Turley: It will take more than a "legal flash mob," to reverse (Trump's actions)

[Seymour Flops]

It's a good phrase, Turley has it spot on.

Like regular "flash mobs," these legal challenges to every action by Trump as soon as he takes them, are anything but spontaneous. Unlike most presidential candidates, Trump told us exactly what he was going to do, with the full intention of doing it. So the Saul Alinsky's of the legal profession had plenty of time to prepare for these "sponteneous" lawsuits that they filed with feigned outrage.

Here's the thing: This is a terrible strategy for the left, for several reasons. First and foremost, Trump is doing what he was elected to do, and the left using the courts to stop him will be rightly seen as more lawfare. Lawyers are almost as despised as Congressmen, but the lawyers don't have to worry about the 2026 election.

Also, they may win a case or two, or maybe several. They can certainly succeed in getting temporary delays in almost all their cases. What egotistical judge can pass up a chance to put the nation on hold while we await his wise ruling? But all of them will ultimately fair to STOP TRUMP, for three reasons:

1) There IS not constitutional right of a defeated president to have his or her policies continued by his or her successor. There is no legal theory of any kind that "we have to keep doing it because we've been doing it."

2) No matter what the liberal judges appointed by Biden and Obama rule, the cases will move quickly to the USSC, which is not only friendly to Trump, but also mindful of the Constitution and the letter of the law. A more liberal court might well find just such an imaginary right as I mentioned in 2).

3) In the unlikely event the courts do go the Democrats' way, that will just make the voters madder. They will go the polls in 2028 ready to vote for anyone who will reform the judicial branch's propensity to interfere in policy decisions. Between four years of Trump and eight years of his hand-picked successor, the USSC will have a dearth of liberal activists, maybe none.

A better strategy would have been to sit back and watch what happened, then nit-pick the results, no matter how well Trump's policies improved the lives of the American people.

 

[Crepitus]

It's a good phrase, Turley has it spot on.

Like regular "flash mobs," these legal challenges to every action by Trump as soon as he takes them, are anything but spontaneous. Unlike most presidential candidates, Trump told us exactly what he was going to do, with the full intention of doing it. So the Saul Alinsky's of the legal profession had plenty of time to prepare for these "sponteneous" lawsuits that they filed with feigned outrage.

Here's the thing: This is a terrible strategy for the left, for several reasons. First and foremost, Trump is doing what he was elected to do, and the left using the courts to stop him will be rightly seen as more lawfare. Lawyers are almost as despised as Congressmen, but the lawyers don't have to worry about the 2026 election.

Also, they may win a case or two, or maybe several. They can certainly succeed in getting temporary delays in almost all their cases. What egotistical judge can pass up a chance to put the nation on hold while we await his wise ruling? But all of them will ultimately fair to STOP TRUMP, for three reasons:

1) There IS not constitutional right of a defeated president to have his or her policies continued by his or her successor. There is no legal theory of any kind that "we have to keep doing it because we've been doing it."

2) No matter what the liberal judges appointed by Biden and Obama rule, the cases will move quickly to the USSC, which is not only friendly to Trump, but also mindful of the Constitution and the letter of the law. A more liberal court might well find just such an imaginary right as I mentioned in 2).

3) In the unlikely event the courts do go the Democrats' way, that will just make the voters madder. They will go the polls in 2028 ready to vote for anyone who will reform the judicial branch's propensity to interfere in policy decisions. Between four years of Trump and eight years of his hand-picked successor, the USSC will have a dearth of liberal activists, maybe none.

A better strategy would have been to sit back and watch what happened, then nit-pick the results, no matter how well Trump's policies improved the lives of the American people.

Just the fact that he mentions it shows that tUrley fears they will succeed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Just the fact that he mentions it shows that tUrley fears they will succeed.

So, every time you have mentioned Trump on this forum, it was out of fear that he would succeed.

 

[skews13]

It's a good phrase, Turley has it spot on.

Like regular "flash mobs," these legal challenges to every action by Trump as soon as he takes them, are anything but spontaneous. Unlike most presidential candidates, Trump told us exactly what he was going to do, with the full intention of doing it. So the Saul Alinsky's of the legal profession had plenty of time to prepare for these "sponteneous" lawsuits that they filed with feigned outrage.

