is controversy because of a potential agreement to rent space in Trump Towers to provide presidential meeting space-- as if there are not meeting spaces in Washington, as if we need to subsidize his NYC digs and protection more than we already do ( taxpayer we).
21
Kelllyanne has the nerve to suggest the media has demeaned the office her boss denigrates by his insults, brash speech, social media attacks, and endless executive orders and photo ops (when he signs, he holds each one up for the camera, turning one way, than the other; like a first grader displaying his work!).
As Black radio says, after Obama, we traded "class for trash." Republicans sit silent as Trump blusters/bashes/lashes/insults/smears; jeers and sneers with contempt and scorn, and scoffs and taunts the global community with a ceaseless stream of deceit/infidelity, with feckless incompetence and aimless ambition, and pathetic wretched upsets.
Build a rubber room in the White House! Bring in the inflated punching dummies! His solicitor general will soon be a man who said AID victims should have no protections against discrimination, who opposed lgbtq marriage and wanted to use taxpayer funds for Bob Jones University when it prohibited interracial dating. Not only white supremacy but extreme racism/xenophobia/misogyny has damaged our most venerable institution in the eyes of the world. Despite the agony and woe of Kellyanne's complaint, the media had nothing to do with it. She should look closer to home.
As Black radio says, after Obama, we traded "class for trash." Republicans sit silent as Trump blusters/bashes/lashes/insults/smears; jeers and sneers with contempt and scorn, and scoffs and taunts the global community with a ceaseless stream of deceit/infidelity, with feckless incompetence and aimless ambition, and pathetic wretched upsets.
Build a rubber room in the White House! Bring in the inflated punching dummies! His solicitor general will soon be a man who said AID victims should have no protections against discrimination, who opposed lgbtq marriage and wanted to use taxpayer funds for Bob Jones University when it prohibited interracial dating. Not only white supremacy but extreme racism/xenophobia/misogyny has damaged our most venerable institution in the eyes of the world. Despite the agony and woe of Kellyanne's complaint, the media had nothing to do with it. She should look closer to home.
53
The idea of Kelleyanne correcting her remarks to better approximate reality is good enough to be the subject of a SNL skit.
1
In the same remarks to law enforcement, Trump also said that he would not ever say that a court was bias, but then went on to call it "political," essentially calling it bias.
I see Trump as a frightened man who is in way over his head. He wants to "protect" the USA from any attack on his watch, but does not have any understanding of the issues or international relations. So he turns to a fearful persons response - build bunkers, honker down, fear everyone who is different, convince himself and his fans that this is the way to safety. Sadly, building bunkers and honkering down simply removes our influence and makes us irrelevant. What it will not do, is eliminate all dangers. The fearful-one is also gearing up a "not-my-fault" line for when the inevitable happens. Right now the target is the judiciary - likely others will fill the role over time, too.
I see Trump as a frightened man who is in way over his head. He wants to "protect" the USA from any attack on his watch, but does not have any understanding of the issues or international relations. So he turns to a fearful persons response - build bunkers, honker down, fear everyone who is different, convince himself and his fans that this is the way to safety. Sadly, building bunkers and honkering down simply removes our influence and makes us irrelevant. What it will not do, is eliminate all dangers. The fearful-one is also gearing up a "not-my-fault" line for when the inevitable happens. Right now the target is the judiciary - likely others will fill the role over time, too.
22
Much of his behavior seems to be an expanded version of Nixon's "madman" gambit; try and intimidate everyone else by convincing them that you're crazy and there's no telling what you might do if provoked. But what it's really doing is trying to disguise the fact that the "madman" realizes he has no idea what to do if something does go down, so he's trying anything he can to forestall it.
Judges are on oath to uphold the law and identify the the truth of facts that are presented to them. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his indifference to truth and his distain for those appointed to uphold the law. He clearly seeks to establish the very despotism that America's constitution was designed to prevent.
20
"When Donald Trump describes legal arguments and discussion by Federal Appeals Judges as "a bunch of stuff..that was disgraceful" we have moved way beyond "disheartening" and "demoralizing" territory. I wish Judge Gorsuch' s condemnation of Trump's continuing accusations of political bias ( i.e. any ruling not in his favor) by judges had been much more forceful. The adjective which really applies here is "Dangerous" with a capital "D."
20
It is the American culture : complete lack of causality.Everything in the metonymy of the behaviorist binary logic of Good and Evil.
Going from one to the other is the perfect way to let the subliminal cursus of historical abuse of the masses continue .
Going from one to the other is the perfect way to let the subliminal cursus of historical abuse of the masses continue .
In Italy, right wing ex-prime minister Silvio Berlusconi was extremely skilled at polarizing Italians by inventing the notion that judges who brought charges against him were all communists. Donald Trump is adopting a similar strategy when he claims judges oppose him for political reasons. It’s vital for Republican members of the judiciary to demonstrate they have more spine than almost all Republican legislators have shown by standing up to Trump. Judges of all political persuasions need show that the law is intended to protect the people and an open society, especially now when our executive branch presents a clear and present danger to democracy.
41
The NYT and the many posters here may not like Trump, and may not like what he is saying about his EO to temporarily halt travel to our country from specified countries, but his point and assertion are correct.
The president has the defined authority to proclaim such an order and require his administration to bring it into force. Anyone reading 1182 understands this, and any argument against is rendered moot, unless or until activist judges get involved...
The battle here is not about the 'travel ban' per se, but about the separation of powers, and responsibilities and authorities therein assumed. It might be wise to keep this focus in this case since mistakes in precedent could have far reaching (possibly highly dangerous) implications.
We charge our president with the awesome responsibility and authority to keep us and our country safe. If we remove his authority to act (as he alone sees fit) we endanger our national security. Not just in this case but who knows what the future may hold.
Our president alone is privy to all the tools of his office, he alone has the facts, this is why he alone has the authority. We must not undermine this authority, no matter how much some may find him or his actions distasteful. The dangers would be too great.
It is time for thinking, reasoning people to ignore the white noise and rancor, and use common sense. Would we really have our judges deciding if and when we go to War or not?
The president has the defined authority to proclaim such an order and require his administration to bring it into force. Anyone reading 1182 understands this, and any argument against is rendered moot, unless or until activist judges get involved...
The battle here is not about the 'travel ban' per se, but about the separation of powers, and responsibilities and authorities therein assumed. It might be wise to keep this focus in this case since mistakes in precedent could have far reaching (possibly highly dangerous) implications.
We charge our president with the awesome responsibility and authority to keep us and our country safe. If we remove his authority to act (as he alone sees fit) we endanger our national security. Not just in this case but who knows what the future may hold.
Our president alone is privy to all the tools of his office, he alone has the facts, this is why he alone has the authority. We must not undermine this authority, no matter how much some may find him or his actions distasteful. The dangers would be too great.
It is time for thinking, reasoning people to ignore the white noise and rancor, and use common sense. Would we really have our judges deciding if and when we go to War or not?
6
Our executive repeatedly lies and threatens both private businesses and individuals. He shows no evidence of acceptance or fidelity to facts. It is he who undermines his fitness to serve and it is he who threatens the security of our nation.
Thus it has become the patriotic duty of all of us to protect our country from the abuses and danger caused by our executive.
Thus it has become the patriotic duty of all of us to protect our country from the abuses and danger caused by our executive.
1
Would we not have been glad if judges had had the power to keep George W. Bush and his administration from going to war in Iraq, thus ripping apart the fabric of socieites across the Mideast, fostering Isis and creating the conditions for its expansion in Iraq and Syria, creatiing black sites, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, killing and disabling many Americans and far more persons, including women and children and noncombatants, in most of the countries included in this ban?
A typical rehearsal of fear-mongering and authoritarian politics, even if it seems rational. Hey it worked for Nixon--sort of.
Mr. trump has a long history with the US court system. He has time and time again used it as a sledge hammer to beat down anyone who dared oppose him. Why should we expect him to be any different now? Especially now when he sees himself as having all the power. Really, he's really the donald just being the donald, so get used to it!
7
The contrast between the intelligence, tolerance, and grace of our last President and the juvenilely derisive and denigrating behavior of the current boss-baby of the Executive Branch is gut-wrenching. Apparently too many of us actually need to painfully and viscerally endure this ongoing maelstrom to truly understand, and then never to forget, what we have just lost.
One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning. -- James Russell Lowell
One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning. -- James Russell Lowell
20
I've always been amazed at how much hate and vitriol members of Congress can tolerate over the years without resigning. Plus the incredible waste of time by members who get very little work done for their constituents.
After 9/11, there was a brief coming together in Congress, New York, and around the country, which deteriorated quickly into the usual hateful Ness within months.
If there are any members of Congress who would like to comment here without identifying yourselves, please indicate to all of us what you think we or anyone can do to help you all be more productive in Congress and reduce the hate as seen in recent days!
After 9/11, there was a brief coming together in Congress, New York, and around the country, which deteriorated quickly into the usual hateful Ness within months.
If there are any members of Congress who would like to comment here without identifying yourselves, please indicate to all of us what you think we or anyone can do to help you all be more productive in Congress and reduce the hate as seen in recent days!
7
Trump is trying to follow Putin's path to power.
Apparently only the judiciary now stands in the way
The oath of office compels him to defend the constitution whether he as a bad high school student, didn't study it, or as the current president, hasn't had time to read, or have it read , to him.
Breaking the oath is an impeachable offense.
Apparently only the judiciary now stands in the way
The oath of office compels him to defend the constitution whether he as a bad high school student, didn't study it, or as the current president, hasn't had time to read, or have it read , to him.
Breaking the oath is an impeachable offense.
12
"The president continues to demean his office"
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is what I find so offensive. He DEMEANS this office, an office to which some of the greatest leaders in our history were called, and elected, to hold. An office bigger than any one man, an office that represents - or at least should represent - statesmanship of the highest order.
And yet we put a toddler in there. It's like getting stabbed in the face every single time he opens his mouth. This man demeans an office that should be taken on as a sacred trust. Giants of men sat there. How low, how selfish, how utterly unaware must you be to sit in that chair, figuratively or literally, and then think TWITTER is how to carry out that awesome responsibility?
He doesn't demean it by himself. We The People demeaned it by creating, either directly or indirectly through indifference, the conditions that put him there. He makes me ashamed to be American.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is what I find so offensive. He DEMEANS this office, an office to which some of the greatest leaders in our history were called, and elected, to hold. An office bigger than any one man, an office that represents - or at least should represent - statesmanship of the highest order.
And yet we put a toddler in there. It's like getting stabbed in the face every single time he opens his mouth. This man demeans an office that should be taken on as a sacred trust. Giants of men sat there. How low, how selfish, how utterly unaware must you be to sit in that chair, figuratively or literally, and then think TWITTER is how to carry out that awesome responsibility?
He doesn't demean it by himself. We The People demeaned it by creating, either directly or indirectly through indifference, the conditions that put him there. He makes me ashamed to be American.
38
Listening to the entire 1 hr 8 min arguments before the 9th Dist Ct actually lifted me from the despair I had been feeling since November 8th. The entire tape should be made available for school kids and Trump should have to sit in a corner, as naughty boys (never girls!) did 65 years ago, and write it all out and memorize it (we did the Gettyburg Address in 1951).
One of the comments here places the blame squarely on Twitter. "Blame Twitter". If it were a gun crime, he'd say it wasn't the gun, but the gun owner.
But basically: it was great listening to reasonable people reasoning. Could we perhaps have more of it? On the pages of the NYTimes? At least on the website?
One of the comments here places the blame squarely on Twitter. "Blame Twitter". If it were a gun crime, he'd say it wasn't the gun, but the gun owner.
But basically: it was great listening to reasonable people reasoning. Could we perhaps have more of it? On the pages of the NYTimes? At least on the website?
10
The only event that would convince me the U.S. Supreme Court is not biased is if it were to decide across party lines. A 5:3 decision or even a 6-2 decision against Trump's thoughtless, poorly planned and inhuman Executive Order would prove the Court is both logical and independent.
As it stands, public opinion suggests the judges will vote along party lines. Is this the true meaning of justice?
And while we're on the subject, can anyone claim, with a straight face, that a) banning 7 nations with ZERO involvement in terrorist attacks, and b) welcoming the 3 nations (Wahhabistan, Pakistan and Egypt) responsible for almost every terrorist attack across the globe, makes any sense?
Does the Supreme Court not have a responsibility to question whether the Executive Order meets the criteria of justice, fairness and non-discrimination?
If I were a Sheriff in the old Wild West, what would people think if I banned the entry of guns into my city but made exceptions for Jesse James and other known outlaws?
As it stands, public opinion suggests the judges will vote along party lines. Is this the true meaning of justice?
And while we're on the subject, can anyone claim, with a straight face, that a) banning 7 nations with ZERO involvement in terrorist attacks, and b) welcoming the 3 nations (Wahhabistan, Pakistan and Egypt) responsible for almost every terrorist attack across the globe, makes any sense?
Does the Supreme Court not have a responsibility to question whether the Executive Order meets the criteria of justice, fairness and non-discrimination?
If I were a Sheriff in the old Wild West, what would people think if I banned the entry of guns into my city but made exceptions for Jesse James and other known outlaws?
19
No the court is not to judge the order on "Anything" but whether the POTUS has the power to make it. It would not matter whether it was Obama making the ruling, the courts decision should be the same. Unless the judges want to set new precedent (to eventually be overturned by SCOTUS) the Executive Order will be reinstated.
This matter is not before the Supreme Court. It's being heard by a federal appeals court. That's a level down from the SCOTUS.
There is method in the madness of so-called President Trump. So long as he huffs and puffs, rails and rants, he will continue to con his dim-witted supporters into believing that he is looking out for their interests.
This is why he tweets. Not because his tweets reflect his thoughts yesterday or tomorrow, but because he knows instinctively that his tweets will keep his followers roused.
Watch WWE for Pete's sake. The playbook is all there. Stop attributing to this showman, this braggart, this empty vessel, this mockery of a leader, any of the usual qualities to be found in even the hitherto worst of US presidents.
This is why he tweets. Not because his tweets reflect his thoughts yesterday or tomorrow, but because he knows instinctively that his tweets will keep his followers roused.
