Trump's newest tweet is really scary

[JayJayH 546]

"Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-judge-immigration-ban-terror-attacks-2017-2

 

Why is this so scary all of a sudden? Because this country functions because of an independent judiciary and checks and balances, not despite it. What Trump seems to be doing is to get his base to lose any trust in federal courts. If something actually were to happen, you could easily get a situation where Trump/Bannon start trying to use it to attempt to dismantle checks and balances, while discrediting the judicial branch.

 

Because of the judicial branch, the 1st amendment will still stand, no matter who is president. The 2nd amendment will still stand, no matter who is president.

 

Even if you voted for Trump and/or agree with the executive order, the proper response to a federal court decision you disagree with is to appeal, argue why you're in the right, and say "I disagree with the ruling, but this is how the system works." If the EO is constitutional, the Supreme Court will uphold it. Thankfully, it seems both the State Dept. and Homeland Security are acting according to the court.

 

Could you imagine a situation where a future president attempted to "ban guns", a federal court said "no" and the president said "Every life lost by guns from now on is on this so-called judge. Ridiculous."

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, JayJayH said:

"Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-judge-immigration-ban-terror-attacks-2017-2

 

Why is this so scary all of a sudden? Because this country functions because of an independent judiciary and checks and balances, not despite it. What Trump seems to be doing is to get his base to lose any trust in federal courts. If something actually were to happen, you could easily get a situation where Trump/Bannon start trying to use it to attempt to dismantle checks and balances, while discrediting the judicial branch.

 

Because of the judicial branch, the 1st amendment will still stand, no matter who is president. The 2nd amendment will still stand, no matter who is president.

 

Even if you voted for Trump and/or agree with the executive order, the proper response to a federal court decision you disagree with is to appeal, argue why you're in the right, and say "I disagree with the ruling, but this is how the system works." If the EO is constitutional, the Supreme Court will uphold it. Thankfully, it seems both the State Dept. and Homeland Security are acting according to the court.

 

Could you imagine a situation where a future president attempted to "ban guns", a federal court said "no" and the president said "Every life lost by guns from now on is on this so-called judge. Ridiculous."

I completely agree. I think there are some ideas coming from the GOP/Trump that could benefit the country, but every time he runs his mouth or his fingers it undoes any good they might be able to do. As I have said many times before I don't support him personally but considering he is the one who ended up on the ticket and he is the one who is president I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. As a center-right moderate with a libertarian streak I would have personally liked to see someone more like Rand Paul but many of the ideas coming out of the party and out of Trump himself(depending on if he believes it that day or not) sound good to me. In his first few days he couldn't sign an order I disagreed with and I knew then already that I don't and won't agree with everything of course as that is impossible, but as I have written right after the elections they were my "nearest neighbors". 

 

All in all I try to base my opinions on the data at hand and not on which "side" I'm on because I'm really not on any one side, it depends on the issue. At this point, it's becoming increasingly embarrassing to see the president acting like a child. I was hoping it would change but it doesn't seem to. Still, I'm willing to give him a full year as I do with all of them to see if the good will outweigh the bad. I think where this EO is concerned the potential damage that could be done by the enemies that are being created every day due to this order probably far outweighs the risks posed during the next 3 months had they not done this. Trump acting like now all of a sudden terrorists from these countries will rush in is something only a child can buy.

[eieio 1,594]

5 hours ago, JayJayH said:

"Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-judge-immigration-ban-terror-attacks-2017-2

 

Why is this so scary all of a sudden? Because this country functions because of an independent judiciary and checks and balances, not despite it. What Trump seems to be doing is to get his base to lose any trust in federal courts. If something actually were to happen, you could easily get a situation where Trump/Bannon start trying to use it to attempt to dismantle checks and balances, while discrediting the judicial branch.

 

Because of the judicial branch, the 1st amendment will still stand, no matter who is president. The 2nd amendment will still stand, no matter who is president.

