Posted on 02/10/2017 3:54:21 AM PST by big'ol_freeper
As for Trump’s disparagement of the judges, only someone ignorant of history can view that as frightening.
Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, who had presided over one of the trials.
Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee.
When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Can you say plenary power?!
Uh...no! They would just pay more rioters to shut down DC!
TRUMP MUST BREAK JUDICIAL POWER
Yes, they have come to consider themselves the sole arbitrators of everything. They have far surpassed their judicial powers.
The key issue is Civil Service job protection. In Andrew Jackson’s day, he was able to issue orders in defiance of the Court, because he could fire any subordinate who refused to comply. Today, Trump has lots of Obama holdovers who can use the court order as a justification for not complying.
It seems to me that these lower courts need to be held accountable. How? Any judge who writes a number (we can argue about what the actual number is) of opinions that are subsequently overturned by the next higher court must be impeached and removed on the grounds that he/she has no competency. Except for journalists, there is no other public job for which one can be consistently wrong with impunity.
Regarding the travel suspension; I don’t know what prevents President Trump from stopping all consular activities in the seven countries; specifically, issuance of visas. Furthermore, the bearer of a visa is NEVER guaranteed entry into any country - hell, even a green card holder (on first arrival here) is NOT guaranteed entry. There are ways to deal with this, is my main point.
Part of the reason behind splitting up the 9th is because it is so large it can't even hold an en banc hearing with all judges.
Bill to remove Nevada, 5 other states from ‘nutty 9th’ Circuit Court may be gaining favor
So two can play that game, we need to appoint as many conservative judges as possible.
As constructed, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government are co-equal, however it is clear that the intent was that the Legislative branch is primus inter pares because that is the branch in which the framers placed political power. Today the Legislature is the least effective branch of government and has deferred to both the Executive and Judicial branches to such an extent that most political power now resides there, which is dangerous.
The primary power of the Judicial branch is fundamentally moral. As impartial dispensers of justice their power derives from the respect that comes from them being seen the embodiment of the Rule of Law and as being "above politics". When judges become political, they undermine not only their own moral authority but also respect for the Law in general, for the Law is nothing other than a catalog of decided political questions. When laws no longer mean what they say, but can be arbitrarily reinterpreted by others, or are so "fuzzy" or convoluted that they defy plain understanding, then their societal value is moot.
The Executive's power, by contrast, is that of brute force. The Executive branch, by design, has the "muscle" to enforce the Rule of Law on those for whom moral suasion is insufficient. Despite being an elected office, and having a political role as a check on Congress via the veto, the president is supposed to be more of a moral figure than a political one since he is supposed to represent the country as a whole rather than individual constituencies. As a result, the president's real power is the power of the bully pulpit.
Currently the system of checks and balances is severely out of balance. One of President Trump's biggest challenges (and opportunities) is to address this imbalance. Whether he succeeds will be one of the central dramas of his administration.
The “State of the Union” comes up on the 28th... The timing is perfect to frame your concerns regarding the alignment/powers of the branches of gov’t and announce that power is being restored to the people AND the states in accordance with the Constitution.
"The primary power of the Judicial branch is fundamentally moral. As impartial dispensers of justice their power derives from the respect that comes from them being seen the embodiment of the Rule of Law and as being "above politics". When judges become political, they undermine not only their own moral authority but also respect for the Law in general, for the Law is nothing other than a catalog of decided political questions. When laws no longer mean what they say, but can be arbitrarily reinterpreted by others, or are so "fuzzy" or convoluted that they defy plain understanding, then their societal value is moot.
Sort of like scientists and "settled science."
"The primary power of the Judicial branch is fundamentally moral. As impartial dispensers of justice their power derives from the respect that comes from them being seen the embodiment of the Rule of Law and as being "above politics". When judges become political, they undermine not only their own moral authority but also respect for the Law in general, for the Law is nothing other than a catalog of decided political questions. When laws no longer mean what they say, but can be arbitrarily reinterpreted by others, or are so "fuzzy" or convoluted that they defy plain understanding, then their societal value is moot.
Sort of like scientists and "settled science."
The point of attack might be ‘judicial immunity’. A judge’s power knows no bounds if it is addressed in a ruling. A judge cannot be held for harming someone by their ruling.
It may be possible to set up a procedure where a challenger to a ruling may post a bond and require a bond against future retirement earnings be posted by the judge(s).
If such a scheme were in effect today, the judge(s) would post bonds against their retirement that none of the persons affected by the ban cause damages from acts of terror a few years from now. If such acts occur, the retirement account of the judge(s) is dunned to pay the damages.
There’s probably a better scheme ... time to get the thoughts in gear!
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.