Watch WWE for Pete's sake. The playbook is all there. Stop attributing to this showman, this braggart, this empty vessel, this mockery of a leader, any of the usual qualities to be found in even the hitherto worst of US presidents.
20
The "madness" of Trump might not be figurative. His ability to see invisible fans at his inauguration, invisible illegal voters voting for Clinton, invisible terrorist acts not reported in the media, and so forth provoked the Washington Post to suggest continuing along this path might make people think Trump is nuts. CBS's Scott Pelley came within a hair of this suggestion while discussing Trump's statements "divorced from reality".
The pattern is established of counterfactual claims by Trump later repackaged by his entourage to appear somewhat less demented. It's time to examine how a President who is crazy can be declared certifiable and removed from office.
The pattern is established of counterfactual claims by Trump later repackaged by his entourage to appear somewhat less demented. It's time to examine how a President who is crazy can be declared certifiable and removed from office.
Give him credit, Trump has done the impossible - I woke up this morning to discover Progressives are united, and people like lawyers.
46
What we see from Trump's twitter posts are a juvenile's temper tantrums, unfitting for a president of the US. I sincerely doubt that he had read the Constitutions and had any knowledge of the laws. He treats governing the country as running his reality shows, and companies. People are expected to bow to his every whim. Unfortunately more than half of the US citizens who did not vote for him has to suffer the insufferable.
Unlike the Republicans in the Senate and in the House, these judges are doing what they are supposed to do--upholding the laws and protecting the integrity of our judicial system without which our country would descend into chaos.
Unlike the Republicans in the Senate and in the House, these judges are doing what they are supposed to do--upholding the laws and protecting the integrity of our judicial system without which our country would descend into chaos.
6
We often take the stability that our judiciary provides us for granted. Change is slow but at least our civil rights are protected. Granted the system isn't perfect and we need to do something to address the bias that exists especially towards people of color and people who are poor but it still beats the alternative.
Lasting victories have always been won in a court of law.
Lasting victories have always been won in a court of law.
3
Unfortunately, Sessions is now running the Justice Department, and we have—at minimum—four years of federal judge appointments from the Trump administration.
I can't write "to look forward to" at the end of that sentence, that level of sarcasm is too much. God help us all.
I can't write "to look forward to" at the end of that sentence, that level of sarcasm is too much. God help us all.
With luck they will strike this nonsense down and declare it a hate crime.
March that toad off in handcuffs!
March that toad off in handcuffs!
5
I hope among those agreeing with the editorial are eight readers working at one particular court in Washington. The editorial makes a strong case for allowing live coverage of Supreme Court arguments.
9
I appreciate Judge Gorsuch characterizing this Republican president's words as "demoralizing" and "disheartening". More so, I'd like to hear his view on the lack of hearings for Judge Merrick Garland. Perhaps he will agree those hearings should come before his own.
25
As an American, I have the legal right to ignore facts and have uninformed opinions. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe I have the right to act on these opinions, as long as I don't harm others.
Donald Trump is also an American. He too has the former right, and presumably the latter obligation.
Donald Trump is also an American. He too has the former right, and presumably the latter obligation.
1
If the 9th Circuit upholds the law and rules against Trump/Bannon, and if this decision is then allowed to stand by the Supremes (unfortunately it will likely be a 4-4 tie vote), it will be important to see how Trump/Bannon respond, and then how the GOP leadership in Congress responds to the White House's response. Based on how these folks have been acting so far, it can be safely predicted that Trump/Bannon will go on their usual tirade against the balance of powers and anyone questioning their exclusive authority to do anything they want. And it can also be safely predicted that the GOP leaders will sit quietly on their hands, ignoring the escalating damage that Trump/Bannon is doing to the U.S. and our Constitution.
14
The whole thing is really an elaborate kabuki dance meant to fool the gullible public who wants to believe in fairy tales. Trump is not the only psychopath in the room. I've come to the conclusion that the system of criminal justice is corrupt to the roots after being black mailed into pleading guilty to get PTI (pretrial intervention). Then they can play with you using psychiatrist, who in fact are psychopaths themselves. I went through the slime for 2 1/2 years to try to avoid a contrived felony change by my mentally disturbed wife who was taken by the stated agent to the police, told to sign papers she didn't understand. Didn't even know English, and it went in front of a grand jury that was all too willing to indict a ham sandwich. Who testified? The police, who were not even there. They are psychic.
2
The man stuns my sense of what America is. It will take a decade to recover our moral leadership.
7
Yes Obama stunned us all. I hope that the current POTUS can fix the mess the left put this country in, and looking at recent civil unrest, are still acting foolishly.
There has been little to give comfort over the past two weeks except the logical adherence to the rule of law. Asking of evidence and aggressive questioning is heartening. However the judges rule, I find the act of seeking a solution based on past precedents and principles calming. However the ruling turns out, it is warming to know it has met a thorough examination.
74
The world laughs at the American president and the idiots who elected him. The world laments that America has turned fascist like in Germany of the '30s. But the world secretly admires America's ability to shrug off the insanity and allow our brilliant system of government to right itself. All the hyperbole for naught. Trump will be a bad memory soon and we will go on as a great resilient nation.
3
Trump says this ban is temporary, and necessary while he defines his 'extreme vetting' process, which will correct dangerous gaps in current practice. He should be challenged to go ahead and complete the details of his new process, so it can be examined to see how much safer it will make us - or not. He does not need to whine about the courts, he just needs to do his job and make something better.
2
Judges will punish people for unprofessional behavior. The do it subtly. It is imperative that the lawyers act with appropriate collegiality and decorum or they might find themselves losing a case they should have won. The judges are usually experienced lawyers and as such they are often capable of creating whatever result they want to see. That's one of the perks of a superior knowledge of the law. In other words, there is a major incentive for everyone to behave.
The courts aren't perfect, but they are the last bastion of fairness and virtue in our increasingly totalitarian society.
The courts aren't perfect, but they are the last bastion of fairness and virtue in our increasingly totalitarian society.
3
So Trump's advice to our nation's law enforcement, our courts are eligible for attack. Question not only their decisions but their ethics and motives. And let's be clear, courts are just as biased as the society they serve. But they tend to favor those in power, little evidence exists of the executive branch being onerously constrained by the judicial branch. But, nonetheless, there are laws that protect citizens from the government, national security being excepted. But that has to be based on threat, treated as an exception, and be legally implemented.
Did that happen?
Did that happen?
1
The Ed Board's title caught my own feelings and gave them shape. I hadn't verbalized the emotional gulf between the chaos-cotillion of the last weeks and the reassuring sanity of that one hour of legal exploration.
It was almost a guided meditation comparatively...despite the unfamiliar technicalities. Quiet grandeur indeed...and so reassuringly grounded!
It was almost a guided meditation comparatively...despite the unfamiliar technicalities. Quiet grandeur indeed...and so reassuringly grounded!
3
I agree, overall, about the grandeur of the judiciary; reading Supreme Court cases is one of the more ennobling things I do, but the oral arguments in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday sounded to me like another version of the chaos it was trying to address. The questions and arguments mixed up all different sorts of things, with discussions about standing and concerns about the establishment clause and the separation of powers and executive authority all getting run together in a mixed up flurry. Very few lines of argument were developed. The Justice Department's lawyer had a hard time getting sentences out and seemed to have left his strongest arguments at home. I admit that I'm not a lawyer, but I found the chaos of all the different questions being run together bewildering, scattershot on all sides.
1
Most of the arguments were done in the form of briefs, so a lineal verbal narrative was unnecessary for the court. That made the procedure less entertaining for the audience, which should be of no concern to the court.
Trump is off his rocker. He has no "off" switch. I have yet to see or hear one reasoned, carefully thought out concept, idea, plan or possibility articulated by this guy. He has no comprehension of the depth and breadth of the power he commands and the proper way to utilize it. His comments, tweets, and outbursts, have worn us all out. We now know what makes him tick: Himself. And if he is not careful he is going to explode and take all of us with him.
8
"Now know?" These characteristics have been on display for 40 years, several on a TV network reality show and a long presidential campaign.
The relentless Trump take-down, first of 16 Republican primary opponents, next of Hillary Clinton, now the Judiciary, and next, Congress, after they have caved in to his every whim to get their fantasy bills signed, is cosmic tragedy. He may even ignore signing any more bills of the weaklings in Congress and just do all through Executive Order. Tell me there is a happy ending. I don't see anything America did to deserve this.
3
I can think of many things America did to deserve Trump, including its failure to ditch an antiquated Electoral College system that had previously thwarted the popular will in 2000. America deserved it because, after a brief period of relative stability in the aftermath of the financial crisis, it turned its back on Obama and hamstrung him with an obstructionist Tea Party Congress. It deserved it for embracing a racist, misogynistic, Islam-phobic narcissist and giving him power unlike that he had ever before experienced. There's an old saying: You get the government you deserve. When the anti-government crowd is allowed to control both the reigns of power and political narrative, this is what you get ... and it's well deserved.
I've noticed over many months looking at of photographs of Donald Trump...there is something about his eyes that are different...they are absent joy. They look lifeless and they are mean eyes.
10
Gordy - look at the eyes of a shark - same thing!
Thank you for your perceptive comment. I agree. To me, they look like the eyes of a criminal who knows someone is on his trail, someone who knows he is guilty--as he himself knows--and he is constantly scanning the crowd for those eyes that pierce him with the cold look of truth that sees right through him.
They are guilty, hate-filled eyes, which give themselves away whenever he is not in the glare of the spotlight.
They are guilty, hate-filled eyes, which give themselves away whenever he is not in the glare of the spotlight.
It must be so frustrating for Trump. His executive order is now in the hands of judges who could not care less what he tweets or how he fulminates, who will have no truck with "alternative facts", whom he can't fire (as he did Sally Yates), and whom he can't boss around (as Sean Spicer whom he ordered to stand in front of the nation and to tell porkies). The judges are under no obligation to say "yes, Mr. Trump". They will work in an orderly and decorous fashion instead and in their own good time will calmly say what the law is. Their working will be unfathomable to Donald Trump.
6
Let's clear the air.
Trump doesn't get to walk away from his claiming the US moral equivalent is embodied in Vladimir Putin. Let him answer for that, then we will consider how to address his public temper tantrum regarding our judicial system. Republicans, recently found, great forebearance in commenting on his conduct, comes at an inopportune time. These aren't temperament issues, these involve the very nature of our country. What happens if the intelligence report of this election shows impropriety by his campaign? He will have convinced his faithful that politicians, newspapers, courts, intelligence officers, everyone is conspiring against him. What then?
We need leadership.
Trump doesn't get to walk away from his claiming the US moral equivalent is embodied in Vladimir Putin. Let him answer for that, then we will consider how to address his public temper tantrum regarding our judicial system. Republicans, recently found, great forebearance in commenting on his conduct, comes at an inopportune time. These aren't temperament issues, these involve the very nature of our country. What happens if the intelligence report of this election shows impropriety by his campaign? He will have convinced his faithful that politicians, newspapers, courts, intelligence officers, everyone is conspiring against him. What then?
We need leadership.
3
Totalitarianism, which the Americans fought for a hundred years,is coming home to haunt and taunt them.It now seems that most wars that America has engaged in, just kill people in vain, and for nothing. What goes around invariably comes around.
1
I closed my office door, laid down on pillows on the floor, and listened. An 85 year old judge showed the mental alacrity of a man 50 years younger. A 44 year woman presided. It was challenging and yet also a respite, a reminder of all that is good about our country.
7
This president cannot argue or reason--intellectual processes beyond his limited repertoire. The courts and the free press are the only institutions robust enough to protect our endangered democracy from this tyrant. What I heard during these oral arguments were the voices of jurists who are not afraid of Trump--who crudely insults and menaces anyone who stands up to him--and that made me cheer. Every defeat for Trump is a victory for the real America.
4
The courts and free press are all that now protect our nation from a petulant tyrant in the White House and a majority in congress that has totally abdicated its duty. Here's hoping both are up to the task of confronting a very formidable and determined challenge.
5
I'll have to try and remember this piece next time I hear the court being scorned and ridiculed for Citizens United, or read an other offensive and racist screed about Justice Thomas (or the late Justice Scalia), or how incompetent Chief Justice Roberts is...yes, "quiet grandeur", so long as the positions of the Editorial Board are adhered to.
2
George plays the Sarah Palin victim card very well. Oh the pain of hearing contrary voices! It's so deplorable and disheartening. What to do?
What did you do last summer? "I am Donald Trump. I ran for President. I won. Three million dead people voted against me. Now I rule the world."
The White House press secretary argued a company is punishing Trump's daughter for his politics comes dangerously close to a conspiracy which is a public shakedown; making a private market decision a public affair. and without review, due process, or equal protection, ignoring the obvious conflict of interest and the legal prohibitions on using public office for personal enrichment/benefit, the White House lashed out to attack a company breaking the law and bypassing other remedies.
Trump continues to demand America do his bidding and places his family's wealth first. The White House is no place for the press secretary, who works for the people, to defend Trump's daughter's private interests by conflating a political conspiracy--as her father daily attacks congress members, world leaders, judges, corporations, the intelligence community and others for their views and differences with him. Her private matters have no place in a public forum, at taxpayers expense. This commingling of private/family interests with government duties is an inappropriate to the Presidency and its powers.
Likewise, his demand that judges approves his edicts highlights a dangerous gap in his understanding of the courts, despite his many appearances before them for discrimination, bankruptcy, divorce, business suits, and fraud.
The White House press secretary argued a company is punishing Trump's daughter for his politics comes dangerously close to a conspiracy which is a public shakedown; making a private market decision a public affair. and without review, due process, or equal protection, ignoring the obvious conflict of interest and the legal prohibitions on using public office for personal enrichment/benefit, the White House lashed out to attack a company breaking the law and bypassing other remedies.
Trump continues to demand America do his bidding and places his family's wealth first. The White House is no place for the press secretary, who works for the people, to defend Trump's daughter's private interests by conflating a political conspiracy--as her father daily attacks congress members, world leaders, judges, corporations, the intelligence community and others for their views and differences with him. Her private matters have no place in a public forum, at taxpayers expense. This commingling of private/family interests with government duties is an inappropriate to the Presidency and its powers.