 

Even if you voted for Trump and/or agree with the executive order, the proper response to a federal court decision you disagree with is to appeal, argue why you're in the right, and say "I disagree with the ruling, but this is how the system works." If the EO is constitutional, the Supreme Court will uphold it. Thankfully, it seems both the State Dept. and Homeland Security are acting according to the court.

 

Could you imagine a situation where a future president attempted to "ban guns", a federal court said "no" and the president said "Every life lost by guns from now on is on this so-called judge. Ridiculous."

I disagree. The problem we have with many judges is that they end up legislating from the bench. Their job is not to change the laws via their ruling, but rather rule according to the laws. This is a big problem and has been for a long time now. Conservatives are well aware of it.  The constitution is not a living breathing document that changes according to the views of judges. This is why trump supreme court pick is so great. He rules based on the constitution….not how he feels.

 

The 2nd amendments only chance of falling will be from a "liberal" supreme court. This also applies to abortion.

 

Your faith in the courts ruling according to the constitution is naive…IMO.

[verneforchat 139]

31 minutes ago, eieio said:

I disagree. The problem we have with many judges is that they end up legislating from the bench. Their job is not to change the laws via their ruling, but rather rule according to the laws. This is a big problem and has been for a long time now. Conservatives are well aware of it.  The constitution is not a living breathing document that changes according to the views of judges. This is why trump supreme court pick is so great. He rules based on the constitution….not how he feels.

 

The 2nd amendments only chance of falling will be from a "liberal" supreme court. This also applies to abortion.

 

Your faith in the courts ruling according to the constitution is naive…IMO.

Edited February 6, 2017 by verneforchat

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, eieio said:

I disagree. The problem we have with many judges is that they end up legislating from the bench. Their job is not to change the laws via their ruling, but rather rule according to the laws. This is a big problem and has been for a long time now. Conservatives are well aware of it.  The constitution is not a living breathing document that changes according to the views of judges. This is why trump supreme court pick is so great. He rules based on the constitution….not how he feels.

 

The 2nd amendments only chance of falling will be from a "liberal" supreme court. This also applies to abortion.

 

Your faith in the courts ruling according to the constitution is naive…IMO.

 

Whether or not you agree with the particular ruling(I personally don't like the ban, although I consider it legal. So I'm happy about the ruling but at the same time I am not sure whether or not it was the right ruling to make) - Trump should have remained quiet about it. Let your people, as well as the judges, do their job and speak for themselves.

[eieio 1,594]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

Whether or not you agree with the particular ruling(I personally don't like the ban, although I consider it legal. So I'm happy about the ruling but at the same time I am not sure whether or not it was the right ruling to make) - Trump should have remained quiet about it. Let your people, as well as the judges, do their job and speak for themselves.

People have been telling Trump to remain silent for decades. I already disapprove of liberal judges legislating from the bench. He tweet just reaffirms he knows what is going on in the court system. Same as with the media and our educational system.  This judge that stopped the "ban" is an activist judge. He has no interest in protecting the constitution.

[eieio 1,594]

FED JUDGE WHO BLOCKED TRAVEL BAN MADE NATIONAL HEADLINES LAST YEAR DECLARING ‘BLACK LIVES MATTER’ FROM THE BENCH

Patriot | February 5, 2017

 

Judge Who Halted Trump Ban Once Declared ‘Black Lives Matter’ From The Bench 

by Rachel Stoltzfoos

The federal judge who who ruled President Trump’s immigration ban must be temporarily stopped Friday made national headlines last year when he declared “Black Lives Matter” from the bench.

U.S. District Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, recited the mantra while presiding over a case regarding the implementation of new police practices in Seattle. It was the first time a federal judge officially supported the activist group from the bench.

The city’s police department had been accused of using excessive force that fell disproportionately on non-white residents, and had agreed to make changes in order to avoid a federal lawsuit. But the police union had been holding up implementation of the changes, because they required modifications to their current contracts, and required extensive negotiation to move forward.

