Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[QvQ]

This is an interesting thread, because Trump's administration is so far defying a court order. The judge has just issued a warning that defying can result in criminal contempt.

That would have to be done by SC

 

[stevil]

That would have to be done by SC

Is that written somewhere? In some law? What about contempt for the people doing Trump's bidding? Not everyone is a president, and the president doesn't do everything he has people working for him, accomplices.

 

[QvQ]

Is that written somewhere? In some law?

Trump is not "Trump" He is the President of the US.
What you are saying is that any low level Court in the US can decide Ex Parte that Any President's policies are causing "harm to someone" and order the President to immediately desist or be held in contempt.

 

[stevil]

Trump is not "Trump" He is the President of the US.
What you are saying is that any low level Court in the US can decide Ex Parte that Any President's policies are causing "harm to someone" and order the President to immediately desist or be held in contempt.
The idea is absurd.

Justice is supposed to be blind.
Judges are highly respected and important people, the Judicial branch is coequal to the executive branch and is seen as a necessary check and balance, probably much more important than the "militia" of the 2nd amendment in order to stop a tyrannical government.
However the game has changed significantly as under Trump, the Conservative justices of the Supreme Court decided to make the President immune to the law.

 

[Bradskii]

...should be impeached....some judges are actually partisan dirt bags not adhering to the constitution. It is a mistake to suggest that just because some judge ruled it is legitimate.

Thanks for giving us a heads up on the excuses likely to be used. But the question was about the SC. Please stay focussed on that if you could.

 

[JSRG]

The cases, so far, are in very low level Courts.
As the question is Constitutional, most the them will go to the Supreme Court

Most cases involving constitutional questions actually never go to the Supreme Court. They just get decided by lower courts and (even if someone does appeal) the Supreme Court just doesn't take it; the Supreme Court takes only a small percentage of appeals to them.

 

[JSRG]

Dems Turn To Activist Judges To Defy Trump This is the problem. Nothing here is legitimate justice at work. It is simply partisan lawfare by corrupt liberal judges to combat the will of the people in the last election.

The article is complaining about how liberals are filing their lawsuits against Trump in areas where they're likely to get "rabidly anti-Trump activist judges" (well, who they consider to be as such). Except this has been done countless times by conservatives too, where they file their lawsuits in areas likely to give them sympathetic judges (and, if applicable, preliminary injunctions). This tactic, known as "judge shopping", is done frequently by both liberals and conservatives. Did this website complain similarly when conservatives were pulling this tactic against Biden?

 

[A2SG]

This is an interesting thread, because Trump's administration is so far defying a court order. The judge has just issued a warning that defying can result in criminal contempt.

However, of course, since the AG of the DOJ is beholden to Trump, who is it that is going to enforce the criminal contempt charge?
1. Trump is immune from the law
2. Trump can just pardon all his accomplices
3. The head of the DOJ is Trump's lackey.

And to think some people were worried about Trump being authoritarian and acting like some kind of dictator!

-- A2SG, boy are their faces red!

 

[Pommer]

And to think some people were worried about Trump being authoritarian and acting like some kind of dictator!

-- A2SG, boy are their faces red!

I had an MRI yesterday and if I had had the amount of irony in my brain this gives me from seeing these developments, my brains would have been much mushier!

 

[A2SG]

I had an MRI yesterday and if I had had the amount of irony in my brain this gives me from seeing these developments, my brains would have been much mushier!

Apparently, irony and reality have merged and become one.

-- A2SG, probably should call it "Ironeality" now....

 

[Pommer]

Apparently, irony and reality have merged and become one.

-- A2SG, probably should call it "Ironeality" now....

If there’s no logical reason for reality to exist, its existence can be for any reason or no reason.

 

[A2SG]

If there’s no logical reason for reality to exist, its existence can be for any reason or no reason.

“To be is to do”—Socrates.
“To do is to be”—Jean-Paul Sartre.
“Do be do be do”—Frank Sinatra.

-- Kurt Vonnegut.

-- A2SG, dunno why that came to me, but it did.....

 

[Nithavela]

Not only am I sure that most Trump supporters would support him ignoring a SC decision, I am pretty certain that they would find excuses for Trump abolishing the supreme court and replacing it with his own rubber stamp court via executive order.

 

[Postvieww]

, I am pretty certain that they would find excuses for Trump abolishing the supreme court and replacing it with his own rubber stamp court via executive order.

Just what democrats wanted to do with court packing . I am sure you would have supported that .

 

[Postvieww]

The article is complaining about how liberals are filing their lawsuits against Trump in areas where they're likely to get "rabidly anti-Trump activist judges" (well, who they consider to be as such). Except this has been done countless times by conservatives too, where they file their lawsuits in areas likely to give them sympathetic judges (and, if applicable, preliminary injunctions). This tactic, known as "judge shopping", is done frequently by both liberals and conservatives. Did this website complain similarly when conservatives were pulling this tactic against Biden?

Sounds so neat and tidy but let’s dig in a little bit. I randomly found two examples . One was over Biden pushing mandatory vaccines in the work place. The other was over remain in Mexico. In both cases Biden should have been challenged. Just look at the problems Biden’s policies in both cases caused. Now some want to stop a much needed audit of the liberal slush fund and excessive spending. Hardly comparing apples to apples.

 

[Postvieww]

I had an MRI yesterday and if I had had the amount of irony in my brain this gives me from seeing these developments, my brains would have been much mushier!

Your post brings back memories of the great Rush Limbaugh who often spoke of mind numbed robots and brains full of mush.

 

[Postvieww]

Most cases involving constitutional questions actually never go to the Supreme Court. They just get decided by lower courts and (even if someone does appeal) the Supreme Court just doesn't take it; the Supreme Court takes only a small percentage of appeals to them.

When comes to kangaroo courts usurping presidential executive power, they probably will take it.

 

[Nithavela]

Just what democrats wanted to do with court packing . I am sure you would have supported that .

Why are you sure about that?

 

[Postvieww]

Why are you sure about that?

If I am wrong correct me.

 

[Say it aint so]

Sounds so neat and tidy but let’s dig in a little bit. I randomly found two examples . One was over Biden pushing mandatory vaccines in the work place. The other was over remain in Mexico. In both cases Biden should have been challenged. Just look at the problems Biden’s policies in both cases caused. Now some want to stop a much needed audit of the liberal slush fund and excessive spending. Hardly comparing apples to apples.

Just a little clarification about those two policies. The first, the vaccinations were optional and only for government and employers with more than 100 employees, or testing every week. No one challenged that because mandatory vaccinations have already been through the courts, and deemed constitutional. The remain in Mexico policy has always been in the courts ever since Trump's EO, because it literally went against asylum laws. It resulted in contrasting rulings in various courts and was sitting at the SCOTUS when Biden pulled it. There was nothing left to challenge. The government is always audited. There's an gov admin called the General Accounting Office and that's what they do all day long. If Trump want's Musk to audit government agencies, then fire that head and have Musk go through the nomination process and hire him. Yes, hardly comparing apples to apples.