Will the Judiciary Ever Regain its Credibility?

[Seymour Flops]

The credibility of our judges, justices, and courts has taken a severe beating in the last 9 years. That beating has been almost entirely self-inflicted.

Nearly a decade of anti-democracy rulings, and other actions, by the only completely unelected branch of government has led to disgust at what appears to be automatic and reflexive support of any anti-Trump legal filings, regardless of lack of legal merit.

Legal expert 'baffled' by courts 'intruding significantly' on Trump's presidential authority

Jonathan Turley slammed a federal judge for blocking a buyout offer to federal workers, arguing President Trump's order is "perfectly within the wheelhouse of the president."

www.foxnews.com

The strategy of finding friendly federal judges willing to instantly accept requests to order Trump to stop carrying out his mandate has backfired.

Less than a year ago, President Biden bragged that the Supreme Court could not stop his cancellation of student loan debt. Democrats cheered. The same Democrats cannot now credibly lament Trump doing the same.

These obscure federal judges are shocked that they cannot force the POTUS to spend money on woke vanity projects. They should have thought this through before issuing restraining orders on the head of a co-equal, and very recently elected, branch of government.

No one defends the transgender opera in Peru or other such nonsense. No one cites the specific law that Trump allegedly violated by defunding those absurdities. Instead, lower courts invoked the “because I say so” doctrine and it has blown up in their faces.

 

[MarcATL]

This extreme far rightwing SCOTUS lost its credibility since Trump's first regime.

We no longer have a SCOTUS, we have the legal defense arm of the far rightwing Republican Party.

Thanks Trump!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The credibility of our judges, justices, and courts has taken a severe beating in the last 9 years. That beating has been almost entirely self-inflicted.

Except it hasn't, this is another fantasy propagated by the "victimized" right wing extremists here. I'd like to see a non-American newspaper article that supports your claim.

Nearly a decade of anti-democracy rulings, and other actions, by the only completely unelected branch of government has led to disgust at what appears to be automatic and reflexive support of any anti-Trump legal filings, regardless of lack of legal merit.

Legal expert 'baffled' by courts 'intruding significantly' on Trump's presidential authority

Jonathan Turley slammed a federal judge for blocking a buyout offer to federal workers, arguing President Trump's order is "perfectly within the wheelhouse of the president."

www.foxnews.com

The strategy of finding friendly federal judges willing to instantly accept requests to order Trump to stop carrying out his mandate has backfired.

Less than a year ago, President Biden bragged that the Supreme Court could not stop his cancellation of student loan debt. Democrats cheered. The same Democrats cannot now credibly lament Trump doing the same.

These obscure federal judges are shocked that they cannot force the POTUS to spend money on woke vanity projects. They should have thought this through before issuing restraining orders on the head of a co-equal, and very recently elected, branch of government.

No one defends the transgender opera in Peru or other such nonsense. No one cites the specific law that Trump allegedly violated by defunding those absurdities. Instead, lower courts invoked the “because I say so” doctrine and it has blown up in their faces.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This extreme far rightwing SCOTUS lost its credibility since Trump's first regime.

We no longer have a SCOTUS, we have the legal defense arm of the far rightwing Republican Party.

Thanks Trump!

That is just absurd about the USSC being the legal defense. Dem lawfare warriors brought case after case against Trump and the Supremes never threw one out that I know of.

But the USSC can be biased to the right or to the left. Right now it is right. If we want the courts to be credible again, we should stop pretending they have ever or will ever be neutral.

 

[MarcATL]

That is just absurd about the USSC being the legal defense. Dem lawfare warriors brought case after case against Trump and the Supremes never threw one out that I know of.

But the USSC can be biased to the right or to the left. Right now it is right. If we want the courts to be credible again, we should stop pretending they have ever or will ever be neutral.

The only party that's actively been conducting lawfare has been the Republican Party.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The only party that's actively been conducting lawfare has been the Republican Party.

