Some concerns
Trump does not have a close acquaintance with the law, but that doesn’t slow him down any.
President Donald Trump endorsed the idea that the United States Supreme Court had placed an “illegal injunction” on him by temporarily blocking his administration’s ability to deport Venezuelans, accused of being gang members, without due process, while litigation on the matter plays out in lower courts.
On Truth Social on Saturday, Trump reposted two posts made by attorney Mike Davis, a close Trump ally and the founder of the Article III project, calling the court’s recent decision “illegal” and claiming it was “heading down a perilous path” by not allowing Trump to continue a constitutionally questionable action.
“The Supreme Court still has an illegal injunction on the President of the United States, preventing him from commanding military operations to expel these foreign terrorists,” Davis wrote.
…
The court told the Trump administration on Friday it would not allow it to resume deporting Venezuelans accused of belonging to a gang under the Alien Enemies Act while litigation continues in lower courts. In their decision, the justices flagged concerns about the administration bypassing due process rights.
Trump raged at the justices for not allowing his Department of Homeland Security to proceed with deportations under the act, calling it “bad” and “dangerous.”
Not his call. Co-equal branches, babe.
Saturday’s endorsement of the idea that the Supreme Court, the ultimate decider of law, was carrying out an “illegal” act on him by not allowing him to do something that lower courts have also consistently ruled against, is part of a recent trend.
The trend of being completely ignorant of the law? That’s not recent.
Trump and his administration have been accused of defying federal judges’ rulings – most notably not facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia despite the Supreme Court directing the administration to do so.
The president has personally lashed out at judges who have ruled against him, asserting they are “rogue” or “activists.” Roberts and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have both warned that attacking judges is harmful to the independence of the judiciary.
His behavior has led to some concerns from critics that the president will ignore court orders and continue doing whatever he wants with the help of his allies in the government, thus overextending his presidential power.
Gosh ya think?
Surely it’s obvious that that’s exactly what he intends to do. He intends to do whatever he wants and accept no restraint from anyone or anything.
let’s not give brown much credit. not only was she a dei hire that does not know what a woman is, she’s a big fan of censorship too – worried the First Amendment might ‘hamstring’ the government, when it was actually designed for exactly that purpose. our entire government has become lawless – all three branches.
I don’t think it’s giving anyone too much credit just to report something she said, or write a post that includes a mention of her in a quoted passage. Lots of people I disagree with on many things still have interesting ideas, and I’m likely to share those ideas.
It feels like everyone is wondering just when the checks and balances are going to kick in. What happens if they’re not there, or not enforced, or ignored? The United States has entered uncharted territory. The Trump junta believes it can set the rules and call the shots, making things up to suit their needs as they go along, and that everyone will just sit back and watch in shocked disbelief (or smug satisfaction). Will the regime that promulgated the “Gulf of America” introduce us to the Abyss of America? We get closer to the edge every day.
I don’t think America will go down without a fight, but I wonder what kind of fight it will be?
Oh I don’t think we’re wondering that. We’re just screwed, that’s all.
Sorry, but someone who refuses to state what a woman is when vying for the highest court in our land didn’t deserve to get the job, and gets close to zero credit for any sense on anything imo. But most of them are craven and corrupt. Kavanaugh shouldn’t have been seated either. Nor Gorsuch. Part of the Trump lesson should also be how weak and pathetic Democrats are and have been. Imagine if they had fought this hard for The People and Democracy. Maybe we’d have decent Justices, a living wage, abortion rights, strong unions and medicare for all.
Not to change the subject, but when are journalists going to learn to write coherent, properly structured sentences?
Co-equal? How is that possible? Are they equals of Trump? He is above everyone, right? The king? (He’s said as much…and he doesn’t mean a reincarnation of Elvis.)
Oh, another person glibly trotting out the tired and racist term ‘DEI hire’. Why is this such a ready resort for a certain kind of person?
I think you’ve answered your own question. Because they are that kind of person.
Ah, yes! Thanks, Ophelia! There must be some kind of logical fallacy that describes the nature of my question. A sort of circular question? A self-answering question?
GC Gal#5
Should Thomas & Alito have been seated (Thomas is, after all, black, and Alito seems to be a Catholic of a particularly unpleasant kind – are they DEI hires?) ? Should Amy Coney Barrett have been seated, or is she a DEI hire (she is a woman)? And what about Kagan & Sotomayor (they, too, are women and perhaps, in some eyes, racially or religiously dubious)? Is it a good thing, considering the religious, and non-religious, constitution of the American population, to have six justices(John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) who are, it seems, professing Catholics?
I ask this, because your comments come across as a curious mixture of confident assertion (with no real reasons other than prejudices being offered) and disingenuousness.
Finally, what does “GC” stand for?
I suppose I should add that, like Kavanaugh, Thomas was accused of sexual harassment during the proceedings to get him appointed (during which Biden played, as I recall, a shameful part). and has since been found to have been utterly corrupt in accepting freebies from moneyed pals. But doubtless none of this matters. But I suppose this all pales before the fact that Ketanji Brown Jackson is not only black, but a woman.
Wow, missed this. “Because they are that (certain) kind of person”. Plus the snotty attitude about me saying society should not use skirts to rep women. Sounds a bit ad hominish and like I’m prolly not welcome. Okay.
I doesn’t sound like you read both my posts, and I didn’t “trot out” anything. I referred to a few recent lousy justices that are there because dems are weak and lame and identity obsessed. You don’t fix ‘isms’ with other ‘isms’, you do it with equal treatment and general fairness. How horrible of me to tu8nk such a thing.
I was reacting to Biden openly stating he would only nominate a “black” woman. That is DEI. We should want the best, not someone chosen (by anyone) because of skin color or any other immutable identity characteristics. I don’t recall Trump stating the same about Barrett. Thomas should not have been seated because he was also a sex harasser/abuser like Kav.
Personally not a big fan of a 2/3 catholic scotus. America is becoming less religious as government becomes more. Alito has been clearly biased with his flags and if dems had any guts they would’ve done something about a lot of this when they had chances. Instead we got Obama nominating rightwing Garland to appease GOPs rather than the people that elected him, promising “FIRST THING FOCA” to women only to drop it as soon as elected (by women), Feinstein hugging Lindsey for the Kav confirmation, pathetic old Schumer, and Biden nominating Jackson to fit some diversity goals, even as she refused to say WHAT A WOMAN IS, and has since shit-talked the First Amendment. I’m not a team red/blue player and call them all like I see them. But I won’t do it here anymore since the blog owner is calling me a “certain kind of person”. Wish I had seen this sooner, then I would’ve understood the other passive aggressive comments.
p.s.
GC = ‘gender’ critical
Since just in the last days Scotus couldn’t even get to quorum per so many being in bed on bookdeals and the like I’m pretty sure that’s close to an across the board disqualifier.
Also I generally find most people with long three word names irritating on gp. Pick one. People don’t wanna type out your 30 character identity self-aggrandizement.
Hang on, I didn’t intend that as a dig at you. It was just a semantic joke; I tend to make semantic jokes. I didn’t know what Tim was referring to, I just gave a literal answer to his rhetorical question, as a trivial joke about rhetorical questions.
I don’t know what the other passive aggressive comments are. I haven’t been trying to goad you or anything, if that’s what you think. I don’t agree with everything you say though – but that’s not all that unusual here.