Monday, February 06, 2017
He has had lots of practice
Barely two weeks into his administration and The Tangerine Shitgibbon is already involved in courtroom battles. His illegal ban on Muslims is the most prominent.
The White House offered no evidence for Mr. Trump’s suggestion that potential terrorists would now pour over the border because of the judge’s order. Since Sept. 11, 2001, no American has been killed in a terrorist attack on American soil by anyone who immigrated from any of the seven countries named in Mr. Trump’s order.The whiny little bitch just has to have his way and will keep on attacking until someone removes him and Bannon from office. Until thenHis Sloppiness will continue to issue Imperial Decrees that will draw the opposition of judges who still respect the law.
The impassioned debate over the immigration order brought to the fore issues at the heart of the Trump presidency. A businessman with no experience in public office, Mr. Trump has shown in his administration’s opening days that he favors an action-oriented approach with little regard for the two other branches of government. While Congress, controlled by Republicans, has deferred, the judiciary may emerge as the major obstacle for Mr. Trump.
The last two presidents battled with courts repeatedly over the limits of their power. The judiciary ruled that George W. Bush overstepped his bounds in denying due process to terrorism suspects and that Barack Obama assumed power he did not have to allow millions of unauthorized immigrants to stay in the country.
Charles Fried, solicitor general under Ronald Reagan, said the ruling by a Federal District Court in Washington State blocking Mr. Trump’s order resembled a ruling by a Texas district court stopping Mr. Obama from proceeding with his own immigration order.
But rarely, if ever, has a president this early in his tenure, and with such personal invective, battled the courts. Mr. Trump, Mr. Fried said, is turning everything into “a soap opera” with overheated attacks on the judge. “There are no lines for him,” said Mr. Fried, who teaches at Harvard Law School and voted against Mr. Trump. “There is no notion of, this is inappropriate, this is indecent, this is unpresidential.”
Other Republicans brushed off the attacks, noting that judges have lifetime tenure that protects them from criticism. But even some Republicans said Mr. Trump’s order raised valid legal questions for the courts.
“If I were in the White House, I’d feel better about my position if the ban or moratorium or whatever you call it were based on an actual attack or threat,” former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who served under Mr. Bush, said in an interview. Still, he said, when it comes to noncitizens overseas, “the executive has enjoyed great deference from the courts.”
The assertion of broad latitude by the president in areas of national security resembles the struggles of the Bush years, when in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks the administration claimed sometimes sweeping power in the name of fighting terrorism.
Jack Goldsmith, who as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under Mr. Bush argued that some of the initial orders went too far and forced them to be rolled back, said on Sunday that there were similarities. “But Bush’s legal directives were not as sloppy as Trump’s,” he said. “And Trump’s serial attacks on judges and the judiciary take us into new territory. The sloppiness and aggressiveness of the directives, combined with the attacks on judges, put extra pressure on judges to rule against Trump.”
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]