And this is different from prior Presidents... how, precisely?
If a President tries to do something, one court rules against him, and then the Supreme Court says yes, they can do it, then they can do it. This is how the process has worked for over two centuries. I fail to see how the exact system that essentially every prior President dealt with somehow makes Trump a dictator dictator-like.
I don't recall any other president denying due process and shipping accused people to other countries, and then refusing to return them when ordered to by the court. Is this common practice for US president and I somehow missed it happening?
But, further, even if we assume it has happened before, and often, does that mean it's a practice that should continue?
I could say the same about any of Trump's other attempts to subvert the constitution, but that stands as one example.
You do specify "Trump's handpicked SCOTUS" which perhaps means because Trump chose some Supreme Court justices, that makes him more like a dictator... except that, again, is the situation that every President has faced, as every President gets to appoint Supreme Court justices when vacancies arise (a few did not have an opportunity, but most did). Was the SCOTUS "handpicked" for Obama because he appointed two justices? Or Bush? Or Clinton? Or the prior Bush?
Yeah, I'll admit that's hyperbole. I'm well aware that Donald Trump did not nominate Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS, for example, but it's clear Thomas has been ruling in favor of Trump far more often than he hasn't. Now, we can claim this is simply that he and Trump agree on certain legal issues, but can you truly believe that every ruling is a good one? Take, for example, the ruling on presidential immunity. That one seems tailor made for Trump, specifically. Also Clarence Thomas' sole opinion about the constitutionality of appointing special counsels, which aided in having one of the indictments against Trump dismissed. And that one didn't even have the full court behind it, Just Thomas alone.
But, that said, I'll admit I'm spouting my own opinion here. Yes, the SCOTUS is the final word on constitutional issues here, and yes, their rulings stand regardless of how I, personally, feel about them. But, same as with those who disagreed with Roe v. Wade before it was reversed, I'm free to disagree with any decision I wish to. Hopefully, much like with Roe v. Wade, these decisions will be reversed as well, before someone worse than Trump (as difficult as that is to imagine) comes along and causes even more damage.
Or, if those do not count because they appointed "only" two and Trump got three, does that therefore mean Reagan, Nixon, or Truman are dictator-like because they appointed four? Or Eisenhower, who appointed five? (a majority!) To say nothing of Franklin Roosevelt's impressive appointing of, depending how you count it, either eight or nine justices! (he appointed nine different justices, but one justice was a replacement for another he appointed, so there was not any point where he appointed all nine justices on the court) Were all of them dictator-like?
My view here is that Trump is acting in an authoritative manner, and trying to act as if he were a dictator, and the SCOTUS with it's 6-3 conservative majority, seems to be more than willing to aid him in that goal. I always considered the judiciary to be a bulwark against that kind of thing, and I guess I just wish they actually were, instead of an ally.
-- A2SG, but in the end, I know I'm just some random yahoo on the internet....