Idiotic.

Trump just cancelled a DOJ investigation of a prominent Democrat because it had the mere appearance of lawfare.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Except it hasn't, this is another fantasy propagated by the "victimized" right wing extremists here. I'd like to see a non-American newspaper article that supports your claim.

Why go to a foreign source about the American judiciary?

 

[DGS49]

There is only one systemic problem with the U.S. court system*, and that is the bizarre happenstance that one single out-of-touch Federal District Court judge - almost always a Democrat appointee - can thwart the will of the President, and implicitly the will of the American people.

When they go off the reservation, as has happened multiple times in the past week or so, it can be remedied when the case is appealed to a court of actual adults, but it is an impediment and a time delay that should be removed. Congress has the power to do so.

The Left sees these ass-holes as "heroes," and refuses to acknowledge reality when their rulings are overturned on appeal.

We now have the best Supreme Court in several generations, one that tries to adhere to the Constitution as it was intended, and that is why the Left - evil personified - rails at it so unanimously and falsely.

I take emphatic exception to the Leftist practice of vigorously slandering some person or institution, then claiming that they are under siege (or comparable metaphor), as though that in itself were proof of some problem. Witness this very thread. The Supreme Court does not have a credibility problem, the Left is simply unhappy with the Constitution and wants it to be ignored in favor of their version.


__________________________________
* My personal opinion is that the USSC should be empowered to give advisory opinions, but that's just me.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Dems are about to set themselves up for a loss.

Is there anyone in government Trump can’t fire? Why Humphrey’s Executor may be in peril at the Supreme Court | CNN Politics

President Donald Trump’s purge at independent agencies is putting a target on a nearly 100-year-old Supreme Court precedent that protects certain officials from the political whims of the White House.

amp.cnn.com

The litigation is almost certain to queue up a Supreme Court case challenging a key 1935 precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. US, that allows Congress to require presidents to show cause – such as malfeasance – before dismissing board members overseeing independent agencies.

Overturning that ruling would give presidents immense power to sweep away from service officials who enforce anti-trust laws, labor rules and disclosure requirements for publicly traded companies.

 

[MarcATL]

Idiotic.

Trump just cancelled a DOJ investigation of a prominent Democrat because it had the mere appearance of lawfare.

You won't be referring to that corrupt mayor in NYC would you?

He's now firmly in Trump's pocket, ready, willing and able to do his bidding.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You won't be referring to that corrupt mayor in NYC would you?

He's now firmly in Trump's pocket, ready, willing and able to do his bidding.

Democrats are that morally weak?

The lawfare against him was triggered by his supporting Trump in stopping the illegal alien crime wave. That and his color.

 

[task0778]

Will the Judiciary Ever Regain its Credibility?​

Not for a long time, if ever. Ditto the gov't, CDC, media, Hollywood, and the sports world. Politics is everywhere these days and trust in pretty much everything is gone.

Lawfare and blatant propaganda are now political weapons used primarily by the democrats and they won't stop.

 

[MarcATL]

Democrats are that morally weak?

The lawfare against him was triggered by his supporting Trump in stopping the illegal alien crime wave. That and his color.

Uh huh...

 

[Edgetho]

Will the Judiciary Ever Regain its Credibility?​

No, the dims have done irreparable harm to the Judiciary.

They've tried to destroy the executive Branch, too. But it is self-replenishing.

We elect a New POTUS every four years so as much as they try, they can't destroy that Branch of government. The same holds true with the Legislative branch.

There's something you folks need to keep in mind..... dimocraps don't like America or its institutions, They might say they do. They might delude themselves into believing they do.

But they don't. They just -- Don't. No matter how much you try to not believe it, it just happens to be true. Deal with it

The Judiciary will be relegated to a 2nd tier Branch of government. Reactionary only and easily gone-around. At this point, there is no other solution. They are interfering where they don't belong and there will be a price to be paid

 

[Edgetho]

Democrats are that morally weak?

