Home » Obama’s judiciary legacy

Comments

Obama’s judiciary legacy — 15 Comments

  1. The deeper the infection, the deeper the surgery needed to excise it.
    By any measure, political gangrene is the diagnosis.
    Constitutional crisis the prognosis.
    The remedies are; a Supreme Court ruling that restores sanity or Congressional Impeachment of federal judges or dissolution of the entire Federal judiciary less SCOTUS or an Article V Convention of the States.

  2. GB…
    While I certainly share your appraisal…there are too many voters among us who have no clue about Article V nor any stomach for it, particularly once the MSM start lying about it.

    And as our gracious host notes…Ds voting for…nope.
    Surgery will be a long one and a painful one.

  3. “It is not, after all, a normal thing for a single district judge to enjoin the President of the United States nationally…” Which is why they are DISTRICT judges, not pretend or wannabe Supremes.
    I think Trump should push the envelope by refusing to play the District Court judicial game, simply telling the Executive Branch he is the Boss, so get on with it. Like Tillerson is doing with the Chinese. The Dems will have a hissy fit.
    The last District Court judge to be impeached (for taking bribes) was Alcee Hastings, who immediately was elected to Congress and remains there today because of black-on-black voting. He was appointed by Carter, and a co-conspirator of his was pardoned by Clinton.
    Democrats, people of principle and great role models, yeah.

  4. neo and John,

    I agree that both are highly improbable. IMO, the best outcome is undoubtedly SCOTUS shutting down the illegal rulings. There is however a real possibility that SCOTUS will not do so.

    Which would leave us with an unresolved constitutional crisis, that being a President blocked from exercising his lawful powers and unable to protect the nation when any federal judge disagrees. Which is exactly what these judges have accomplished. So we’re already in a constitutional crisis, the current question being if a majority on the SCOTUS will honor their oaths of office and remedy the crisis.

    Of course, if SCOTUS does not support the Constitution Trump may well ignore the rulings. But SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution further invalidates that institution and further tears the constitutional fabric of the nation.

    Down this path lies civil war.

    In addition, should Trump ignore an invalid SCOTUS ruling, it will be added to his ledger of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and 20 RINOs may well vote to convict at Trump’s Impeachment trial. Which may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back…

  5. Let him get a conservative judge in… I can’t believe how strongly I feel about that.

  6. They are guilty instead of not guilty. This doesn’t even qualify as will ful ignorance. They knew full well what their positions would entail and Hussein knew what it meant too.

    A way to surpass petty human limitations on political elections and go straight for human slavery.

  7. The GOP is going to have to increase the size of the Supreme Court to 13 justices.

    The back-log is the reason why.

    The Ninth Circuit is going to have to be re-drawn — and cut down to the Pacific Coast of California. That zone alone generates enough legal action to keep the Ninth up past its ears in litigation. ( Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Biotech, … )

    A wholly new Tenth Circuit is required for inland California and the rest of the Ninth’s area of litigation.

    With its reduced size, the Ninth can shed some of its judges, too.

    Trump can then appoint centrist judges in large numbers.

    Lay-offs are also due in the 4th Circuit… based upon seniority.

    While Leftist judges are bad judges… they will not be impeached. They have too much Democrat support. ( cf Watson )

    Imagine TWO ‘racial’ slots for Harvard Law’s class of 1991… Soetoro and Watson. Neither made it on their grades.

    Of course they are buddies.

    Barry brought a pre-packaged plea and determination with him. That has to be what happened.

  8. blert:
    despite the curious facts outlined in the zerohedge piece, it is not at all necessary for Obama and Watson to have conferred.
    Watson the leftist may well have written his opinion before the court appearance by ACLU.
    Conspirators need not get together to conspire. They use the same playbook.
    Watson wrote his opinion before the hearing. Simple as that.

  9. BTW, where is Barack Hussein now? In French Polynesia for a month, hoping to be a Paul Gauguin amongst the nubile adolescents, hoping to be back in Margaret Mead fantasy land?

  10. This is nothing new or unknown. A properly advised and prepared Trump could have flanked this with some small effort. An order to State to increase the security review during visa applications from these country to include a number of things would have had the same or greater impact and would not have opened doors to the opposition. But Trump sort of promised this or more during the campaign (not a short term halt, but an indefinite ban). He is not an explainer or a tactician but a publicity generator. That doesn’t really work. The Administration will have to fully staff the in department legal advisors for each cabinet post to avoid these landmines while accomplishing what they do. Yes he can appoint new judges and should get on with this with as little public comment as necessary. Does he really want to win or just appear to win and be thwarted?

  11. DJG seems hung up on Mr.Trump’s tweets and overlooks his clear policy initiatives. He complains that Mr. Trump is a publicity generator and wants him to get on with as little public comment as possible.
    You are perhaps opposed to comments which do in fact clarify and explain, even as you class him a non-explainer?

  12. Seventy years ago this week – on March 21, 1947, to be exact – President Truman issued an executive order that caught some of his most die-hard supporters by surprise.

    The order, writes Robert Justin Goldstein in Prologue magazine, “required that all federal civil service employees be screened for ‘loyalty.’ [It] specified that one criterion…would be a finding of ‘membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association’ with any organization determined by the attorney general to be ‘totalitarian, Fascist, Communist or subversive’ or advocating or approving the forceful denial of constitutional rights to other persons or seeking ‘to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.’ ”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>