Likewise, his demand that judges approves his edicts highlights a dangerous gap in his understanding of the courts, despite his many appearances before them for discrimination, bankruptcy, divorce, business suits, and fraud.
177
Don't forget Eric Trump's recent business trip which cost the taxpayers $100K for secret service protection.
"...despite his many appearances..."
More than likely it was his lawyers who benefitted from the learning experiences as he was probably somewhere else when the real work was being done.
More than likely it was his lawyers who benefitted from the learning experiences as he was probably somewhere else when the real work was being done.
Will the Court give Trump the comeuppance we are all salivating for? I thought the old adage was: no one likes a blow hard and yet we are burdened with us this man's swollen ego day in and day out. Never a respite, even on the weekends. Come on 9th Circuit judges, get out your fly swatter and smash this bad bug.
28
President Trump's public derision of the courts and his tweet blaming the courts for the next terrorist attack is the most disturbing thing to come out of american politics since Nixon's watergate. This is a big deal and is a direct threat to the future of the rule of law. I don't know if the President knows what he is doing, or if he's blundering his way down the path to tyranny. But I do know that if and when the next terrorist attack occurs, we'll be hearing that "the courts and laws are just not up to the challenge of keeping us safe" and "only I can keep us safe."
The exact same thing happened here in Germany after the burning of the German Parlament in 1933. "Only a strong Chancellor can keep us safe." Soon afterwards the first concentration camps were established and "undesirable" people were rounded up and imprisoned extrajudicially. It was all "legal". It can happen again. It can happen in the US. I don't think most Americans understand how quickly democracy can morph into tyranny, or if they knew, they forgot.
The exact same thing happened here in Germany after the burning of the German Parlament in 1933. "Only a strong Chancellor can keep us safe." Soon afterwards the first concentration camps were established and "undesirable" people were rounded up and imprisoned extrajudicially. It was all "legal". It can happen again. It can happen in the US. I don't think most Americans understand how quickly democracy can morph into tyranny, or if they knew, they forgot.
288
re: I don't think most Americans understand how quickly democracy can morph into tyranny, or if they knew, they forgot.
It seems like out of the 54% that bothered to vote, The Clinton voters understand this well, and because of it, are riddled with anxiety their every waking moment.
I believe many of the half that voted for Trump not only understand it, but horrifyingly want it to happen. They don't believe in democracy, rules, decorum, honesty, or basic human decency, and have been stockpiling guns and ammunition for many years now. They have mostly lost their minds and can become enraged at the drop of a hat. It would even be a dream come true for some of them if everyone with non-white skin suddenly wasn't here anymore.
Then there are the non-voters who I guess didn't understand or care enough to notice the danger.
It seems like out of the 54% that bothered to vote, The Clinton voters understand this well, and because of it, are riddled with anxiety their every waking moment.
I believe many of the half that voted for Trump not only understand it, but horrifyingly want it to happen. They don't believe in democracy, rules, decorum, honesty, or basic human decency, and have been stockpiling guns and ammunition for many years now. They have mostly lost their minds and can become enraged at the drop of a hat. It would even be a dream come true for some of them if everyone with non-white skin suddenly wasn't here anymore.
Then there are the non-voters who I guess didn't understand or care enough to notice the danger.
3
As a nation, we have muddled the legislative process, in regard to education, labor and other serious reforms, failing to provide the citizenry with the tools of solid governance. Voters, as a result, missed their opportunity; "blundering ... down a path" of uncertainty, here.
So, we have Trump at a four-year minimum, please. We depend upon the three branches, at this
point, to maintain our balance, where the Courts are a welcome stable platform.
Make ready and be prepared for the next election.
So, we have Trump at a four-year minimum, please. We depend upon the three branches, at this
point, to maintain our balance, where the Courts are a welcome stable platform.
Make ready and be prepared for the next election.
1
Extreme fear of Trump and comparing it with Nixon's actions in his post burglary years need not sound so shrill, the sky isn't falling . It should be remembered that while Nixon did keep an enemies list,(like Caligula in Rome who kept two), that after it's publication, the greatest pride was felt by those Americans who had been named in the list, and numerous individuals later admitted to no little jealousy or disappointment that they did not make Nixon's enemies list.
It would be horrifying if the Court of Appeals affirmed Trump's ban. Trump's words are so full of needful exaggeration---mobilizing false and unsupported claims-- to support excessive and counterproductive precautions that it seems hardly likely that a group of three reasonable judges could wind up supporting Trump's order.
In his made up facts and his extreme overstatements of the need for the travel and immigration bans from 7 Muslim countries, the President discloses himself to be mendacious in the extreme, fundamentally unsound in the extreme, and flat out batty.
The 25 Amendment to the Constitution is coming for you Donny boy, because of your incapacity, which will get you removed from office even sooner than the also necessary impeachments hearings.
In his made up facts and his extreme overstatements of the need for the travel and immigration bans from 7 Muslim countries, the President discloses himself to be mendacious in the extreme, fundamentally unsound in the extreme, and flat out batty.
The 25 Amendment to the Constitution is coming for you Donny boy, because of your incapacity, which will get you removed from office even sooner than the also necessary impeachments hearings.
62
If only something was coming for him. Unfortunately our Republican representatives are only concerned for their power and not for those they represent; they will never start the process of anything that would remove this man from office.
Rationale.
Courts look for it and ask about it. Judge Robart asked: “Have there been terrorist attacks in the United States by refugees or immigrants from the seven countries listed since 9/11?”
The response from the government was sort of like Jackie Gleason in Honeymooners: "Hamana-hamana-hamana."
The reason for the befuddlement is clear. The "rationale" for many of the Executive Orders issued (http://politi.co/2jqEO7q) is purely political in that most had to do with fulfilling campaign promises.
The "travel ban" executive order was issued on Jan 27, a week after the inauguration. The new administration had hardly enough time to settle down, leave alone study the reasons for--or ramifications of--the ban before rushing to issue it. To make matters worse for Trump, his buddy Giuliani gave him away by disclosing the real "rationale" behind the ban.
Trump just can't get used to the fact that he is not running a company where he has the final say. He is finding out that he can't bully judges as he does others. His own Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch, found Trump's negative comments about judges “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”
Oh, it is only slightly over 2 weeks since Trump took charge. Boy, are we in for a rough ride.
Courts look for it and ask about it. Judge Robart asked: “Have there been terrorist attacks in the United States by refugees or immigrants from the seven countries listed since 9/11?”
The response from the government was sort of like Jackie Gleason in Honeymooners: "Hamana-hamana-hamana."
The reason for the befuddlement is clear. The "rationale" for many of the Executive Orders issued (http://politi.co/2jqEO7q) is purely political in that most had to do with fulfilling campaign promises.
The "travel ban" executive order was issued on Jan 27, a week after the inauguration. The new administration had hardly enough time to settle down, leave alone study the reasons for--or ramifications of--the ban before rushing to issue it. To make matters worse for Trump, his buddy Giuliani gave him away by disclosing the real "rationale" behind the ban.
Trump just can't get used to the fact that he is not running a company where he has the final say. He is finding out that he can't bully judges as he does others. His own Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch, found Trump's negative comments about judges “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”
Oh, it is only slightly over 2 weeks since Trump took charge. Boy, are we in for a rough ride.
26
I thought two of the Ninth Circuit judges—Judge Canby (appointed by President Carter) and Judge Clifton (appointed by President Bush II)—asked good questions. The third, Judge Friedland (appointed by President Obama), did not impress me, notwithstanding her impeccable legal résumé.
Judge Friedland asked, "Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?"
By asking if the record contained certain terrorism evidence, she showed she doesn't understand what the court is supposed to be reviewing. In this context the courts are limited to asking whether the president exercised his discretion in what he determines is the national interest—not whether the courts agree that exercise of discretion was sound. The question about the state of the record could only go to the latter, improper inquiry. Judge Friedland was mistakenly inserting the court into a national security inquiry it has no remit to consider. The law entrusts the evaluation of this material to the president alone. Judge Friedland seemed not to understand this; either that, or she was wasting argument time.
Counsel should have answered that the record might contain no evidence because the president's decision rested on classified material that cannot be divulged.
This is the kind of judge law students revere. I would have revered her when I was in law school. Now I know better.
Judge Friedland asked, "Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?"
By asking if the record contained certain terrorism evidence, she showed she doesn't understand what the court is supposed to be reviewing. In this context the courts are limited to asking whether the president exercised his discretion in what he determines is the national interest—not whether the courts agree that exercise of discretion was sound. The question about the state of the record could only go to the latter, improper inquiry. Judge Friedland was mistakenly inserting the court into a national security inquiry it has no remit to consider. The law entrusts the evaluation of this material to the president alone. Judge Friedland seemed not to understand this; either that, or she was wasting argument time.
Counsel should have answered that the record might contain no evidence because the president's decision rested on classified material that cannot be divulged.
This is the kind of judge law students revere. I would have revered her when I was in law school. Now I know better.
5
No, Judge Friedland's question about the record was entirely appropriate. The "national security " excuse for secrecy wouldn't have worked this time because Trump has dragged the entire inquiry into the open, using it as an excuse for tyranny.
The national security interest was entirely relevant to a hearing on continuation of a temporary restraining order to suspend enforcement of the executive order. One of the main criteria in issuing or denying a TRO is whether either party to the case would be irreparably harmed by continuing (or ending) the TRO until a hearing on the preliminary injunction. The governments entire argument for lifting the TRO is that national security would be harmed; it is reasonable for the judge to ask for some evidence of that.
Judge Robart granted a tro. I thought that the party seeking a tro had to demonstrate he/she was likely to succeed at the full hearing. Why then do you think it incorrect to ask if the record contained terrorism evidence?
It's not too early to get the ball rolling. It shouldn't be difficult to find Trump guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Let's get this party started. Impeach. Convict. Remove.
107
It's disgraceful that it's taking so long.
Yes!
We have two main hopes to save us from the rolling disaster of the Trump presidency, the courts and an aware, enlightened and ready public. The news media, alas, were in retreat long before Trump was pushed into the White House by the antiquated Electoral College system. I can't see how the media can survive as a force for truth when Trump and the Trumpsters make up stuff constantly while loyal "fans" of Trump swallow it whole, as if it were cold water in a hot desert. We are at not just a point of post truth, we have entered a realm where lies are better than truth and the media, which has either saved us from or helped clean up many disasters over the decades, is now being stripped bare of influence.
The millions of women who marched here and around the world cannot save us unless there is an on going program of mass mobilization and careful action to follow those outpourings of concern. By the time the cowardly, utterly craven Republicans on Capitol Hill catch on to the bad bargain they have stuck, it will be too late.
The millions of women who marched here and around the world cannot save us unless there is an on going program of mass mobilization and careful action to follow those outpourings of concern. By the time the cowardly, utterly craven Republicans on Capitol Hill catch on to the bad bargain they have stuck, it will be too late.
44
When I was a young, rebellious delinquent, and got into trouble, I committed some knuckle headed act and ended up before an elderly judge in a New England factory town.
He listened to the district attorney and then to my defense counsel. Then he listened to me. I incurred some kind of mild punishment, but I received a life long lesson in the power, justice and mercy that can so often be found in our courts.
Miscreant though I may have been, I was treated well by the Court system and I don't like to see the President treating the Courts like reality show contestants.
He listened to the district attorney and then to my defense counsel. Then he listened to me. I incurred some kind of mild punishment, but I received a life long lesson in the power, justice and mercy that can so often be found in our courts.
Miscreant though I may have been, I was treated well by the Court system and I don't like to see the President treating the Courts like reality show contestants.
613
How long would any of us retain our professional positions exhibiting the type of schizophrenic ramblings that we've witnessed out of our "presidential" Behavior Case? Personally, in what I do, I would have long ago been given mandatory leave with a psych eval attached, courtesy the people who hired me. Hmmmm.
A tyrant latches on to unbridled power by: A) appealing to mass populist psychosis; B) surrounding themselves with people who have undying faith in both them, and their convoluted and incoherent idealogy; and C) whittling away at the very institutions and foundational fabric comprising the checks/balances we so want to believe are forever entrenched in our constitution.
As is the case for "radical Islamic terrorism," so this is garden variety fascism, right here at home, plain and simple. A painful axiom, that "what goes around, comes around" thing.
Let's get beyond the spectacle and get to work.
A tyrant latches on to unbridled power by: A) appealing to mass populist psychosis; B) surrounding themselves with people who have undying faith in both them, and their convoluted and incoherent idealogy; and C) whittling away at the very institutions and foundational fabric comprising the checks/balances we so want to believe are forever entrenched in our constitution.
As is the case for "radical Islamic terrorism," so this is garden variety fascism, right here at home, plain and simple. A painful axiom, that "what goes around, comes around" thing.
Let's get beyond the spectacle and get to work.
6
Just ask yourself the question -- what would have happened to you professionally and personally if you had been the one in the "Access Hollywood" tape?
Ask yourself what would have happened to you, had you created the "Trump University" fraud?
Ask yourself what would have happened to you, had you created the "Trump University" fraud?
All well and good until Trump gets to pick a Supreme Court Justice.
3
Trump has spent decades in litigation, suing and being sued, so he knows better than most people how long things take to work through the courts. This case is traveling at light speed, judicially speaking. His incredulity is just more childish posturing, which seems to be his default.
6
Among other, more important, things it appears our Court system exists as a buffer to belligerence. Thank you Justice.
7
No. Our Supreme Court is a buffer to irrational swings of the political winds. It is designed to be a conservative (lower case "c") element in our governance. The life-time appointments assure that the justices maintain some connection to our political and judicial past.
The "conservatism" is of great value to the stability of our law and our governing institutions.
And, I, for one, would have it no other way.
The "conservatism" is of great value to the stability of our law and our governing institutions.
And, I, for one, would have it no other way.
1
All Trump's lashing out, and his tantrums, and his ire, and his bluster, and bullying, and projecting, and anger....
He's at war.
With himself.
He's at war.
With himself.