The lawfare against him was triggered by his supporting Trump in stopping the illegal alien crime wave. That and his color.

Yup. Gotta keep 'em on the plantation, right boys?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yup. Gotta keep 'em on the plantation, right boys?

Democrats hate it when the DEI a guy to a senior position and then he gets “uppity.”

 

[toobfreak]

Less than a year ago, President Biden bragged that the Supreme Court could not stop his cancellation of student loan debt. Democrats cheered. The same Democrats cannot now credibly lament Trump doing the same.

Funny how this crap only rears its head when there is a republican in office! First it was these made up crimes to stop Trump now judicial tyranny where they think unless every inferior court judge in the country agrees and permits, the Executive Branch of the federal government is restrained. Conservative judges would never dare to hold the country hostage and try to overthrow the federal government. As usual, the democrats don't care one bit about the law or our democracy and are going to force this all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[justoffal]

The credibility of our judges, justices, and courts has taken a severe beating in the last 9 years. That beating has been almost entirely self-inflicted.

Nearly a decade of anti-democracy rulings, and other actions, by the only completely unelected branch of government has led to disgust at what appears to be automatic and reflexive support of any anti-Trump legal filings, regardless of lack of legal merit.

Legal expert 'baffled' by courts 'intruding significantly' on Trump's presidential authority

Jonathan Turley slammed a federal judge for blocking a buyout offer to federal workers, arguing President Trump's order is "perfectly within the wheelhouse of the president."

www.foxnews.com

The strategy of finding friendly federal judges willing to instantly accept requests to order Trump to stop carrying out his mandate has backfired.

Less than a year ago, President Biden bragged that the Supreme Court could not stop his cancellation of student loan debt. Democrats cheered. The same Democrats cannot now credibly lament Trump doing the same.

These obscure federal judges are shocked that they cannot force the POTUS to spend money on woke vanity projects. They should have thought this through before issuing restraining orders on the head of a co-equal, and very recently elected, branch of government.

No one defends the transgender opera in Peru or other such nonsense. No one cites the specific law that Trump allegedly violated by defunding those absurdities. Instead, lower courts invoked the “because I say so” doctrine and it has blown up in their faces.

I'm going to Chime in here and send kudos to SCOTUS.... The nine zip ballot vote was actually an amazing demonstration of judicial prudence.

On numerous occasions conservative judges have voted against Trump in the interest of a better court decision more accurately representing the Constitution.

There have an occasions when the liberal justices voted in Trump's favor. I haven't kept track of the bias because if there is any it's very slight and it seems like even Jackson the most radical judge errs on the side of the Constitution when her back is against the wall.

So I don't know..... I'm thinking the supreme Court is working pretty much the way it's supposed to.

 

[task0778]

So I don't know..... I'm thinking the supreme Court is working pretty much the way it's supposed to.

I'm thinking the same thing. The SC is not going to rubber stamp everything Trump wants to do, they have bucked him in the past and will do so in the future, the same as they did to Biden, if the case warrants it. Which wasn't the case when the lib-progs had control of the court BTW. We will rue the day if they ever regain the majority on that court.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm going to Chime in here and send kudos to SCOTUS.... The nine zip ballot vote was actually an amazing demonstration of judicial prudence.

On numerous occasions conservative judges have voted against Trump in the interest of a better court decision more accurately representing the Constitution.

There have an occasions when the liberal justices voted in Trump's favor. I haven't kept track of the bias because if there is any it's very slight and it seems like even Jackson the most radical judge errs on the side of the Constitution when her back is against the wall.

So I don't know..... I'm thinking the supreme Court is working pretty much the way it's supposed to.

Yes, the have recently and at times past done well.

These lower court justices need to be asking themselves. What would the Supreme Court do? That’s what they should be asking themselves in cases like Trump’s freeze on grants where there is no caselaw.

They seem to be answering every question based on their dislike of Trump instead of legal reasoning.