Trump's Dangerous Disregard for the Courts

[konradv]

The judges are corrupt.

MAGA lies.

 

[GLASNOST]

The judges are corrupt.

You probably ought to have written "those" judges are corrupt but I think everyone understood your point correctly anyway.

 

[jwoodie]

Trump is indeed the very definition of tyranny – arrogant, authoritarian, anti-democratic, with contempt for the rule of law and Constitution.

Next time consult a dictionary: Tyranny is a cruel and oppressive government, not a personality trait.

 

[GLASNOST]

Next time consult a dictionary: Tyranny is a cruel and oppressive government, not a personality trait.

Oh golly! Let the fool believe what he wants. He's been stuck in a mental cul-de-sac ever since he joined the discussion.

 

[konradv]

Next time consult a dictionary: Tyranny is a cruel and oppressive government, not a personality trait.

The definition of a tyrant then. Satisfied?

 

[Seymour Flops]

‘In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”

Yes, he said that.

—and, he might have added, for the other branches of government to accept the court’s judgment as authoritative, even when they disagree with it.
[…]

He could have said that, but he did not.

If the USSC was of a mind to announce itself as first among the three branches, that would have been the time to do it.

They did not.

Maybe they would have liked to, but why would the other branches have stood for such a naked power grab?

Marbury v. Madison says nothing about the USSC (and certainly not an obscure district court) having authority to direct the actions of the executive. Nor the actions of the legislative, for that matter. It can declare a law unconstitutional, but it cannot direct congress to pass any particular law. And of course it cannot direct the president to take any particular executive action.

The core problem with Mr. Trump’s understanding of the Constitution goes even deeper. During his first term, he told an audience at an event: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Article II gives a president broad powers, but Mr. Trump’s comment amounts to saying that a president’s decisions take precedence over those of the Article III branch (the judiciary) and the Article I branch (Congress). Much of what Mr. Trump has done in the early months of his second term rests on this proposition, which runs counter to the theory and letter of the Constitution. Congress and the judiciary are coordinate, not subordinate, branches of our government.

Trump didn't say that a president’s decisions take precedence over those of the Article III branch (the judiciary). But suppose he had. It would be wrong. But how would that be more wrong that for the USSC to say that the court's decisions take precedence over those of the Article II branch (the presidency). Of course, the USSC did NOT say that, and I believe never will.

Impossible to enforce and would cause them to lose credibility.

Mr. Trump’s approach represents the danger against which James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Exactly, so why would it be accumulated in the hands of the juciary? This is why we have co-equal branches of government.

When executive orders supersede legislation and judges are threatened with impeachment for doing their jobs, this could be the eventual result.’

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trumps-dangerous-disregard-for-the-courts-legal-system-balance-of-powers-constitution-45e0fed3?st=or1gUk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Trump is indeed the very definition of tyranny – arrogant, authoritarian, anti-democratic, with contempt for the rule of law and Constitution.

This post is the very definition of melodrama.