8
When is the media, including the Times, going to realize that reporting Trump's tweets serves to both magnify and normalize them? They are reported as news, when all they are are bullying, obnoxious remarks, not worthy of repetition at all, much less in the paper of record. It seems to me that the media has never been able to resist the raw meat of his tweets, which is one reason we are in the precarious position of having him run the country. So please, stop with the Trump tweets. Don't enable his obnoxious bullying.
13
Amplifying Trump's tweets is as instructive as broadcasting each delusion of a paranoid schizophrenic. Once you see the pattern and can establish a course of treatment, you do so. To do otherwise is dangerous to society and cruel to the mentally ill person. It would be even more important to seek expeditious care for a schizophrenic who somehow ended up behind the Resolute desk as few of them have nuclear weapons to use against their delusions.
I cannot presume to diagnose Mr. Trump at a distance but I am reminded of one former elderly patient whose mind was slipping and, having melted an unattended pot on the stove, insisted "those Mexicans" had come into her home and melted the pot. Projecting paranoia was the easiest way she found to make sense of things.
Welcome back to the color-coded terror alerts, although we are stuck on Orange.
I cannot presume to diagnose Mr. Trump at a distance but I am reminded of one former elderly patient whose mind was slipping and, having melted an unattended pot on the stove, insisted "those Mexicans" had come into her home and melted the pot. Projecting paranoia was the easiest way she found to make sense of things.
Welcome back to the color-coded terror alerts, although we are stuck on Orange.
Not to call him out lends him a legitimacy he doesn't deserve. He needs to be exposed for the imbecile he is. Don't let up.
I respectfully disagree. His tweets have shown us what he thinks, believes and finds important. It should be obvious that he is a crazy maniac and his tweets, more then anything else, prove that.
A toddler's aversion .. this allusion will surely gain the broadest currency, and properly.
4
The President clearly has some level of authority over the issue of alien admission controls. However, until today's White House press briefing, it was a little bit of a mystery to me why the Administration doesn't simply modify the order and reintroduce it on some orderly basis.
Today Mr. Spicer repeatedly mentioned threats to and pending malfeasance against the good ole USA, obviously to be carried out by various stripes of immigrants. It genuinely left me wondering if the Administration is getting set to announce marshal law...... But alas, a state of continuous emergency is necessary to make a move toward authoritarian rule .... And it is absolutely amazing to see an Administration so blatantly trying to whip up a fearful atmosphere, when no logical, calm and well executed measures will deal with it.
Now the GOP Congress will remain entirely prostrate in the face of all this whilst hoping their agenda will go through and be signed by Trump, which is a pretty solid bet.
So the Courts are it my friends. Many Americans, even liberals, are for a safe America, great jobs, opportunity and even immigration controls. But this Trump White House is really obsessed with instilling fear in the populace --- using boatloads of energy on that when it is better spent on good governance and decent policy development.
And to ain't no "joke" to be walked back....
Today Mr. Spicer repeatedly mentioned threats to and pending malfeasance against the good ole USA, obviously to be carried out by various stripes of immigrants. It genuinely left me wondering if the Administration is getting set to announce marshal law...... But alas, a state of continuous emergency is necessary to make a move toward authoritarian rule .... And it is absolutely amazing to see an Administration so blatantly trying to whip up a fearful atmosphere, when no logical, calm and well executed measures will deal with it.
Now the GOP Congress will remain entirely prostrate in the face of all this whilst hoping their agenda will go through and be signed by Trump, which is a pretty solid bet.
So the Courts are it my friends. Many Americans, even liberals, are for a safe America, great jobs, opportunity and even immigration controls. But this Trump White House is really obsessed with instilling fear in the populace --- using boatloads of energy on that when it is better spent on good governance and decent policy development.
And to ain't no "joke" to be walked back....
10
Once again, he has demonstrated his lack of knowledge how the gov works- 3 equal branches of the gov. He expects the judicial branch to roll over just as Congress has.
Seems to me that the Supreme Court has become less political since Justice Scalia's death. Let's hope that Judge Gorsuch is grounded in the sentiments he said today that the attacks by the president are demoralizing and disheartening to the judicial branch.
The wheels of the gov run slowly for many reasons, one being that all sides should be able to express their opinions. If not, there's chaos and resentment, hence the back steps the administration has had to take since he took office two weeks ago and the resentment of Dems by rushing through cabinet appointments when the nominees have not been vetted properly. The squelching of Elizabeth Warren on the Senate floor is another example. The Rep excuse is that the Dems are still smarting from Mrs. Clinton's defeat. That may be a small part but the ruling bending and ignoring of protocol is the major reason.
The federal (and state courts) need to behave and hand down decisions based on evidence and arguments not because the Pres yells or tweets at them. At this point, the courts and judges seem to be the only working, responsible and adult branch of the gov.
Seems to me that the Supreme Court has become less political since Justice Scalia's death. Let's hope that Judge Gorsuch is grounded in the sentiments he said today that the attacks by the president are demoralizing and disheartening to the judicial branch.
The wheels of the gov run slowly for many reasons, one being that all sides should be able to express their opinions. If not, there's chaos and resentment, hence the back steps the administration has had to take since he took office two weeks ago and the resentment of Dems by rushing through cabinet appointments when the nominees have not been vetted properly. The squelching of Elizabeth Warren on the Senate floor is another example. The Rep excuse is that the Dems are still smarting from Mrs. Clinton's defeat. That may be a small part but the ruling bending and ignoring of protocol is the major reason.
The federal (and state courts) need to behave and hand down decisions based on evidence and arguments not because the Pres yells or tweets at them. At this point, the courts and judges seem to be the only working, responsible and adult branch of the gov.
298
Trump's sister was a respected appellate court judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Has Trump learned nothing from her about the appellate prcoess? What can she be thinking as she hears his anti-judicial rants?
17
Trump is seeking to inoculate himself from any blame if there is an attack in the US. The opposition should make it clear that future attacks are made more likely by Trumps alienation of Muslims everywhere, here and abroad. Our best defense domestically is a Muslim community working in concert with anti-terrorist agencies. Trump is making sure that there will be no such cooperation. The question is whether this is out of ignorance or intention.
23
I agree with your points. However, is it too much to ask that you remember this Rule of Law thundering when the topic of illegal immigration comes up?
2
I would be far more assured that the rule of law is supreme in the United States if right now we did not have such and acquiescent republican majority in Congress.
We already know Donald Trump disrespects the law he has battled against since an early job working with his dad and denying rental rights to people of color.
He has long used lawsuits as a business weapon, and trying to use it as a weapon now as president. By prejudging the case, and petulantly insinuating that a ruling against him would be responsible for future acts of terrorism, he has shown his contempt for judicial proceedings.
I find it rich that Donald Trump loves the law when it goes his way, and hates it when it doesn't. Beyond childish, this attitude is bound to trigger more political court baiting and eventually--if not checked--full flouting of the law.
Donald Trump has already ignored ethics law related to his Washington Hotel. Isn't it fair to assume that eventually he will ignore future court rulings?
At that point, what will congress do? Continue as lapdogs or finally rise up and impeach the president?
The world is watching to see if American democracy survives the presidency of Donald Trump.
We already know Donald Trump disrespects the law he has battled against since an early job working with his dad and denying rental rights to people of color.
He has long used lawsuits as a business weapon, and trying to use it as a weapon now as president. By prejudging the case, and petulantly insinuating that a ruling against him would be responsible for future acts of terrorism, he has shown his contempt for judicial proceedings.
I find it rich that Donald Trump loves the law when it goes his way, and hates it when it doesn't. Beyond childish, this attitude is bound to trigger more political court baiting and eventually--if not checked--full flouting of the law.
Donald Trump has already ignored ethics law related to his Washington Hotel. Isn't it fair to assume that eventually he will ignore future court rulings?
At that point, what will congress do? Continue as lapdogs or finally rise up and impeach the president?
The world is watching to see if American democracy survives the presidency of Donald Trump.
36
In an adversarial judicial system, everything that an attorney presents in court is subject to scrutiny and challenge by the bench and opposing attorneys, and must adhere to specific evidentiary standards (rules of evidence). Alternative facts, positions that are not supported by the law and other non-sense are quickly identified and cast off from consideration. The attorney/party that tries to present too many alternative facts will sooner or later lose credibility with the court.
6
Trump was appalling in asking us to blame Judge Robart (or anyone else) should we face a terror attack. A real leader looks to unite and inspire a nation after tragedy, not to point fingers or score political points.
But Trump wants to be a dictator, not a president.
But Trump wants to be a dictator, not a president.
5
I really do wonder if someone had bothered to school Trump on the limits of presidential power before he decided to run, would he have even wanted to? Is he so stupid that he thought everything would change for him, because he had to have noticed the limits on Obama's powers while he was disparaging him and all that he did for the past eight years.
2
"The Quiet Grandeur of the Courts" -- Yes, that's it. It is as Alex Bickel at Yale Law School once called it the 'least dangerous branch, having neither the purse nor sword of government. It has only reason and decorum.
If there is to be, going forward in our country, a genuine Rule of Law, then independence of our courts has to be defended by every one of us.
If there is to be, going forward in our country, a genuine Rule of Law, then independence of our courts has to be defended by every one of us.
24
Hopefully the American Courts will be robust enough to withstand whatever insults and whacko leglislation that Trump throws their way during the next four years.
The more Trump rants and raves about the judiciary, the more rope he eases out to hang himself and entangle his spineless Republican colleagues . Go for it Trump, full bore. The judiciary is beyond your command, and they will outlast you mate.
The more Trump rants and raves about the judiciary, the more rope he eases out to hang himself and entangle his spineless Republican colleagues . Go for it Trump, full bore. The judiciary is beyond your command, and they will outlast you mate.
14
Trump has brought Congress to heel.
Next, the Judiciary.
Then sending the military into Chicago to restore law and order and Institute martial law.
It is happening here
Next, the Judiciary.
Then sending the military into Chicago to restore law and order and Institute martial law.
It is happening here
33
The Founding Fathers were quite prescient in separating the branches of power. Our judicial branch has to be independent of the President to keep its integrity. The Founding Fathers could not have predicted Donald Trump, but they knew tyranny and knew that tyranny must never come to America.
11
Trump appears to think he was elected to be dictator. It may not be that far away. It CAN happen here.
9
For Sale: bring your own aspirations and inspirations to this once-grand fixer-upper at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Hurry, this one won't last long!
It does appear that Pres. Trump views his executive orders as fiat-like pronouncements, unassailable and most certainly beyond the pedestrian questioning of judicial review. It's not as if the presidency merely confers great powers upon him, but by Trump's own hyperbolic measure, something even better: magical powers. Indeed, who needs the slow and grinding pace of a legal system, truly a hindrance, when there's bibbity bobbity boo to be had with the flourish of Trump's pen?
6
Just like Obama?
1
Judge Gorsuch sparked some confidence in his potential for the Supreme Court by voicing objective criticism about the man who wants to place him there.
4
These guys are playing the dems - both of them: the 'judge' nominee, and the 'silencing' of EW at Sessions confirmation.
Gorsuch is only answering the question he would have inevitably been asked at his confirmation hearing, thereby disarming the oppostion. Politics 101.
Crooked lying Trump is a stunted child-man unwilling to grow up and take responsibility for what he says and does. His temper tantrums are childish, and occur whenever he feels he cannot control others to his satisfaction, however capricious, abusive or irrational his stance. He is a dangerous clown that, in private life would pass as eccentric and a fool; but via his outrageous and constant lies he convinced misinformed supporters he was telling the gospel 'truth', hence, convinced them to vote for him, and make him president, a huge mistake of course. Trump's narcissistic character and morals are antithetical to be able to hold public office; his "my way or the highway" attitude is causing irreparable harm to civilized discourse, to essential alliances with neighbors, to maintain peace in the world. He is unable to recognize the facts nor the truth behind them, as his lying comes so naturally, so fluent, and so frequent, that he is shameless, in spite of readily available evidence of his vice. And here come the courts, to try to put some order where Trump's disorder reins. You must feel sorry (just a bit though) for his lawyers, conflicted in defending what is indefensible, the assault by the Executive on the Judicial branch, the constitution and the laws of the nation. How far can this fraudster get away with, insulting left and right, belittling any and all that cross him?
5
All I can say is Amen and thank you.
Since Trump took office I have to say that listening to the live hearing was the only thing that has really given me any hope that we are not completely sunk. Regardless of the outcome, it was good to hear logical, largely polite arguments and comments, along with a need to provide evidence.
11
I grew up being told that our Constitution came down from heaven on tablets of gold; that every word was inscribed by the finger of God.
It is an amazing document but its nearly three score amendments testifies to the fact that it was not Divinely inspired. In fact the fortuitous feature that may yet save us from Mr. Trump, the separation of powers, was a compromise that grew out of mistrust that the founders had for each other.
It is ironic how that which was, at its origin, thought to be a fragile and unsatisfactory structure still stands and its "compromised nature"; its fractured distribution of power, is one of its strengths. We will see if it is strong enough to pull us through these dangerous times.
Franklin is credit with responding to the question of what the Constitutional Convention had wrought by saying, "A republic, if you can keep it." We're still holding out breath.
It is an amazing document but its nearly three score amendments testifies to the fact that it was not Divinely inspired. In fact the fortuitous feature that may yet save us from Mr. Trump, the separation of powers, was a compromise that grew out of mistrust that the founders had for each other.
It is ironic how that which was, at its origin, thought to be a fragile and unsatisfactory structure still stands and its "compromised nature"; its fractured distribution of power, is one of its strengths. We will see if it is strong enough to pull us through these dangerous times.
Franklin is credit with responding to the question of what the Constitutional Convention had wrought by saying, "A republic, if you can keep it." We're still holding out breath.
2
I do not share your view of the constitution today. Initially, Congress dominated the country, then it was the President, now it is the Supreme Court. How did this happen? An amendment process so weak that there is no effective check on the Supreme Court (as the 13th amendment checked Dred Scott), and growing acceptance that the Supreme Court is the constitution. Remember the Supreme is just in Article 3, not 1. The "majesty" of the court is a façade that covers raw politics.
1
This hearing was very, very preliminary and dealt with judicial power to preserve a status quo ante until the courts have the full evidence before them to make a final decision.
The questions of the President's powers is almost tangential.
