Stephen Miller on 9th Circuit Ruling: ‘There’s ‘No Such Thing as Judicial Supremacy”

Breithbart ^ | Feb 12, 2017 | Pam Key

[Mariner]

“The USSC cannot demand the congress or the president stop perform any act or following any law. They have zero enforcement capability.”

It doesn’t even take the USSC to do that. The 9th Circuit did it. Hell, a Federal District Judge did it.

[GOPJ]

Stephen Miller’s thoughts - his ideas are so strong and right... they can stand on their own. Stridency doesn’t work for Stephen Miller... this is for him:

http://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20935

“Take the word butterfly. To use this word it is not necessary to make the voice weigh less than an ounce or equip it with small dusty wings. It is not necessary to invent a sunny day or a field of daffodils. It is not necessary to be in love, or to be in love with butterflies. The word butterfly is not a real butterfly. There is the word and there is the butterfly. If you confuse these two items people have the right to laugh at you. Do not make so much of the word. Are you trying to suggest that you love butterflies more perfectly than anyone else, or really understand their nature? The word butterfly is merely data. It is not an opportunity for you to hover, soar, befriend flowers, symbolize beauty and frailty, or in any way impersonate a butterfly. Do not act out words. Never act out words. Never try to leave the floor when you talk about flying. Never close your eyes and jerk your head to one side when you talk about death.”

“The poem is not a slogan. It cannot advertise you. It cannot promote your reputation for sensitivity. You are not a stud. You are not a killer lady. All this junk about the gangsters of love. You are students of discipline. Do not act out the words. The words die when you act them out, they wither, and we are left with nothing but your ambition.”

“The poem is nothing but information. It is the Constitution of the inner country. If you declaim it and blow it up with noble intentions then you are no better than the politicians whom you despise. You are just someone waving a flag and making the cheapest kind of appeal to a kind of emotional patriotism. Think of the words as science, not as art. They are a report. You are speaking before a meeting of the Explorers’ Club of the National Geographic Society. These people know all the risks of mountain climbing. They honour you by taking this for granted. If you rub their faces in it that is an insult to their hospitality. Tell them about the height of the mountain, the equipment you used, be specific about the surfaces and the time it took to scale it. Do not work the audience for gasps and sighs. If you are worthy of gasps and sighs it will not be from your appreciation of the event but from theirs. It will be in the statistics and not the trembling of the voice or the cutting of the air with your hands. It will be in the data and the quiet organization of your presence.”

[grania]

I can't see Ivanka being President. One reason President Trump won (primaries and election) is that US citizens have had it with dynasties.

The first woman President should be someone who understands world affairs, serving in government, and war from personal experience. Joni Ernst is still in the formative stage for vision. She has potential.

[greeneyes]

Well, it is correct that there is no such thing as judicial supremacy for these district courts. They are not, in fact, even equal. In the discussions and writings of the founding fathers, the Judicial was labeled as the weakest of the branches.

The legislature has the power to reign in the courts, if they weren’t such limp wristed cowards, it would have been done long ago. Starting with the Madeline Murray case against prayer in school, and abortion.

[BwanaNdege]

To continue with your Naval Warfare analogy, a "broadside" by Trump would rally the opposition and the rabble. A better attack would be analogous to the functioning of modern torpedoes.

Instead of aiming to hit the side of a ship & penetrate the hull, modern torpedoes pass under the hull and explode, creating a big "air pocket". The resultant loss of buoyancy in the middle of the ship leaves it supported and bow & stern only. The weight of the ship breaks the keel causing immediate sinking. No chance of patching a hole in the hull, or secure watertight compartments controlling the damage.

Judicial Tyranny needs a Constitutional breaking of its backbone, not merely attacks & injury.

[greeneyes]

I keep looking in my Constitution for where it says, “And the judiciary branch is in charge of everybody and makes all final decisions.”
I keep looking but can’t find it.

*********************************************************

It’s not there. This court has acted in an unlawful and unconstitutional way - beyond Judicial overreach. At the current time, the President has the sole authority over this matter, and the court clearly had no right to interfere.

The legislature has the power to reign in the courts, and they are way overdue in the Circus district. JMHO

[CodeToad]

That’s my point: Since when did they get such authority to say the president can only act if they agree?

Jackson had it right: Try to enforce that decision.

