Posted on 02/04/2017 11:05:54 AM PST by ColdOne
President Trump on Saturday escalated his critique of a temporary nationwide restraining order on his executive order barring citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S., directing his ire this time at the federal judge in Seattle behind the move.
"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!", the president declared on Twitter.
In warning that the restraining order will not stand, Trump may be referring to the Justice Department's intent to announce an emergency stay on the judge's "outrageous" restraining order, announced by the White House Friday evening. The word "outrageous" was later removed in a followup statement.
"When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security - big trouble!" Trump continued. "Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it's death & destruction!"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
I actually knew that, that is why I added the smiley face.
Usually federal judge’s jurisdiction is quite small. Even appellate court is only a relatively small portion of the country. Not sure why this applies across the entire country.
If a refugee ends up committing a terrorist act after coming in during the time period of this judge’s ridiculous ruling, I hope the Trump administration will point out and make it quite clear that the judge has blood on his hands. Time for these judges to own up to their decisions.”
If any Islamic terror occurs in the country while this unlawful ruling is in effect, Robart should be sued for every cent he owns and forced to live in a tent under the freeway here in Seattle where so many now live.
Seattle is working hard to become the next Venezuela.
The only mention of a “religious test” is found in Section VI, Article 3. of our Constitution and refers only to federal officials or employees. Since my idiot governor and our simple-minded state attorney general used this as a basis for bringing this suit, and an addled judge agreed with them, we should all laugh in their faces and toss this entire ruling into the nearest dumpster. No alien, no non-citizen, no potential terrorist has any rights, privileges, or guarantees in our country aside from the basic human rights afforded to all peoples.
He should order Homeland Security which works for him not to enforce the order of the judge and then get his lawyers to work on it.
Then He needs two do what Bill and Hillary done right off the bat >when they arrived
They fired the senior/ head Lawyer in each one of those (about 17 I think) departments and replaced them with ones they knew.
These super radicals have people have called him out and served notice.
They have made it plain they are going to fight him every step of the way and destroy his presidency no matter what.He better take over control of his departments,as quick as he can.
He cannot fight them by himself .He needs a team just to deal legally with these I'm not gong to do my job and you can't make me.
They need to be made examples and be gone quick
He needs some trust worthy people that know how to fight not only the constitutional law but people that know house and senate rules and the rules of hiring firing and reassigning federal workers maybe a good labor lawyer.
He must be willing to fight tooth and nail and have those around him who are fighters or these wolves are going to eat his lunch just like they do every one that comes up there.
Never ever get in a fight that you are not prepared to do what it takes to win.
Those agencies and their heads have got to be his or be gone. He needs to here from and know those of us who voted for him have got his back.
IF you don't get a single thing done . Give them as much hell for us as you can and you will be a winner.
I didn't vote for a politician anyway, we have always had too many of them. I voted for an outsider, some one to give the establishment politicians the hell they have been giving us and our country.
A president can't simply ignore such an overreach of judicial authority. He's got to hit back hard, and slam the offender back into his proper place, or our whole system of government will come undone.
With this one act, this judge has obliterated the constitutional authority of the President, the executive branch, all statute laws upholding the President's authority in this area, and the Constitution itself.
For the same of the republic, this judge must be struck down, and hard.
Texas House Speaker Joe Straus was elected Speaker when the Dems still held a majority in that body. Tells you all you need to know about that 'Republican'.
sake...
Of course that would be preferable. But how? My point is there must be some automatic judicial constraints that would apply if a judge attempts to meddle in obvious areas of the executive. My earlier example is in a military conflict. I could see a judge with tortured legal justification attempting to block the potus from waging war. Surely in that situation there would be no expectation to litigate the matter. Can a judge block anything and everything he pleases and force the executive to prevail in court?
Yeah. I expect that remark is going to be costly. And as is often the case, it was unnecessary.
-——At some point potus will have to ignore these judges.-——
obama seemed to have no problems ignoring federal courts ruling against his EO’s and received no blowback that I remember for ignoring the judges and rulings.
just links to a few instances of MANY;
https://conservative-daily.com/2016/02/08/obama-defies-court-order-withholds-documents/
True, but isn’t it true that the House can cut funding levels thereby essentially throwing these ‘activist’ judges on the street?
I think the Constitution and existing federal laws already spell out the various duties and limits of executive authority, as regards the office of president.
Those would seem to me, to be the "automatic constraints", of which you speak. It seems ludicrous to me, that the Congress should be compelled to create a new law or amendment to the Constitution, to more clearly define the limits of the judiciary, but that may indeed be the case.
The Constitution says that there shall be a Supreme Court, but that Congress defines the lower federal courts. The only thing that Congress could do is abolish everything below the Supreme Court. That would deprive all judges below the Supreme Court of their seats. Congress could then create a whole new federal court system, and the president could fill it with the advice and consent of the Senate.
However, the judges that lost their seats when Congress abolished the federal courts could argue that they had lifetime tenure under the Constitution and that their salaries were reduced to zero, which is forbidden by the Constitution. Depending on a Supreme Court ruling, it might be necessary to pay the former judges for the rest of their lives even though they no longer sit on a court.
Your reply should be directed to McCarthysGhost at post 66.
The Rebel Judge has opened the gates for tens of thousands of unvetted refugees and terrorists, all just before the Super Bowl no less.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why not hold them and vet them on arrival. May take a while... but that is the idea.
“The Rebel Judge has opened the gates for tens of thousands of unvetted refugees and terrorists, all just before the Super Bowl no less.”
Makes you think the regressive Left WANTS a terror attack.
How exactly does any President “remove” a judge “immediately”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess by having Village magazine post a picture of him with cross hairs
on his head.
I agree with you completely. My only point is that by calling him a "so-called" judge, Trump has handed the left a talking point -- that he doesn't respect the judiciary and the Constitution.
I heard that very point argued aggressively by leftists today on Fox News, specically citing "so-called" as evidence of Trump's disrespect fot the judiciary. If Trump had left out "so-called," his point would have remained just as valid. But "so-called" gave the left something to argue to the LIVs. Bad optics, and unnecessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.