The questions of the President's powers is almost tangential.
1
Trump has had lots of engagements with the law, although he "has people" to handle that. In this case he is more directly involved, to poor effect.
Of course the law has to be observed in a democracy, and the judges have established their credentials to handle ambiguous cases. Trump's outbursts are an attempt to bully the courts by attacking their reputation. The aim is to introduce distrust for the legal process, and instead to rely upon Trump's personal grip on reality.
Well, we've seen quite a lot about that lately - millions of fans at his inauguration invisible to photography, millions of invisible illegal voters, lots of invisible terrorist acts unreported by the media, etc etc.
It seems what Trump sees is quite often "divorced from reality", and that's not improving with time.
Perhaps we should be asking how best to handle an unhinged president before something really serious happens that initiates a coup d'état or WWIII.
Of course the law has to be observed in a democracy, and the judges have established their credentials to handle ambiguous cases. Trump's outbursts are an attempt to bully the courts by attacking their reputation. The aim is to introduce distrust for the legal process, and instead to rely upon Trump's personal grip on reality.
Well, we've seen quite a lot about that lately - millions of fans at his inauguration invisible to photography, millions of invisible illegal voters, lots of invisible terrorist acts unreported by the media, etc etc.
It seems what Trump sees is quite often "divorced from reality", and that's not improving with time.
Perhaps we should be asking how best to handle an unhinged president before something really serious happens that initiates a coup d'état or WWIII.
8
That the institutions of a free and democratic government cause terrorism: that is precisely what ISIS and similar organizations would have us believe. Putin, too.
4
Kelly Ann Conway and Sean Spicer talk in evasive Soviet-style doublespeak to very straightforward questions. How refreshing to hear a judge ask someone representing the president's position "Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?" and have them be compelled to give an actual straightforward answer.
58
Might it be more apt to substitute "140-character excrements" for "140-character increments" in describing Donald Trump's Twitter habits?
Additionally, the sober dialogue of the judicial proceedings also stands in stark contrast to the shameful behavior of Republican legislators who enable Trump no matter what the cost to our Republic.They remain deafeningly silent about his insane antics. Yet they are rabidly vocal in ensuring that they curtail any reasonable vetting and debate of his nominees, no matter how ill-suited the nominees are for their proposed roles. #ShePersisted.
Additionally, the sober dialogue of the judicial proceedings also stands in stark contrast to the shameful behavior of Republican legislators who enable Trump no matter what the cost to our Republic.They remain deafeningly silent about his insane antics. Yet they are rabidly vocal in ensuring that they curtail any reasonable vetting and debate of his nominees, no matter how ill-suited the nominees are for their proposed roles. #ShePersisted.
9
Somebody better remind one Donald J. Trump of what the rule of law looks like because he appears to be threatening it, and with the attacks on judges, the whole Judicial Department, not-so-veiled threats, he's attacking US. He is attacking the very foundation of the US and respect for law that limits power and makes life in a complex, contentious democracy possible.
This political season has been a revelation. One learns that "law and order" to powerful white men means, "weaker people especially women and people of color and those not conforming in some way, like the LGBTQ community, immigrants and religious minorities need to mind us." We saw this last night in the Senate when Mitch McConnell told Liz Warren, reading a letter by Loretta Scott King, to sit down and shut up. We see it all the time now with the "religious freedom" crowd - that means, in fact, "we right wing Christians have the freedom to tell the rest of you what to do, even in the most intimate matters concerning your own body."
But the rule of law, in America, does apply even to Presidents and Senators. It applies to rich, powerful white men as well as poor people, people of color, women, Muslims, gay people and Jews. Freedom of religion means freedom from religious oppression. Freedom of speech means just that - it does not mean, "Nordstrom must carry Ivanka Trump's clothes or POTUS will be angry," it does not mean POTUS can destroy a career, it does not mean GOP Senators can stifle debate.
Period.
This political season has been a revelation. One learns that "law and order" to powerful white men means, "weaker people especially women and people of color and those not conforming in some way, like the LGBTQ community, immigrants and religious minorities need to mind us." We saw this last night in the Senate when Mitch McConnell told Liz Warren, reading a letter by Loretta Scott King, to sit down and shut up. We see it all the time now with the "religious freedom" crowd - that means, in fact, "we right wing Christians have the freedom to tell the rest of you what to do, even in the most intimate matters concerning your own body."
But the rule of law, in America, does apply even to Presidents and Senators. It applies to rich, powerful white men as well as poor people, people of color, women, Muslims, gay people and Jews. Freedom of religion means freedom from religious oppression. Freedom of speech means just that - it does not mean, "Nordstrom must carry Ivanka Trump's clothes or POTUS will be angry," it does not mean POTUS can destroy a career, it does not mean GOP Senators can stifle debate.
Period.
5
Our Constitution and our legal system have maintained their integrity through our nation's complicated history.
Our Constitution and our legal system will remain iconic of our nation's greatness long after Donald Trump is relegated to a list of failed leaders.
Our Constitution and our legal system will remain iconic of our nation's greatness long after Donald Trump is relegated to a list of failed leaders.
3
The travel ban is nothing more than a ruse to ultimately undermine the creditability of the judiciary by shifting the blame of the next inevitable terrorist attack within our borders.
My darkest fears are the answer to the question, why?
My darkest fears are the answer to the question, why?
3
Rule of law is not the same thing as rule of the judiciary. In fact, when the latter takes force, it destroys the sovereignty of the people.
3
Best comment I will probably read today.
1
It's nice to see this president's behavior called out for what it is. Great piece.
1
Yes. Donald Trump is a president who doesn't understand the majesty of the rule of law that protects us far more surely that any fiat from the White House. He lives in "the Peoples House", but has no grasp of the restraints on power that the courts defend, for all of us.
2
To hear rational and civil discourse from at least one branch of government, the judicial, is heartening. Expecting the same from the executive branch is wishful thinking, something that will not happen as long as Trump is in the White House, unfortunately. The legislative branch, during the Trump years, will likely do OK with respect to civility, but I am not expecting rational discourse to be prominent, if past is prologue. The courts, at this point in our history, are our best hope for saving the republic from chaos and maintaining the order needed to make the flourishing of our nation possible.
4
You are still trying to parade a myth that is more similar to trump than reality. The court has not ruled yet, and even if they do reject trumpism, we are far from the mythical "rule of law. If the events of the past months has not brought you to the obvious conclusion that judges are nothing but politicians trying to convince us that they are not putting forth their own beliefs in the guise of law. You are enabling trump to continue his tirades because Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito and Thomas will soon show you how wrong you are when they uphold trump's absurd policies, as they will. Trump is certainly corrupt, a fraud and a totally ignorant person, but his supporters, including a large number of judges, will uphold most of his program based solely on party membership. If some judges provide a temporary setback for him, it will be a surprise.
3
Who profited from his government position?
Who bristled at any criticism of his actions?
Who expelled former allies?
Who insulted the Judicial Branch?
A. Andrew Jackson
B. Donald Trump
C. Both of the above
Answer C.
Who bristled at any criticism of his actions?
Who expelled former allies?
Who insulted the Judicial Branch?
A. Andrew Jackson
B. Donald Trump
C. Both of the above
Answer C.
4
When President Trump speaks or Tweets he is not addressing the nation or the world. He is addressing his fans and they adore him. They don't care if he lies or shows disregard for the other two branches of government. The question is how far down will he take us before they stop ignoring "the man behind the curtain."
This is not going to end well.
This is not going to end well.
2
Trump's comments on the judiciary are nothing short of appalling. The rule of law is of paramount importance to the nation's ability to function, prosper, and succeed. It seems everyone but Trump is aware of this lasting truth.
4
I once thought that the Republican House would find it necessary to impeach Trump some time in his first year, perhaps after a showdown with the Supreme Court. That was until we watched Paul Ryan display spinelessness that would embarrass the slitheriest of reptiles.
I now believe Trump will move toward the full authoritarianism and president-for-life status that he so admires in people like Putin and Erdogan. America has much stronger Constitutional roots and a history of democratic rule that give us great advantages over countries like Russia and Turkey. Let's hope those forces can prevail.
I now believe Trump will move toward the full authoritarianism and president-for-life status that he so admires in people like Putin and Erdogan. America has much stronger Constitutional roots and a history of democratic rule that give us great advantages over countries like Russia and Turkey. Let's hope those forces can prevail.
11
The judicial proceedings sparked by President Trump's indiscretionery and prejudicial executive order on travel ban from the seven Muslim majority countries provide a reassuring faith in the self-correctimg qualities of democracy, as also how under the heavy odds the majesty of law comes into full play with force to restore the rule of law when it is threatened by some forces inimical to it.
3
As we know, Trump is not an attorney. I wonder if he ever sat through an appellate argument on any of his cases. The argument before the ninth circuit panel was certainly not "disgraceful." As an attorney who has argued many times before appellate courts, I know it is risky to predict the outcome of a case based on how you believe the argument went. On a far more serious note, Trump threatens our system of checks and balances that is the bedrock of our government.
3
President Trump is very skilled at owning the attack lines before they are used against him. For instance, there was the "fake news" meme, where he (or his spin-agents) accused the media of making up stories - just when the media was losing its deference in the face of his constant delusion; if it had not been for "alternative facts" there would have been no way to describe his versions.
Now we see the epithet "Political!" thrown at the court: a pre-emptive attack to own the idea that the court's actions rather than his own are motivated by politics.
No Mr President, if the EO is for the security of the country then it is so misdirected as to make all doubt your judgement. The most generous analysis is that you yourself acted out of politics, grasping too quickly for a grand gesture to sell an image of decisive action from the man who keeps his promises - and you took a swipe at strangers who have done neither you nor the country harm.
Bluster and bravado - and Politics! So sad indeed.
Now we see the epithet "Political!" thrown at the court: a pre-emptive attack to own the idea that the court's actions rather than his own are motivated by politics.
No Mr President, if the EO is for the security of the country then it is so misdirected as to make all doubt your judgement. The most generous analysis is that you yourself acted out of politics, grasping too quickly for a grand gesture to sell an image of decisive action from the man who keeps his promises - and you took a swipe at strangers who have done neither you nor the country harm.
Bluster and bravado - and Politics! So sad indeed.
2
Bully! Judge Gorsuch, Bully! Its about time someone showed Trump some character.
An ugly time is upon us with a juvenile president attempting to lead with delusional rhetoric that denies the essential checks and balances in our democratic government. As his actions come under close scrutiny by citizens working in the judiciary and press to protect our freedoms, one can hope that the independent, questioning spirit of our people will prevail in the fight to prevent Trump form further damage to our country and the lives of its citizens. Trump ignores rules of common decency and lacks knowledge and respect for our institutions and how they function. One can hope that his ignorance and behavior unbefitting of a U.S. president or any leader will be mitigated by controls inherent in our system: An independent judiciary, a free press, and a demonstrative, vocal citizenry.
2
I heard Kellyanne Conway on CNN complaining that the media are not treating the Presidency with the respect and dignity that it requires. That assertion would be laughable if it were not so sad. It is Trump who gives his office no dignity and who, as a result, merits no respect.
81
Trump's outbursts reflect his gnawing fear that the ban order will not hold up. By ranting and spewing insults he hopes he can bully the judges. If the courts hold firm, he expects to throw doubt on their legitimacy and cover up for signing an order bad in law. He was not interested in actually increasing security for Americans. He only wanted to look decisive by seeming to close the borders he had falsely said were porous to Muslim terrorists. He wanted to pose as tough on Islamic terrorism, something he made much of during the election campaign. No wonder he said the ban was "big stuff" when he signed it. Trump could still project that image to his supporters by casting the courts as hobbling him. As always, he uses a fire hose of lies. Millions of potential terrorists are flooding in according to his invented reality. So when the next terrorist attack happens, in this make believe world where Donald Trump is America's only protection, it will be the fault of the courts. His image is preserved. That's all that matters to him.
3
the 9th appeals court has a bunch of judges who do not understand the law and ask the most absurd questions like what did Giuliani say during the campaign as though that had anything to do with the issue. The law is clear and these judges need to stop the legislating and stick to the facts. The law gives the president alone the right to determine immigration policy and there is no disputing this fact.
1
Trump's sister is a Federal Court Judge. Maybe she should call him and tell the brat to just shut up!
32
Well said. I, too, felt relief and reassurance last night as I listened to portions of the oral argument. It was wonderful to witness one of our branches of the federal government operating as it used to, Before Trump (B.T.). It was testy at times, but there were no ad hominem attacks.
It is surreal that Trump has managed to get this far with his predictable, all-the-time toddler antics and his "Me! Me! Me!" outlook on EVERYthing.
I fear we are like frogs in a kettle of warm water atop the stove: by the time we accept that Trump really will boil us, it'll be too late to jump out or do anything.
It is surreal that Trump has managed to get this far with his predictable, all-the-time toddler antics and his "Me! Me! Me!" outlook on EVERYthing.
I fear we are like frogs in a kettle of warm water atop the stove: by the time we accept that Trump really will boil us, it'll be too late to jump out or do anything.
1
Regardless of the outcome of the appellate court's decision, that one hour call restored my faith in our government.
4
Sensible dignified lawyers and judges might just save us all from the deranged madman.
7
Trump will never go in his rhetoric where the poorly educated have any difficulty following and so his near constant outpouring of highly offensive utterances and empty threats. Trump's impossible to span inner contradiction is that he neither expects nor wants his arguments to win in the court of public opinion since his political power derives from a core constituency with no stake whatsoever in maintaining the status quo, even while, at the same time, his status as a (self-described) multi-billionaire absolutely relies on nothing less but.
Because, as someone stated so eloquently when this whole mess started: "This is a country where the law matters and the Constitution endures." Even in spite of Mr. Trump's apparent lack of understanding of the laws of the country is "so called" running.
1
Impugning the judicial branch is a staple of demagogues, as well as an indicator of our nations move toward fascism. The travel ban is red meat to Trump supporters, but a feint to liberals. He knew the ban would draw protests. His aim was to judge the level of support he has in Congress, then to attack what he knew would be negative opinions from the courts.
Trump is only taking the temperature as to the timing of future maneuvers such as suspending the 1st Amendment for "the security of our country". That's why he claims national security as a reason for the ban, to see how far he can push it for more insidious reasons.
