Exhibit A as to how many Federal District Court judges are totally disconnected from reality. Perhaps he will mount up and go to the White House to personally put cuffs on the President? When it comes to the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch has long been running a con game dependent upon the unwillingness of presidents, usually, to directly defy a court order. This deference by the Executive relied upon judges not being raging lunatics attempting to usurp presidential powers for themselves. This informal bargain has broken down, and unless the Supreme Court steps in quickly, the Federal judiciary is about to be reminded why Hamilton, in Federalist 78, called it the least dangerous branch.
Donald, I dearly hope you are right about Trump finally saying “enough, already” if/when the Supreme Court fails to step in, which I fear they will, thanks to Roberts and Barrett, our modern imitators of Earl Warren and David Souter. Did you see the even more ludicrous order issued by the robed clown in Maryland, who now purports to control the appointments of managers to Executive Branch agencies as well as their managerial actions?
If, five or ten years ago, someone had written a movie script portraying Federal judges acting this way, they would have been laughed out of the room.
I have often said that the generation that fought the Revolution and wrote the Constitution would never have tolerated half the abused that flow from the federal government.
Perhaps the only recourse is the sloppy and dangerous exercise of Constitutional power despite the unjust fetters of the judicial. Defiance of those in the wrong is part of the fabric of Americans and appears in our most epic moments.
All of the unjust Acts imposed by the British government on the Revolutionary generation were, strictly speaking, lawful orders of a lawfully elected Parliament. When told at Lexington to “disperse ye rebels” they responded in that archetypical American way seen later at the Battle of the Bulge.
Donald Trump has just said “Nuts” to the besieging judicial army, and I think the country is with him.
Don, I understand the importance of taking the fight to the foes. I also understand Trump’s strategy of not conceding anything. But there’s also wisdom in targeting an opponent’s weakest points. Was this judge’s ruling well outside the usual for the past, say, 60 years of jurisprudence? This wasn’t even a final ruling, just a temporary freeze. The legality of treating gangs as enemy combatants is a legitimate legal question, assuming it isn’t explicitly forbidden under some international treaties we’ve signed. And we have domestic holding facilities, so these weren’t exigent circumstances.
Domestic terrorists belong in Guantanomo. Look at the judge’s face…like the devil exorcised.
Self-defense is a God-given human right. Those who would violate another person’s civil rights do not deserve their human rights for they have forfeited these civil rights. Any judge who defends terrorists might need to go to Guantanomo too.
“This deference by the Executive relied upon judges not being raging lunatics attempting to usurp presidential powers for themselves. This informal bargain has broken down, and unless the Supreme Court steps in quickly, the Federal judiciary is about to be reminded why Hamilton, in Federalist 78, called it the least dangerous branch…”
There is “I think” a far greater danger here. Everyone will loose respect for the Federal Courts, and with that all Courts.
https://babylonbee.com/news/8-more-rulings-handed-down-by-federal-judges?utm_source=The%20Babylon%20Bee%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email
[…] and News:California & Its Collapsing Blue-State Democrat Model – Victor Davis HansonA Cold, Hard Dash of Reality – Donald R. McClarey, J.D., at the American CatholicThe CDC, Vaccines, & Autism – […]
it’s ironic that the Dems cheered when Biden defied the Supreme Court in the matter of forgiving student loans but are now complaining loudly about President Trump’s