I’m no Trump fan, but I think all the pearl clutching from the media over his “so-called judge” tweet was ridiculous. So does Jonathan Turley. And as always, it’s particularly ridiculous coming from people who probably had no problem with Obama upbraiding (and in the process lying) the Justices who had honored him with their attendance at the State of the Union over Citizens United.
22 thoughts on “Trump And The Judge”
Comments are closed.
Trump’s use of the phrase “so called” suggested that the judge was not a legitimate authority, which is a dangerous suggestion coming from a co-equal branch of government.
In contrast, President Obama said “it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”
I don’t see any suggestion in Obama’s comment that the Supreme Court was not a legitimate authority, merely that he disagreed with the Court’s decision, which is hardly surprising – the President appoints a solicitor general to routinely make arguments to that effect.
Go argue with Jonathan Turley.
I didn’t realize the judicial branch was filled with entitled snowflakes who are above criticism. Perhaps when they become objective judges and not political hacks, then they’ll get more respect.
The 9th circus decision did not even mention the law that allows the President to make such decisions regarding who can come into this country.
Go look up Elian Gonzales. You’ll see that Clinton had the right to make the decision.
The “political hack” in question was appointed by President Bush (43), but moreover, the issue here is that the legitimacy and authority of the judge is being called into question. The other stuff you bring up doesn’t seem relevant to me. If you interpret “so called” as a mere criticism, then you won’t see the problem, and the other issues you’re commenting on might take on some importance, but if you interpret “so called” as an attack on the rule of law, then I would hope that you would see it as the central problem.
I’m with the GOP senator from Nebraska on this: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317962-sasse-we-dont-have-have-so-called-judges
The “political hack” in question was appointed by President Bush
You say that like it matters. You can’t wishcast away the judge’s actual political views.
If you interpret “so called” as a mere criticism, then you won’t see the problem,
The problem is our friends to the left are not self aware and lack a sense of proportion in the criticism used by Trump. The problem you see is largely a figment of your own imagination.
“You can’t wishcast away the judge’s actual political views.”
Hey, have a heart, wodun! If “liberals” can’t wishcast reality, their heads would explode.
Trump’s use of the phrase “so called” suggested that the judge was not a legitimate authority
In what alternate reality? If anything, it implies that judge was not good at his job and not that the job is illegitimate. Intentionally misinterpreting things isn’t good faith opposition. All it does is emphasize that Democrat have constructed an alternate reality where facts, reason, and common sense do not exist.
Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.
Obama was upset that his victims would be able to speak out about the policies that would affect them. Isn’t that just a little self serving? When Obama’s core ideology is one of punishing and controlling business, much like a fascist, doesn’t it raise flags that he wants to prevent businesses, individuals, and advocacy groups from speaking out about the punishments and controlling mandates?
Then Obama blames opposition on foreign powers. He delegitimized opposition to his fascist policies by saying it was really the covert action of foreign governments.
This is the type of crap that happened in Venezuela, Cuba, the USSR, and now Turkey.
Obama even used government agencies to attack these groups. He used words and actions. Where were the Democrats standing up for the right of free speech to stand up to an oppressive government? They were cheering it on.
Trump saying a judge isn’t doing a good job isn’t even in the same universe.
“Obama was upset that his victims would be able to speak out about the policies that would affect them. Isn’t that just a little self serving?”
Right, let’s not forget what Citizens United was about–the government trying to censor a movie critical of Hillary while she was running for President.
You do realize that this means that, if there’s ever another Democrat President, it only takes one right-wing judge to block everything he does, right?
No, it does not mean that. The president suggested that a judge wasn’t really a judge. That’s completely orthogonal to whether the judge or the president is right-wing or left-wing. Unfortunately, it isn’t orthogonal to whether a judge can block a president — if the president undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary, the time could come when a judge won’t be able to block a president, and that should worry all Americans, including, perhaps even particularly including, conservatives and libertarians.
“…the time could come when a judge won’t be able to block a president, and that should worry all Americans, including, perhaps even particularly including, conservatives and libertarians.”
I’m sure that time will never come, given the vigilance of “folks” such as yourself.
Oh, wait…
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/obama-slams-supreme-court-immigration-decision-224728
https://www.intellihub.com/obama-to-ignore-supreme-court-im-still-not-deporting-illegals/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/25/obama-immigration-and-10-words-in-the-constitution-that-mean-mr-president-dont-be-a-king/?utm_term=.6cb1922ebd36
Judges are not the unquestionable high priests of the law. They’re human beings with their own weaknesses and faults just like everyone else. Many of them appear to be little more than failed lawyers with sufficient political connections to get appointed or nominated to the bench. To suggest that judges can not be criticized is to put the judiciary above all other branches of government. That idea is contrary to the Constitution to the point of being unamerican.
Amending the Constitution is a deliberately difficult process. It’s much, much easier to get some judges to defacto amend it for the Left with a court ruling. That’s why activist judges are loved by the Left and is one of the reasons why they’re going batshit crazy over Trump. There’s the current supreme court vacancy (with at least one more in sight) and over 200 lower court vacancies for him to fill. All of them are lifetime appointments.
“To suggest that judges can not be criticized…”
I wish Trump had restrained himself to criticizing the judge. But he didn’t – he suggested that the judge wasn’t really a judge, which undermines our system. My complaint is deeply conservative.
Your complaint is giving us repetitive motion injury from ocular rotation.
If a judge doesn’t act in accordance with the law, he isn’t a legitimate judge.
As Wodun says, who cares who appointed him? And of course citing the law that you’re overriding is relevant! The fact that they did not is beyond the pale.
(Insert random link here to confirm my bias.)
In your liberal bubble, you might not have noticed how Maxine Waters called Trump a scumbag or Nancy Pelosi called Bush a “total failure.”
I presumed that you cared who appointed him. You complained that judges are political hacks, so I wanted to inform you (or remind you) of whose hack the judge is. But if you don’t care, great, I don’t care either. I’m just not sure why you thought political hacks were relevant in the case of Judge Robart.
My final comment: My ideal would be that when any US President speaks in public, there is a little civics lesson built-in to their comments, so that young people learn the norms for democracy as it is practiced in the United States. Senator Sasse was saying much the same thing in the video clip I linked to above.
If you wanted civility, you might have let your voice be heard as Obama was making fun of regular Americans. Much of the anger on the right comes from the way we’ve been treated recently, especially over the last 8 years.
If you wanted civility, you might have let your voice be heard as Obama was making fun of regular Americans. Much of the anger on the right comes from the way we’ve been treated recently, especially over the last 8 years.
And if you looked out the window, you’ll see the disgusting violence taking place is all on your side. Glass houses and all that.
Not sure how this got repeated.
“My final comment: My ideal would be that when any US President speaks in public, there is a little civics lesson built-in to their comments . . .”
I’m guessing that civics lesson would be “Submit to the Hive.” Which was pretty much the civics lesson taught by Trump’s predecessor, the Red Diaper Baby, and Trump’s opponent, the Dowager Empress.
I loved this line:
“… Thomas Jefferson, and Chief Justice Marshall wholeheartedly disliked each other despite being third cousins once removed.”
In other words, they didn’t like each other “despite” being almost complete strangers.