A cabinet filled with former military and rounded out with oligarchs and puppets. A Republican congress in his pocket. All Trump needs is a supplicant judiciary to rubber stamp his decrees and a church to claim his cause is holy, and no one is safe.
Trump is only taking the temperature as to the timing of future maneuvers such as suspending the 1st Amendment for "the security of our country". That's why he claims national security as a reason for the ban, to see how far he can push it for more insidious reasons.
A cabinet filled with former military and rounded out with oligarchs and puppets. A Republican congress in his pocket. All Trump needs is a supplicant judiciary to rubber stamp his decrees and a church to claim his cause is holy, and no one is safe.
1
“if these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they’d do what they should be doing.”
Well, at least we always know what Donald Trump is thinking. He telegraphs it loud and clear.
This odd side affect of his psychiatric condition is probably what put him over the top, that plus Putin plus Comey, in his historic electoral victory.
Having said all that, Donald does have a penchant for projection and often implores others to "do the right thing" when he is actually asking them to do the wrong thing, as in his request that judges rule in his favor. We'll soon find out if they are above the fray or subject to his projected inanities.
We're in for quite a ride...
Well, at least we always know what Donald Trump is thinking. He telegraphs it loud and clear.
This odd side affect of his psychiatric condition is probably what put him over the top, that plus Putin plus Comey, in his historic electoral victory.
Having said all that, Donald does have a penchant for projection and often implores others to "do the right thing" when he is actually asking them to do the wrong thing, as in his request that judges rule in his favor. We'll soon find out if they are above the fray or subject to his projected inanities.
We're in for quite a ride...
1
We joke about Trump and his temper tantrums over here at the NYT, but how is his disrespect for the judiciary playing over at Fox News and among his supporters? They are the ones marching in lockstep with Trump and his anti-judiciary rants. They are the ones with guns. They are the policemen and and customs officials who defy court orders, who are locked and loaded and ready to enforce "the law" as they see it.
1
I like the description.."It may not carry the adrenaline hit of a tweet.." And this is key here. People need to see the discourse in court rooms and even many times in our chambers of congress. It's a calm, back and forth to hash out an issues to its core. This is how discourse and issues should be hashed out. Trump, the showman..as with much of the show world..strives for that adrenaline rush because that is what keeps people watching..but it's NOT how a country should be run. Trump the Idiot is running it now..God help us all
2
Judge William Canby, one of the 9th Circuit judges at yesterday's hearing, was my constitutional law professor in the 1970's. In my nearly forty years as an attorney, I never met a finer legal mind. To hear this "so called" president besmirch this fine jurist and his court is beyond disgusting. What might be worse, however, is that not one Republican Congress person has stood up to him after this latest, unhinged tirade. I used to believe that respect for the rule of law was one of many safeguards our democracy held. Now it may be the only one.
4
the twitterer in chief working overtime. the twits tweets show me daily how ignorant he truly is. in the words of stan freiberg "frightening frightening"
as for the judiciary truly greatness in thought reason and intellect even when i do not like their decisions at times.
hey boss grow up
as for the judiciary truly greatness in thought reason and intellect even when i do not like their decisions at times.
hey boss grow up
It seems inevitable that the man who loves to tweet so much is some day going to be betrayed by it. They say the pen is mightier than the sword, which in today’s digital world is equivalent to the tweet being mightier than the sword. They also say if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, which in today’s digital world is tantamount to saying if you live by the tweet, you die by the tweet.
Trump is already catching conflict-of-interest (COI) flak for his Nordstrom tweet that said, “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!”
There is many a slip between the mind and the click. Trump has already proven that he doesn’t believe in spell check and clearly no one vets any of his tweets, which is a recipe for disaster. Congressional Republicans might not have the courage to rein in Trump’s Twitter-happy fingers, but he is most likely to get slapped on the wrists by the judicial branch regarding his 140-character pronouncements before too long, especially if he is seen as interfering or influencing a case being heard by the Courts?
It’s one thing when Trump takes on the media and Congress, but quite another when he attacks the Judiciary. As Richard Nixon learned, the buck actually stops at the Supreme Court, so Donald Trump better dial it back a notch before he gets engulfed in a Category 5 Twitter storm.
Trump is already catching conflict-of-interest (COI) flak for his Nordstrom tweet that said, “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!”
There is many a slip between the mind and the click. Trump has already proven that he doesn’t believe in spell check and clearly no one vets any of his tweets, which is a recipe for disaster. Congressional Republicans might not have the courage to rein in Trump’s Twitter-happy fingers, but he is most likely to get slapped on the wrists by the judicial branch regarding his 140-character pronouncements before too long, especially if he is seen as interfering or influencing a case being heard by the Courts?
It’s one thing when Trump takes on the media and Congress, but quite another when he attacks the Judiciary. As Richard Nixon learned, the buck actually stops at the Supreme Court, so Donald Trump better dial it back a notch before he gets engulfed in a Category 5 Twitter storm.
1
Our next contestant is Donald J. Trump, special subject, parens patriae. Donald enjoys time with his minions and likes to watch T.V.
1
For a guy who knows more about ISIS than the generals his complete inability to grasp legal arguments is stunning.
4
The law is complex because it strives to be fair, and must be formulated to be so, not just in a case before a court at the moment, but in its implications for future cases. And the same is true for much of policy.
The basic idea Trump has, that you can just do what you want, based on your guts, in each case, is childish -- and dangerous, if taken seriously. That Trump seems to have no understanding of this at all, and feels no responsibility to communicate it, shows his complete unsuitability to be a leader of a democracy.
The basic idea Trump has, that you can just do what you want, based on your guts, in each case, is childish -- and dangerous, if taken seriously. That Trump seems to have no understanding of this at all, and feels no responsibility to communicate it, shows his complete unsuitability to be a leader of a democracy.
446
So true. One of the earliest acts after a tyrant has obtained control of the levers of power through democratic means is to diminish or eliminate the existing independent judiciary and re-cast the law and jurisprudence. Mr. Trump does not aspire to lead a democracy.
We cannot hope to maintain our Republic when the President rules by fiat through a series of Executive Orders without consultation and without presenting ANY legislative agenda. I am also concerned that, if and when, Trump presents Bannon's legislative proposals to Congress, he will have a great many enablers hoping to enhance their own positions.
Resist and persist.
We cannot hope to maintain our Republic when the President rules by fiat through a series of Executive Orders without consultation and without presenting ANY legislative agenda. I am also concerned that, if and when, Trump presents Bannon's legislative proposals to Congress, he will have a great many enablers hoping to enhance their own positions.
Resist and persist.
To the question - 'how many persons from these countries HAVE committed the crimes this temporary hiatus or pause seeks to prevent
- one answer is, if/ when a crime does occur, it is too late, we wish to prevent, not play catch-up, and so the proper question, is what prevention based on speculation, is within the Executive's power
and a second answer, is, these seven countries have been cited for special scrutiny for quite a few years now, so nothing is new in this Executive Order
and a third, is, this is temporary, does the Executive have NO substantive power for a temporary suspension?
the balancing of the equities requires that the Executive continue to have the power granted to the previous Executives
- one answer is, if/ when a crime does occur, it is too late, we wish to prevent, not play catch-up, and so the proper question, is what prevention based on speculation, is within the Executive's power
and a second answer, is, these seven countries have been cited for special scrutiny for quite a few years now, so nothing is new in this Executive Order
and a third, is, this is temporary, does the Executive have NO substantive power for a temporary suspension?
the balancing of the equities requires that the Executive continue to have the power granted to the previous Executives
2
The work horses of the judiciary are found at the District Court level. That's where the not so esteemed trial judges labor in anonymity. I've argued 20 times before the 9th Circuit, and a couple of times before others.
There's a reason every liberal activist group brings cases before the 9th Cir. and every conservative activist group goes to the 5th Cir. in the old south. Most appellate judges make a show of putting the law first. District Judges are so swamped with facts they don't have time to be political Appellate judges are totally different animals. About 75% of the time you know where your case is headed when they name your panel. There is very little judicial neutrality in the appellate courts. A notable exception is Mary Schroeder the former head of the 9th Circuit. Wouldn't want to play poker against her. The fairest judges, like the District Court judges, labor in anonymity.
There's a reason every liberal activist group brings cases before the 9th Cir. and every conservative activist group goes to the 5th Cir. in the old south. Most appellate judges make a show of putting the law first. District Judges are so swamped with facts they don't have time to be political Appellate judges are totally different animals. About 75% of the time you know where your case is headed when they name your panel. There is very little judicial neutrality in the appellate courts. A notable exception is Mary Schroeder the former head of the 9th Circuit. Wouldn't want to play poker against her. The fairest judges, like the District Court judges, labor in anonymity.
5
Is there a mechanism by which Congress can censure the president? If McConnell can procedurally admonish Warren for voicing a legitimate objection to a cabinet members appointment there must be precedent or procedure to do the same to Mr Trump. And if not, maybe it's time to make a precedent.
'The trouble is, most Trump supporters think he now is the law, and you've now got a Secretary of Education ready to perpetuate that kind of ignorance.
3
Each day brings another appalling "performance" by this President. Our best hope seems to be that the great legal minds around the country will start bringing an endless stream of legal actions. Certainly the press has sufficient material for a defamation lawsuit? Can we as citizens band together and sue Trump as he chips away at our democracy, lies to us, ignores his conflicts of interest, takes action without consideration of consequences, insults and defames the other branches of government, acts in ways our children should never see a President act, and on and on? Start the appeals for contributions to the People's Defense Fund. I will gladly contribute!
1
Nicely put. It is inspiring to see people from various disciplines--art, music, science, and others--rising to write and speak about how much bigger and better we are as a country and world when we interact with people from other countries and cultures, and when we appreciate the contributions people from other countries and cultures have made and are making to our own culture.
The world is better when the U.S. is a welcoming beacon of freedom. It cannot fulfill that inspirational role if the country itself becomes a symbol of intolerance.
The world is better when the U.S. is a welcoming beacon of freedom. It cannot fulfill that inspirational role if the country itself becomes a symbol of intolerance.
2
Bogus strawman argument. Are we really ending ALL immigration from the entire world? Rubbish.
This is what governance from an old man sitting in a recliner looks like. Sadly this old man was taught how to use twitter.
1
And what will you write if the court upholds the restrictions?
It doesn't really matter because writers gotta write, just like ducks gotta swim. Quack, quack, quack all sounds the same after a while.
Trump is exactly the overreaching lout the Founders protected us against through the separation of powers. Long may the courts exercise their prerogatives and protect the republic.
3
The argument in the Ninth Circuit focused on the relatively narrow issue of whether the TRO should be stayed pending heaing on the preliminary injunction. It hardly touched on the merits. I had been rooting for the TRO to prevail against the stay, but then realized that, in normal circumstances, I would want the Government to prevail at this stage, since the Supreme Court loves slapping down the 9th Circuit. But then I recalled the possibility of any Ninth Circuit decision being "affirmed by an equally divided Court," and decided that the Ninth should rule against the stay. So hard to keep up.
Yes, the courts are indeed majestic and comforting (especially as Bush appointees)
but take a bow New York Times
(and The Roundtable/NPR, SNL, Democracy Now, Huffington Post and CNN among many).
Keep freeing the press, continue to confront insanity and cruelty with your quiet intelligent reporting and truth.
(Excellent list of your reporting of terrorism today and generally calling a spade a spade in spades : )
but take a bow New York Times
(and The Roundtable/NPR, SNL, Democracy Now, Huffington Post and CNN among many).
Keep freeing the press, continue to confront insanity and cruelty with your quiet intelligent reporting and truth.
(Excellent list of your reporting of terrorism today and generally calling a spade a spade in spades : )
3
As a long time citizen of the the USA, I apologize to all those outside of the US for the behavior and lack of understanding our President exhibits, for he is a child but with great power - a very dangerous situation. DJM
9
Dimitri seems inches, or maybe thumbs away from defying a federal court decision and might well lead to actions that could easily be considered crimes and misdemeanors of the depth that would warrant impeachment. Will the Republican-controlled Congress allow such breaches? Even in the face of their appalled supreme court candidate, I have no doubt the congress will abrogate its duty to the American public and its institutions by giving the Prez a pass.
The "trials" at Saydnaya prison in Syria were concluded quickly enough to satisfy even Mr. Trump; and thank God, we're not yet a dictatorship, for all his rhetoric. I think it's really incredible that our democracy has been going on so long; it's a kind of miracle, to me, that it exists, at all. So many forces were against us. It will take more than one thoroughly repulsive individual to undo the work of generations, as the courts are, thankfully, showing us.
Ah yes, the rule of law...savor it now before it becomes a long lost memory.
1
Mr. Trump said he did not want to accuse the courts of "bias," but then called them "so political," which can only mean so biased. Then he called on "these judges" to "help the court in terms of respect for the court." What would such "help" for the court be but political---biased toward improving their image, and perhaps their ratings?
Everything Trump has said or done so far has been angry, divisive and detrimental to our citizens and our country, if not the entire world. Today, for example, instead of complaining about things not going his way in the courts and tweeting about his daughter's poor sales at Nordstrom's (conflict of interest), he could have offered some sympathy and reassurance to the Tornado victims in the South - but nary a peep on anything like what a REAL President should be doing - not unless it can be turned into a self-serving photo op and "me, me, me fest".
4
I would like to believe in the dignity and impartiality of the judicial branch of the government. But let me ask: If this suit makes it to the Supreme Court, wouldn't votes be cast along political lines?
How long have the Democrats complained that the Supreme Court has given Bush the election?
Trump's clownish rants and conduct earns him my contempt. But when he says that the courts are politicized is he really far from the truth?
How long have the Democrats complained that the Supreme Court has given Bush the election?
Trump's clownish rants and conduct earns him my contempt. But when he says that the courts are politicized is he really far from the truth?
I think it's very reassuring to most ordinary people to know their fate rests in the hands of professional orators who only speak an exclusive language strictly so that no one else understands what they're saying.
