[SkyPilot]

Trump had been playing a rare game of defense since the wack job, BLM loving, pro-bono "migrant" legal serving, liberal judge in Seattle ruled against Trump's legal travel ban.

Yes, Trump is smart, brilliant even.

But he isn't God, and sometimes he makes tactical errors. This was one of them. He should have waited for Jeff Sessions to be confirmed before issuing the order.

But in the last couple of days, Trump is on full offense again. He sensed the danger (we all did), and the loss of momentum towards his entire agenda.

Reading the statute before the police officers, on television, was brilliant.

I watched Fox News, and the journalists were lamenting that Trump "showed contempt for judges." Screw these judges. Trump is correct, they ARE political, and it has to stop.

The 9th Circus was supposed to rule yesterday. My take is they had to delay, because issuing their totally illegal and illogical "ruling" on the same day Trump smacked them down would have been too embarrassing.

[AndyJackson]

He sensed the danger (we all did), and the loss of momentum towards his entire agenda.

Let's be clear. The loss of momentum was because the spineless turtle setting the senate calendar tried to whine about democratic stalling tactics rather than dealing with them. It took a blast from many of us writing and calling our senators to get things moving again. The old - I can't do anything - oh, what did you say, what's our cut here - the obstructionist democrats are blocking our "conservative" agenda shit has deserved all of these clowns a prompt retirement.

That the republicans are even there any more is because Trump ran and because he told his supporters he actually needed the votes that their lazy asses are sitting on.

[AndyJackson]

Trump "showed contempt for judges

There is an important legal point here. The judges showed utter contempt for the office of the president in particular in issuing and then standing by a broad TRO against the actions of a president.

There are only four legal questions here:
Did the President have the discretion to act?
Did the President exercise that discretion?
Did the president do so for a valid reason?
Did he do so in good faith?

While the Trial Judge, on his own, tried to question this last, the presumption is that a pubic official, any public offiial, is exercising his duties in good faith, a deference especially owed the president.

Yes, the presumption is rebuttable, but the plaintiff moonbat liberals and crony capitalists had the burden to do so with clear evidence.

It isn't the President's job to do so, or to answer, until moonbat and crony-capitalist complainants have made their case.

[Real Cynic No More]

... the journalists were lamenting that Trump "showed contempt for judges.

Well, didn't he merely point out how contemptible they really are?

[pfony1]

I agree. Reading the law in its simple, plain English was brilliant!

I noticed that the word “...finds...” was NOT preceded by the word “...reasonably...” in that law.

THEREFORE, any lawyer’s argument that the President’s 90-day suspension was, in that lawyer’s view,”unreasonable” is, as Perry Mason used to say, “...irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial...”!