[Mariner]

“Jackson had it right: Try to enforce that decision.”

Legally Jackson was right.

But what he did was just plain wrong.

I prefer to use the Lincoln refusal to honor the court’s habeus corpus order on enemy combatants and collaborators.

[arthurus]

The whole left side of the political spectrum is committed to judicial supremacy in most cases because it is easier to get their policies legislated by a couple of judges or justices, than it is to get them through a legislature, and with a Decision they can claim, and often succeed in putting over, that it is a Law of God and cannot be repealed, overturned, or lessened. In the cases of judges appointed by Republicans, on balance the left wins there, too, because Republicans insist on balancing their appointments so the leftists won’t feel bad and a certain large percentage of apparent conservatives have a habit of “growing” while on the bench and not subject to voters or bosses any more. The temptation for a judge to wave a wand to “correct” a perceived bad situation without having to wait for a legislature that might not even do it is pretty overwhelming. It is also much cheaper to bribe a couple of judges than to have to bribe a couple of dozen legislators. Same goes for blackmail and flat out extortion.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

He is right but for the wrong reason. The branches of government are NOT equal.

Why do people say the branches are equal, anyway?

Where does it say the branches are co-equal? Nowhere.

Do not confuse checks and balances for co-equal branches.

The judicial branch is the weakest. The legislative branch is the strongest. The executive branch answers to the legislative and not the other way around. How do we know that? The legislative branch can remove the president or any executive branch official from office. The president cannot remove a congressman or senator. Nor can a president repeal a law and is required to execute the laws faithfully by the constitution.

The legislature can remove a judge from office. A judge cannot remove a congressman or senator. And so on.

The judicial branch only has power over the parties properly before it under the law and rules. No more.

There certainly is NOT any judicial supremacy in this country.

[arthurus]

I know Stephen Miller. He has a half-ass body shop in town here and is not particularly bright at all. He is very talented painting cars but has no business sense at all.

[Windflier]

Judicial Tyranny needs a Constitutional breaking of its backbone, not merely attacks & injury.

Absolutely. We appear to agree that the administration should return fire in some way. I think it's paramount they do so, or this judicial tyranny will only escalate.

[sport]

The way the Founding Fathers set it up, there is not, But the Constitution has been so bastardized and the Government apparatus so screwed up by the Democrat Party and their subsidiaries that the Founding Fathers would not recognize it if they saw it again.

[Leep]

And he definitely won’t take the money and run.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

If the President doesn’t acknowledge the order, power was not taken away.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are exactly correct on this, and so my hope is that the President was aware of this but had a very good strategic reason for NOT ignoring that court order. And the aftermath seems to be shaping up as a real negative for the courts. So we’ll soon see how it all shakes out.

[BwanaNdege]

“Broadside” is also an excellent rhetorical expression.

“Let ‘em have it! Fire at will!”

[morphing libertarian]

The judges did not take power away. The president relinquished it when they cooperated with the first case. They should have declared then that the courts had no jurisdiction and enforced the order. Everything since has been an acquiescence to the judiciary.

[Windflier]

If he immediately blasted the lower court as completely illegitimate, the Left would have nuked Trump as a dictator.

The left may have tried to 'nuke' the President for asserting his legal and constitutional authority to restrict travel to this country, but their efforts would be for naught. He can't be impeached for exercising his lawful duties, and wielding the power of his office within its legal limits.

The court may indeed beat a hasty retreat from this overstep of their constitutional jurisdiction, but that still leaves them in an assumed position of supremacy over the Executive branch, which in itself, is a kind of precedent that should not be allowed.

This really has gone much further than the various individuals and parties involved. The actions of the court and the administration, are now defining the very nature of the balance of power between the (supposedly) co-equal branches of our federal government.

[Ozark Tom]

Rule of thumb based on prior decisions. Don’t rock the boat . . .

[Windflier]

“Let ‘em have it! Fire at will!”

In my view, the administration really should have, at the very least, made a public statement enunciating the relevant legal statutes, historical precedents, and constitutional sections, which grant the President the authority to ban entry of any aliens (or class of aliens) from entering this country.

That wouldn't have been a full 'broadside', but perhaps a shot across the bow of the judicial branch. Instead, they appear to be letting the lawless court set the terms of engagement.

All I can say is, I'm very disheartened and dismayed by the response, thus far.