I guess you're being sarcastic, but the law is supposed to be specific and precise. People study and analyze the law for years because those laws affect our nation and people's daily lives. Would you prefer your cardiologist to talk about your "bum ticker" in your medical records or with his colleagues, or describe with precise detail the pathology that's making you ill and what could be done to help? Lay people cannot know all the "exclusive" languages, but we can try to understand and respect those that have expertise.
I
I
3
I think most people with an average IQ could understand it just fine if they paid attention and listened closely.
1
Most people, particularly many of those on the left posting here on the Times' web site, fail to listen...or read...all of the information available BEFORE jumping to their ideological conclusions.
Many also have a flawed view both of our legal processes and the institutions and procedures that go to make up the "due process" that legal questions need for resolution,
Many also have a flawed view both of our legal processes and the institutions and procedures that go to make up the "due process" that legal questions need for resolution,
"The president continues to demean his office in 140-character increments, firing off nasty and reflexive broadsides..."
Perhaps the NY Times is too generous in giving Trump such literary credit. Trump has stated that he does not write his own tweets but orally dictates them to an unnamed assistant. This is something a dyslexic person is compelled to do.
Trump’s inability to read his own business contracts is demonstrated on YouTube videos, and they are almost painful to watch as he stares at any text without a trace of comprehension. Again, we are dealing with dyslexia.
And this is where Bannon steps in to compensate for Donald’s infirmity and in the process shape the policies of the executive branch.
We are witnessing the biggest ventriloquist act since Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy.
Perhaps the NY Times is too generous in giving Trump such literary credit. Trump has stated that he does not write his own tweets but orally dictates them to an unnamed assistant. This is something a dyslexic person is compelled to do.
Trump’s inability to read his own business contracts is demonstrated on YouTube videos, and they are almost painful to watch as he stares at any text without a trace of comprehension. Again, we are dealing with dyslexia.
And this is where Bannon steps in to compensate for Donald’s infirmity and in the process shape the policies of the executive branch.
We are witnessing the biggest ventriloquist act since Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy.
11
The oral argument on travel ban reminded us what politicization of rule of law looks like.
Compare that to .. yesterday's healthcare debate between Sanders and Cruz, that showed what a healthy democracy can be like.
Compare that to .. yesterday's healthcare debate between Sanders and Cruz, that showed what a healthy democracy can be like.
I wish you would not talk so much about Trump's twitter messages. If you had problems with your teenage son, would you rant and rave to the family psychologist about his messages? Of course not. Teenagers are teenagers. Trump is Trump. Please address the issues, and don't glorify that idiot by paying to him the attention he craves.
2
A beautiful piece, and that the United States is a “government based on the rule of law” is fundamental in the debate on illegal immigration, too.
1
What is demoralizing and disheartening is watching the actions of the child who who now occupies the oval office. I am still in a state of shock that we have come to this point as a nation. I sincerely fear that the nation will be in real trouble before the politicians, who seem completely oblivious to the potential for disaster, stir themselves to correct the course of our democracy. Wake me from the nightmare!
1
The president's executive order and its aftermath before the court provides a dramatic civics lesson and wakeup call for the nation. With an executive branch headed by a tantrum throwing bully and a legislature run by spineless sycophants, we'll be counting on the judiciary - yes, those so-called judges on the federal bench, Republican and Democratic appointees alike - to protect the rule of law.
2
Thank God.....really mean this.....for ...a direct beam of sanity from our
Legal System....making a clear stance ...taking due measure....to assure
all of us... that....this nation is a nation of LAW....not...DICTATES....
Hurrah For The Department of Justice....and now the test of.....Trump and
his cadre of ...."enforcers"......well....let us all see how the scales of justice
will be duly weighted to correct this out of balanced ...autocracy which has
been fomenting in the Oval Office realms....
and it seems that the nominee for Supreme Court Justice might just tell
Trump ...that...he is severely "Out of Order"...and should ....respect the
laws of our land....this is the best news today...and McConnell has shown
how really shabby this yokel from Kentucky can be and has been..Good News
Legal System....making a clear stance ...taking due measure....to assure
all of us... that....this nation is a nation of LAW....not...DICTATES....
Hurrah For The Department of Justice....and now the test of.....Trump and
his cadre of ...."enforcers"......well....let us all see how the scales of justice
will be duly weighted to correct this out of balanced ...autocracy which has
been fomenting in the Oval Office realms....
and it seems that the nominee for Supreme Court Justice might just tell
Trump ...that...he is severely "Out of Order"...and should ....respect the
laws of our land....this is the best news today...and McConnell has shown
how really shabby this yokel from Kentucky can be and has been..Good News
2
I listened to some of the argumentation yesterday. I had never actually heard an appellate case argued and found the back-and-forth in what amounts to technical legalities not just interesting, but actually fascinating. My opinion as to the merits of either side's arguments is irrelevant. I found the Washington State AG's arguments more cogent. I also found the government's assertion that the President's EO is un-reviewable to be chilling. If that assertion is true, then it starts a slippery slope for this, or any President to assert a national security issue and thus make any action by a President to be un-reviewable by the courts. I don't think that anyone who remembers their grade school and high school civics or government class would find that compelling. The President has, and should have, wide latitude in the exercise of executive authority to protect our nation -- but he and his actions are, by design, open to review by Congress, the Courts, or both.
Blind Justice is preferable to legal ignorance.
Blind Justice is preferable to legal ignorance.
654
The NPR news magazine programs sometimes have recordings and/or quotes from compelling Supreme Court cases, during which a bit of the grandeur of the law can be heard. I agree with you, Richard Green, that we need more of this.
1
It was found un-reviewable because it was based upon assumptions, not actual legal grounds. Where is the case reference to back up the order? How did the list get assembled? You cannot create a law on gut feelings, there has to be legal precedence to build on. That's what the review panel want to see and hear.
Chilling or not, Mr. Green, the Constitution of the United States explicitly empowers the federal government to set immigration policy, and Congress has established the laws the govern how that policy can be implemented.
The arguments against the Executive Order are both spurious and disrespectful for the Rule of Law, the essence of our governance.
The arguments against the Executive Order are both spurious and disrespectful for the Rule of Law, the essence of our governance.
Which leads to the question of why the U.S. Supreme Court does not allow the public to witness their deliberations in real time. What purpose is served? There are fewer things that exist which would more connect the citizens with their public institutions.
3
The judiciary is the only thing now standing between us and autocracy being shoved down our throats, aided and abetted by the GOP Congress, which has abandoned it duties and sold whatever principles it had in exchange for getting to Implement some laws. God bless the judges who are the only ones taking their job seriously. It is shocking to see how a system of government can unravel so quickly.
2
The judicial branch is operating well. As you point out. the executive branch has a seriously flawed CEO. And the Congressional branch seems to be moving closer and closer to the CEO. It is questionable whether Senate rule 19 is even constitutional. The Senate is an arm of the government. The rule was used to deny Senator Warren and her constituents what would seem to be their right of Free Speech under the first amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said political speech has the highest level of protection under the Constitution. With only one branch functioning right now, the US is on a perilous trajectory.
4
Excuse me, Mr. Ricciardi...Senate Rule XIX not constitutional? On what grounds do you make that statement?
Aren't you aware that the Constitution of the United States specifically states that the House and the Senate are empowered to create THEIR OWN RULES of operation.
What in that permission says that there is the right of judicial or constitutional review.
It would seem to me that you have a stunning lack of awareness as to what our Constitution actual says.
Aren't you aware that the Constitution of the United States specifically states that the House and the Senate are empowered to create THEIR OWN RULES of operation.
What in that permission says that there is the right of judicial or constitutional review.
It would seem to me that you have a stunning lack of awareness as to what our Constitution actual says.
It is strangely pleasing that Trump accidentally picked an extremely conservative judge who nevertheless boldly defended the integrity and independence of the Judicial branch of government.
What I don't get is how easily and utterly completely the rational statements made in this editorial can be disputed and denied by passionate, angry Trump supporters -- who trust only Breitbart, and Trump on Twitter.
What I don't get is how easily and utterly completely the rational statements made in this editorial can be disputed and denied by passionate, angry Trump supporters -- who trust only Breitbart, and Trump on Twitter.
3
Apparently Mr. Trump is still playing the role of reality television celebrity. And learning that it's not so easy to fire judges that no more about the law than he does.
6
As I recall, the first four or five months had Barack Obama playing "television personality" at the drop of a teleprompter.
This household tuned him out because he rarely had anything substantive to say in spite of the press's fawning and grovelling.
This household tuned him out because he rarely had anything substantive to say in spite of the press's fawning and grovelling.
The majesty of the rule of law depends upon leaders that respect how difficult it is to attain.
It is unlikely that our country, gripped by sullen partisanship and small-minded legislators, would be able to construct anything near like what we currently have should it ever crumble.
We take for granted and do not value properly the living machinery of the law. We demean it in late night commercials for ambulance chasers and produce far too many lawyers and not enough advocates for justice.
I agree that listening to the Court of Appeals rigorously parsing the details of Trump's impetuous ramblings inspires a gentle sort of awe and a hope that some of our 'so-called' leaders take inspiration as well from their example.
It is unlikely that our country, gripped by sullen partisanship and small-minded legislators, would be able to construct anything near like what we currently have should it ever crumble.
We take for granted and do not value properly the living machinery of the law. We demean it in late night commercials for ambulance chasers and produce far too many lawyers and not enough advocates for justice.
I agree that listening to the Court of Appeals rigorously parsing the details of Trump's impetuous ramblings inspires a gentle sort of awe and a hope that some of our 'so-called' leaders take inspiration as well from their example.
395
I would simply like to salute this comment - perfectly expressed.
The damage that is being done to the invisible glue that binds us together (loosely termed "respect for institutions") is, let's face it, irrecoverable. Never again will "the Presidency" be revered it was by all Americans, pretty much, before Jan 20, 2017.
Did - do - Trump voters really want this? I think it's possible the answer is (and remains) "yes". The "invisible glue" has also helped to protect privilege and keep the hated "elites" in power.
Meanwhile we - the privileged - worry that "they" - the Trump-inclined - don't fully realise what's at stake, for them as well as for us. That may be a patronising view, but it's not necessarily wrong.
The damage that is being done to the invisible glue that binds us together (loosely termed "respect for institutions") is, let's face it, irrecoverable. Never again will "the Presidency" be revered it was by all Americans, pretty much, before Jan 20, 2017.
Did - do - Trump voters really want this? I think it's possible the answer is (and remains) "yes". The "invisible glue" has also helped to protect privilege and keep the hated "elites" in power.
Meanwhile we - the privileged - worry that "they" - the Trump-inclined - don't fully realise what's at stake, for them as well as for us. That may be a patronising view, but it's not necessarily wrong.
1
Beautifully stated.
1
Most of my life Canada has tried to catch up to the USA. In the late 20th century we wrote a bilingual 20th century constitution. It is working. Our Supreme Court is not there to establish or interpret LAW it is there to dispense JUSTICE. The proceedings of the court are available on CPAC our parliamentary and government broadcasts. Our Supreme Court hearings are not adversarial they are philosophical and one can easily understand switching sides after each argument. The Supreme Court of the USA fails miserably because it not really a deliberative body it is by definition political not judicial..
1
As I listened last evening
To the oral argument
Its technicalities
The respect and professionalism
Of the lawyers and the judges
The quiet cadences
So familiar to me
I became emotional
Recognizing the sound
The law makes
When it is working
The feeling of dignity
When government serves
The people
The confidence inspired by
Men and women of
Character and purpose
And principle
Whether arguing and deliberating
A humble dispute
Or one that
Defines the ramparts
Of our democracy
Without noise
Without smoke
To the oral argument
Its technicalities
The respect and professionalism
Of the lawyers and the judges
The quiet cadences
So familiar to me
I became emotional
Recognizing the sound
The law makes
When it is working
The feeling of dignity
When government serves
The people
The confidence inspired by
Men and women of
Character and purpose
And principle
Whether arguing and deliberating
A humble dispute
Or one that
Defines the ramparts
Of our democracy
Without noise
Without smoke
19
Beautiful
The twit prefers Twitter to the courts. So here we are.
17
Trump says he don't need no stinkin' courts!
12
Legitimate criticism. President Trump needs to adjust his own tweets, in everyone’s interests. But nobody should believe that if he WERE to moderate them the non-stop and often vitriolic attacks against everything about him would stop for even an instant. They CAN’T stop – his adversaries see no hope for their version of America but to destroy him.
He wants a channel for direct response, but the WAY in which he’s doing it simply stokes the fire with 140-character sticks of dynamite.
The problem with Twitter is that it removes any filter between an urge to respond angrily and the unedited, hasty response itself; and 140 characters is NOT an appropriate medium. Yet an engine for effective response against those adamantly opposed to Trump and willing to use their own tools to stoke the fire CAN be fashioned exploiting Twitter’s strengths while minimizing the glaring weaknesses of removing filters and a too-constraining brevity.
He needs a small organization, not funded by government or by him personally but by the party. It would consist of a rapid-response unit to address attacks that emerge every day, but also some anticipation of what the NEXT stick of dynamite will be. It would rapidly craft responses to specific attacks, and his tweets would express disagreement with a public attack but not respond so vehemently himself – he’d link to those prepared responses that would be brief, concise and hard-hitting, but so much more appropriate and effective than 140 characters.
He wants a channel for direct response, but the WAY in which he’s doing it simply stokes the fire with 140-character sticks of dynamite.
The problem with Twitter is that it removes any filter between an urge to respond angrily and the unedited, hasty response itself; and 140 characters is NOT an appropriate medium. Yet an engine for effective response against those adamantly opposed to Trump and willing to use their own tools to stoke the fire CAN be fashioned exploiting Twitter’s strengths while minimizing the glaring weaknesses of removing filters and a too-constraining brevity.
He needs a small organization, not funded by government or by him personally but by the party. It would consist of a rapid-response unit to address attacks that emerge every day, but also some anticipation of what the NEXT stick of dynamite will be. It would rapidly craft responses to specific attacks, and his tweets would express disagreement with a public attack but not respond so vehemently himself – he’d link to those prepared responses that would be brief, concise and hard-hitting, but so much more appropriate and effective than 140 characters.