Robart lashed out at the union in an August hearing. “The court and the citizens of Seattle will not be held hostage for increased payments and benefits,” he said. “I’m sure the entire city of Seattle would march behind me.”

He then explicitly brought up the Black Lives Matter movement, citing incorrect statistics on police shootings that got the percentage of the population that is black wrong, before declaring: “Black lives matter.” His remarks reportedly stunned the courtroom, and some present were audibly shocked at his expression of support for the movement.

Trump lashed out at Robart on Twitter Saturday morning in the wake of the injunction ruling, referring to him as a “so-called judge” who is taking away the country’s ability to defend itself.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” he tweeted.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/judge-who-halted-trump-ban-once-declared-black-lives-matter-from-the-bench/#ixzz4Xoy3MRt5

 

 

[jg121783 3,915]

An activist judge legislating from the bench. Very disgusting. 

[JayJayH 546]

7 hours ago, eieio said:

I disagree. The problem we have with many judges is that they end up legislating from the bench. Their job is not to change the laws via their ruling, but rather rule according to the laws. This is a big problem and has been for a long time now. Conservatives are well aware of it.  The constitution is not a living breathing document that changes according to the views of judges. This is why trump supreme court pick is so great. He rules based on the constitution….not how he feels.

 

The 2nd amendments only chance of falling will be from a "liberal" supreme court. This also applies to abortion.

 

Your faith in the courts ruling according to the constitution is naive…IMO.

I don't like the thought of an activist judge.

 

However. Judges are an integral part of checks and balances. They're nominated by presidents, and they're part of a president's legacy. This judge in particular is part of George W's legacy, just like Clarence Thomas is part of George H W's legacy and Sotomayor is part of Obama's legacy.

 

The bottom line is, part of the glue that holds this country together is respects for institutions, including federal courts. Trump's attitude towards this decision is a very slippery slope. Can you imagine if Bernie Sanders was president and he began tweeting to his millions of millennial followers "this so-called judge.." etc. in reference to a borderline socialist order?

 

Trump should have made it crystal clear that he respects the judiciary, but disagrees with the decision and plans to appeal. He didn't do that. He Twitter-attacked the judge and asked what "our country is coming to." Trump isn't discrediting one judge here. He's discrediting the entire system that this judge represents. That's dangerous. Very dangerous. Once people lose faith in the U.S. system of government (not individual judges), that is when the glue that holds the country together begins to crack. That's how you effectively end an empire.

 

Could you imagine if your city banned firearms, and a judge ruled it unconstitutional. And then the mayor said "Stupid, ridiculous judge. All deaths in our city are now to be blamed on this so-called judge."

Edited February 6, 2017 by JayJayH

[Dakine10 5,452]

  If only someone could have foreseen this. If only there was some way to predict Trumps lack of respect for the courts based on his lack of respect for everything.  

[eieio 1,594]

1 hour ago, JayJayH said:

I don't like the thought of an activist judge.

 

However. Judges are an integral part of checks and balances. They're nominated by presidents, and they're part of a president's legacy. This judge in particular is part of George W's legacy, just like Clarence Thomas is part of George H W's legacy and Sotomayor is part of Obama's legacy.

 

The bottom line is, part of the glue that holds this country together is respects for institutions, including federal courts. Trump's attitude towards this decision is a very slippery slope. Can you imagine if Bernie Sanders was president and he began tweeting to his millions of millennial followers "this so-called judge.." etc. in reference to a borderline socialist order?

 

Trump should have made it crystal clear that he respects the judiciary, but disagrees with the decision and plans to appeal. He didn't do that. He Twitter-attacked the judge and asked what "our country is coming to." Trump isn't discrediting one judge here. He's discrediting the entire system that this judge represents. That's dangerous. Very dangerous. Once people lose faith in the U.S. system of government (not individual judges), that is when the glue that holds the country together begins to crack. That's how you effectively end an empire.