Here's the thing: This is a terrible strategy for the left, for several reasons. First and foremost, Trump is doing what he was elected to do, and the left using the courts to stop him will be rightly seen as more lawfare. Lawyers are almost as despised as Congressmen, but the lawyers don't have to worry about the 2026 election.

Also, they may win a case or two, or maybe several. They can certainly succeed in getting temporary delays in almost all their cases. What egotistical judge can pass up a chance to put the nation on hold while we await his wise ruling? But all of them will ultimately fair to STOP TRUMP, for three reasons:

1) There IS not constitutional right of a defeated president to have his or her policies continued by his or her successor. There is no legal theory of any kind that "we have to keep doing it because we've been doing it."

2) No matter what the liberal judges appointed by Biden and Obama rule, the cases will move quickly to the USSC, which is not only friendly to Trump, but also mindful of the Constitution and the letter of the law. A more liberal court might well find just such an imaginary right as I mentioned in 2).

3) In the unlikely event the courts do go the Democrats' way, that will just make the voters madder. They will go the polls in 2028 ready to vote for anyone who will reform the judicial branch's propensity to interfere in policy decisions. Between four years of Trump and eight years of his hand-picked successor, the USSC will have a dearth of liberal activists, maybe none.

A better strategy would have been to sit back and watch what happened, then nit-pick the results, no matter how well Trump's policies improved the lives of the American people.

1) There IS not constitutional right of a defeated president to have his or her policies continued by his or her successor. There is no legal theory of any kind that "we have to keep doing it because we've been doing it."

You be sure to keep that in mind now.

 

[Crepitus]

So, every time you have mentioned Trump on this forum, it was out of fear that he would succeed.

I'm not a paid faux news shill

 

[Foxfyre]

It's a good phrase, Turley has it spot on.

Like regular "flash mobs," these legal challenges to every action by Trump as soon as he takes them, are anything but spontaneous. Unlike most presidential candidates, Trump told us exactly what he was going to do, with the full intention of doing it. So the Saul Alinsky's of the legal profession had plenty of time to prepare for these "sponteneous" lawsuits that they filed with feigned outrage.

Here's the thing: This is a terrible strategy for the left, for several reasons. First and foremost, Trump is doing what he was elected to do, and the left using the courts to stop him will be rightly seen as more lawfare. Lawyers are almost as despised as Congressmen, but the lawyers don't have to worry about the 2026 election.

Also, they may win a case or two, or maybe several. They can certainly succeed in getting temporary delays in almost all their cases. What egotistical judge can pass up a chance to put the nation on hold while we await his wise ruling? But all of them will ultimately fair to STOP TRUMP, for three reasons:

1) There IS not constitutional right of a defeated president to have his or her policies continued by his or her successor. There is no legal theory of any kind that "we have to keep doing it because we've been doing it."

2) No matter what the liberal judges appointed by Biden and Obama rule, the cases will move quickly to the USSC, which is not only friendly to Trump, but also mindful of the Constitution and the letter of the law. A more liberal court might well find just such an imaginary right as I mentioned in 2).

3) In the unlikely event the courts do go the Democrats' way, that will just make the voters madder. They will go the polls in 2028 ready to vote for anyone who will reform the judicial branch's propensity to interfere in policy decisions. Between four years of Trump and eight years of his hand-picked successor, the USSC will have a dearth of liberal activists, maybe none.

A better strategy would have been to sit back and watch what happened, then nit-pick the results, no matter how well Trump's policies improved the lives of the American people.

Turley has a brilliant legal mind and rarely gets it wrong. He has never been a Trump apologist but he does utilize critical thinking beyond the capability of many and provides insight that others might not think of. He has been consistent in deploring and condemning the lawfare utilized in the Biden Administration.

I think he might make an excellent Supreme Court justice and wouldn't that make a lot of leftwing heads explode.

 

[Seymour Flops]

1) There IS not constitutional right of a defeated president to have his or her policies continued by his or her successor. There is no legal theory of any kind that "we have to keep doing it because we've been doing it."

You be sure to keep that in mind now.

Why?

Are you predicting that the Democratic Party will turn itself around?

What do you predict their strategy will be?