1
I agree with your first two sentences. However, the goal of curtailing the President's impulsive and petulant, unfiltered responses has more to do with what's good for the Office and the republic. The goal is not to get people to stop hating him. Indeed, the last president was an eminently civilized and politic communicator, who exuded a much higher level of respect for the institutions he was a part of and the people he governed, yet faced no small measure of vitriol from the loyal opposition.
7
So, to condense, take the phone away from the guy. For one, he's making your pronouncements about him look just as considered as his.
The system you're proposing exists, the president is a mouthy fool who can't see it through the fog of smarmy stooges. Seen ol' Kellyann recently, me neither.
The system you're proposing exists, the president is a mouthy fool who can't see it through the fog of smarmy stooges. Seen ol' Kellyann recently, me neither.
2
You can make all the "lawyer jokes" you want, but at the end of the day, they protect our rights. And as most judges were lawyers, they know "the law." Does anyone for a single instant imagine that Trump could engage in a substantive conversation about these matters? He is a charlatan and a low-information clod.
If the judiciary is the most boring part of our system of checks and balances, then applaud them for their dullness and their addiction to the rule of law. At this point, since the Legislative branch has clearly abrogated its duties, they are all we have to cling to!
If the judiciary is the most boring part of our system of checks and balances, then applaud them for their dullness and their addiction to the rule of law. At this point, since the Legislative branch has clearly abrogated its duties, they are all we have to cling to!
333
Please explain to us how, in this instance, Congress has abrogated their duties?
In accordance with the Constitution, which enumerates the setting of immigration policy to the federal government, and in accordance with the laws duly passed by Congress to allow the Executive to implement immigration policy, Trump appears to be acting within the scope and the intent of the law.
Please be specific in how he is either not following the laws of the land or acting unconstitutionally.
In accordance with the Constitution, which enumerates the setting of immigration policy to the federal government, and in accordance with the laws duly passed by Congress to allow the Executive to implement immigration policy, Trump appears to be acting within the scope and the intent of the law.
Please be specific in how he is either not following the laws of the land or acting unconstitutionally.
1
People love to hate lawyers until they ned one.
2
"No gratuitous insults, no personal threats or childish tantrum"
Yes, that has been reassuring.
It is a shame that Trump's opponents don't hear that they sound no better. It has been insults, threats, and tantrum on both sides since Nov 8. A bunch of children fighting in pre-school would behave better.
He did it first!
How has that ever worked as an excuse?
The saddest thing is all the opportunity lost, squandered, for the opponents of Trump to show America they are the grownups in the room, and what that would be like.
Yes, that has been reassuring.
It is a shame that Trump's opponents don't hear that they sound no better. It has been insults, threats, and tantrum on both sides since Nov 8. A bunch of children fighting in pre-school would behave better.
He did it first!
How has that ever worked as an excuse?
The saddest thing is all the opportunity lost, squandered, for the opponents of Trump to show America they are the grownups in the room, and what that would be like.
9
Mature, deliberate reasoning is a losing strategy in today's world. That was the lesson of November 8.
Insults, threats, and tantrums are the way to the White House. Taking the high road is for losers.
Insults, threats, and tantrums are the way to the White House. Taking the high road is for losers.
7
The only fear the judges have is of the press and Trump has them figured out. Fake news has only recently been discovered to be real?
You're missing an important distinction between Trump and his opponents, Mark Thomason: Trump is President of the United States with very broad power (not as broad as he thinks, true, but very broad nonetheless) to affect the nation's (and the world's) safety and welfare. I do not agree that Trump's opponents -- most of whom are simply law-abiding citizens without scintilla of the power that Trump exercises -- "sound no better" than Trump. But even if you're right about that, Trump has the unique duty to act responsibly in accordance with the requirements of the Presidency. So far, he hasn't even come close.
8
The most important part of this op-ed is the link it makes between the law and factual evidence. The question about how many federal offenses had been committed by people from these seven countries makes the point.
Trump's executive order was made based on emotion, and his replies are purely emotional. The courts, which hopefully will not be demoralized by Trump's attacks, offer what seems to be our only hope for maintaining our democracy and upholding the truth in the face of great political resistance from Trump and his Republican backers.
Trump's executive order was made based on emotion, and his replies are purely emotional. The courts, which hopefully will not be demoralized by Trump's attacks, offer what seems to be our only hope for maintaining our democracy and upholding the truth in the face of great political resistance from Trump and his Republican backers.
377
they were based on what countries he did or did not do business with. that's the whole point, they have no danger to the US
3
Yes and thank you.
34
Trump is doing everything he can to discredit the judiciary (and hence, Constitutionally established checks and balances) and the fourth estate.
I am glad that both judiciary and fourth estate continue to do their jobs.
I am pained that so many believe his 140-character rants are truthful and deserve attention.
I am glad that both judiciary and fourth estate continue to do their jobs.
I am pained that so many believe his 140-character rants are truthful and deserve attention.
308
we are setting the bar so low
1
Anyone can bypass the press.
His 140 character rants are his way to avoid the follow up questions. That's the only reason he tweets.
His 140 character rants are his way to avoid the follow up questions. That's the only reason he tweets.
7
And I am pained by the utter obedience of the republican congress. Three branches of government and only one will stand up for the Constitution? #resist
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Every American who has at least an ounce of faith left in our Constitution should be familiar with this case. It should not only be taught to law students.
Every American who has at least an ounce of faith left in our Constitution should be familiar with this case. It should not only be taught to law students.
223
It wasn't just taught to law school students. It was taught to me along with many other cases including libel and slander law cases during undergrad journalism school. Got the lawbooks to prove it, along with The Federalist, in addition to the US Constitution. All are being read by me on an almost daily basis right now to keep my panic at bay. Three branches of gov't establish checks and balances on one another. OMG whew.
6
I seem to recall that I learned about Marbury v Madison in high school American History--if my memory is faulty, then it was in a college freshman course in American History.
It shouldn't be news to anyone with a modicum of education.
It shouldn't be news to anyone with a modicum of education.
1
The President also questioned where the Court's army was to enforce the ruling.
1
I always had a vision of grandeur and magnificence about our courts -- until I listened to the travel ban oral argument.
Floundering, spluttering, counsels.
Overtly political, liberal judge.
At least, Trump can type 140 characters, filled with confidence and common sense.
Floundering, spluttering, counsels.
Overtly political, liberal judge.
At least, Trump can type 140 characters, filled with confidence and common sense.
7
So facts are now liberal? Emotions are common sense? They couldn't provide factual evidence. There was no case to be made.
7
Hooray for the Antichrist!
1
two things, as one who has argued many times in the courts of appeals.
1. what the lawyers for each side do in the moment and on their feet is very impressive. rendered in black and white, or listened to with the time to think "well i would have said" few arguments, certainly not ones in which theories have been built in mere days, lives up to the imagination. for those of us old enough to remember (and perhaps it is on youtube) i always point to the 1992 vice-presidential debate. Admiral and Phd James Stockdale was cringe-worthy. The much-derided VP Quayle was far more coherent and persuasive. Why? I suspect because he had legal training. Answering questions in the moment is much harder than people think it is, not least because the answer the critics think perfect would have been ripped apart by the next question.
2. confidence is rarely correlated with correctness. it is just rewarded irrationally, by folks of all beliefs
1. what the lawyers for each side do in the moment and on their feet is very impressive. rendered in black and white, or listened to with the time to think "well i would have said" few arguments, certainly not ones in which theories have been built in mere days, lives up to the imagination. for those of us old enough to remember (and perhaps it is on youtube) i always point to the 1992 vice-presidential debate. Admiral and Phd James Stockdale was cringe-worthy. The much-derided VP Quayle was far more coherent and persuasive. Why? I suspect because he had legal training. Answering questions in the moment is much harder than people think it is, not least because the answer the critics think perfect would have been ripped apart by the next question.
2. confidence is rarely correlated with correctness. it is just rewarded irrationally, by folks of all beliefs
9
It's somewhat startling to find the concept of dignity in an article that has anything to do with our present government.
But the judges didn't immediately cave, so tomorrow's headlines will carry Little Donald's tweets about how sad and pathetic and unfair and terrible they are.
But the judges didn't immediately cave, so tomorrow's headlines will carry Little Donald's tweets about how sad and pathetic and unfair and terrible they are.
83
We will so miss it when the rule of law is gone.
143
Compare: "Mr. Flentje declined to answer, saying that the litigation was moving very fast."
With: "[Trump] complained on Wednesday about the pace of the legal debate on the travel ban, which is not even two weeks old, saying it is 'really incredible' that it is 'going on so long.'"
The president hasn't a clue as to how things work in our system, and/or he just doesn't care.
With: "[Trump] complained on Wednesday about the pace of the legal debate on the travel ban, which is not even two weeks old, saying it is 'really incredible' that it is 'going on so long.'"
The president hasn't a clue as to how things work in our system, and/or he just doesn't care.
254
The lower court imposed an injunction on the New York Times related to the Pentagon Paper. A week later, while the Court was on vacation, it ruled in favor of the Times. Bigshots get quicker justice.
1
The speed of the courts and the speed of daily life are dramatically different.
A case in the courts with movement on a weekly basis is one that is traveling at the speed of light.
A case in the courts with movement on a weekly basis is one that is traveling at the speed of light.
If there is some entertainingly odd genius to be found, somewhere in our Courts, it likely resides in the 9th Circuit.
Time and time again, they perceive the off angle of the conflicts among case law and facts, and produce brilliance.
The 9th Circuit, continually demonstrates the essential nature of the third branch of our government.
Time and time again, they perceive the off angle of the conflicts among case law and facts, and produce brilliance.
The 9th Circuit, continually demonstrates the essential nature of the third branch of our government.
139
And, time-and-again, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is overruled by the Supreme Court. The are the most overruled court in the nation.
We should remember that Donald Trump's personal lawyer was Roy Cohn - the same Roy Cohn who was counsel to Senator Joseph 'Red Scare' McCarthy who led America on a disgraceful and shameful national wild goose chase.
Aside from Donald Trump, Roy Cohn's New York clients included Mafia and organized crime figures Tony Salerno, Carmine Galante, and John Gotti.
Donald Trump has a fine appreciation of criminal law.
But Constitutional law is a like a planet from outer space or like a foreign language or like having a sense of humor to Donald Trump --- it is an utterly alien concept beyond the grasp of his personal psychiatric pit of self-absorption, self-promotion and self-dealing.
Let justice and due process prevail over the Knave-in-Chief.
Aside from Donald Trump, Roy Cohn's New York clients included Mafia and organized crime figures Tony Salerno, Carmine Galante, and John Gotti.
Donald Trump has a fine appreciation of criminal law.
But Constitutional law is a like a planet from outer space or like a foreign language or like having a sense of humor to Donald Trump --- it is an utterly alien concept beyond the grasp of his personal psychiatric pit of self-absorption, self-promotion and self-dealing.
Let justice and due process prevail over the Knave-in-Chief.
717
What now in fair Verona?
2
"Aside from Donald Trump, Roy Cohn's New York clients included Mafia and organized crime figures Tony Salerno, Carmine Galante, and John Gotti."
So what?
So what?
2
publius - Do you know who any of those people are?
2
As we can see, Judge Gorsuch is a member of the court. He may have ideological leanings, yet he respects the courts place in the governance of the country.
As was established by Justice Marshal, the court is the ultimate authority when it come to interpretation of the Constitution. Trump does not respect that authority, attempting to place himself above the court, and his attorneys from the Justice Department tried to put him above the law. This is the technique of despots and dictators, Kaisers, Czars, and Caesars, not democratically elected leaders of the country.
Trump trying to run the country as his own little fiefdom can not continue in this manner as long as we have a free press. So as we see, he and his henchmen are doing what they can to undermine the press with accusations of false news, and calling them the enemy. As was said a known Nazi, "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.--Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister."
What scares me, it about 24% of the American population approves of this. Think about this for awhile, about one out of four of your neighbors would welcome the Fourth Reich.
As was established by Justice Marshal, the court is the ultimate authority when it come to interpretation of the Constitution. Trump does not respect that authority, attempting to place himself above the court, and his attorneys from the Justice Department tried to put him above the law. This is the technique of despots and dictators, Kaisers, Czars, and Caesars, not democratically elected leaders of the country.
Trump trying to run the country as his own little fiefdom can not continue in this manner as long as we have a free press. So as we see, he and his henchmen are doing what they can to undermine the press with accusations of false news, and calling them the enemy. As was said a known Nazi, "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.--Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister."
What scares me, it about 24% of the American population approves of this. Think about this for awhile, about one out of four of your neighbors would welcome the Fourth Reich.
549
I am scared to death.
3
If that is likely, and I think it could be, then Hillary was right. Half of his supporters are deplorable.
7
In my slice of rural America, it is far more than 24%! The saving grace is that these "salt of the earth", "give the shirt off their backs (if they believed you were worthy)", "true christian" neighbors are farther away.
1
Trump's handlers really need to take Trump's twitter account away, or smash his phone. Trump will scream, and cry, and fall on the floor kicking. He'll yell, "I hate, hate, hate you," but eventually he'll calm down and maybe have time to read Bannon's executive orders before he signs them.
664
Twitter should suspend all service for a day to drive him mad. A Twitter free day. I'm sure most users wouldn't mind sacrificing for the sake of the country.
4
Disagree. Let him dig his own grave. It's best to know what the enemy is thinking (albeit as loosely as one can call these ravings "thoughts").
6
This is a sanitized version of the truth. The 9th Cir. looks at the government lawyer in skepticism because he's taking the most aggressive stance possible. He's arguing that the President's powers over immigration are unlimited and basically are not reviewable. In the end the judges know that Trump is going to win most of this case. There isn't even a good argument against his power to impose a 90 day waiting period. As for Syria, he's breaking all the refugees Constitutional rights except for the fact that foreigners pretty much have no Constitutional rights. There's a reason why they built Gitmo in Cuba. Right now the judges are offended by the audacity of the government lawyer But he'll get a promotion real soon, Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
1
Sadly, the other branch of Government, Congress controlled by the Republican Party is too polarized to realize how dangerous Trump is the manner in which is governing the nation. We have only to look at the voting record of Republican Senators on the confirmation of some nominees for the cabinet. Ignran