 

Could you imagine if your city banned firearms, and a judge ruled it unconstitutional. And then the mayor said "Stupid, ridiculous judge. All deaths in our city are now to be blamed on this so-called judge."

Activist judges are a huge problem in undermining our constitution and rule of law. Trump is pointing this out. Some could say he could do it in a more "presidential" manner, but does it really matter?  I like that he is calling out this particular judge. Just like he called out RBG. He even caused that activist judge to at least shut her mouth.

 

Activist judges are the reason people have already lost faith in the system of government. They are already causing the end of an empire. Hopefully Trump can reverse that somewhat.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

8 hours ago, eieio said:

People have been telling Trump to remain silent for decades. I already disapprove of liberal judges legislating from the bench. He tweet just reaffirms he knows what is going on in the court system. Same as with the media and our educational system.  This judge that stopped the "ban" is an activist judge. He has no interest in protecting the constitution.

Stand up. Have a little dignity. Wipe off your chin. 

[bcking 3,157]

I'm sorry this particular judge is not "legislating from the bench" and an "activist" judge in this scenario. He granted a temporary restraining order so the case can be discussed/reviewed because he believes the states' case against the ban has merit. There is no decision on overturning the ban or the constitutionality of it yet, just merely that it is on hold until the case can be taken to court. The criteria to be put on hold has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the ban itself, it is just that 1. The states MAY have a case and 2. Continuing the ban until the case is heard would cause "irreparable harm". He decided that they met those two requirements, so instituted the TRO. You can argue with that, but that is his right as a federal judge. That isn't legislation, that is his judiciary responsibility. 

 

More broadly (not about this case specifically) - The argument that the "left leaning" judges are the only ones that "reinterpret" the constitution is just hogwash. The right have been trying to "interpret" the 1st amendment so that it allows people to discriminate. That is absolutely an "interpretation" and not a literal reading of the 1st amendment. The problem is the constitution is actually not a very long document, and it is quite vague. We have to interpet it. A literal reading of it would leave too many unanswered questions.

 

This ignores the other valid argument that a document written 200+ years ago and before the industrial revolution is something that should only be read literally and never be changed or updated. We have to move with the times or our country will be just a blip in the history of humanity. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

37 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Stand up. Have a little dignity. Wipe off your chin. 

[eieio 1,594]

40 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm sorry this particular judge is not "legislating from the bench" and an "activist" judge in this scenario. He granted a temporary restraining order so the case can be discussed/reviewed because he believes the states' case against the ban has merit. There is no decision on overturning the ban or the constitutionality of it yet, just merely that it is on hold until the case can be taken to court. The criteria to be put on hold has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the ban itself, it is just that 1. The states MAY have a case and 2. Continuing the ban until the case is heard would cause "irreparable harm". He decided that they met those two requirements, so instituted the TRO. You can argue with that, but that is his right as a federal judge. That isn't legislation, that is his judiciary responsibility. 

 

More broadly (not about this case specifically) - The argument that the "left leaning" judges are the only ones that "reinterpret" the constitution is just hogwash. The right have been trying to "interpret" the 1st amendment so that it allows people to discriminate. That is absolutely an "interpretation" and not a literal reading of the 1st amendment. The problem is the constitution is actually not a very long document, and it is quite vague. We have to interpet it. A literal reading of it would leave too many unanswered questions.

 

This ignores the other valid argument that a document written 200+ years ago and before the industrial revolution is something that should only be read literally and never be changed or updated. We have to move with the times or our country will be just a blip in the history of humanity. 

Trump appointed a constitutionalist judge. Conservative and Republicans are untitled in calling this a great pick. Why? Because he will make his decisions based on the constitution.

 

Democrats are opposing this Supreme Court pick. Why? Because he will make his decisions based on the constitution.