No, Trump Does NOT Have to Abide by Mythical “Judicial Supremacy”

New American Prophet ^ | February 14, 2025 | Selwyn Duke

[Rev M. Bresciani]

It’s an old story: When people are allowed to get their way for too long, when they’re never told “No!” they may get too big for their britches. They may develop a sense of entitlement and even become narcissistic. And proving that judges are no exception are a number of recent court “opinions” designed to scuttle President Trump’s agenda.

One disallows DOGE from scrutinizing Treasury Department data.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

Most people realize that but breaking precedents is always a can of worms.

[Red Badger]

Andrew Jackson (D) set the precedent.................

[Cowgirl of Justice]

Didn’t seem to affect Bidet ignoring the SCOTUS decisions and doing whatever he wanted.

I mean, I agree with your statement but we see that the puppetmasters are furiously and desperately trying to stop what is happening through the use of their judges.

[rktman]

Adults in the room telling whiners no=😭😵

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

If you use Biden as a standard anything is possible. DJT has already said that he always abides what the judges say so he opens himself up the the Liar attacks.

[RushingWater]

Good article and on target.

This current "Trump appointee" who has extended the US Aid workers termination date justifies his actions that the overseas US Aid workers need transition time and it puts them in danger. Huh? That's your judicial job? Give me a break!

[ClearCase_guy]

The precedent was set in 1866 when the Supreme Court decided that the judiciary could not enjoin the President from performing his executive duties, particularly those involving discretion.

I see no reason this needs to move through the court system again. It's done. It's been decided.

Sure, we could go through it a second time. We could get the current Supreme Court to once again declare that the powers are co-equal but separate. We could do that a second time.

And then a third.
And then a fourth.

When does it stop? It stops when the President says "We're done here."

[Fury]

Re: 7 - that not what Judge Nichols wrote.

[Dr. Franklin]

Ignoring judicial decisions has consequences such as contempt of court. If a judge decides to fine the president for not implementing the judge’s wishes, things get messy as the U.S. Marshals Service is an executive branch agency which enforces court orders. The sitting president might order the the marshals ignore the court’s order, but what happens when he leaves office? Ultimately, Congress has a role to play in limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts to interfere in the executive branch decisions. That doesn’t happen because Congress likes the ability to join with the courts to check the executive branch. When the public is sufficiently outraged, Congress will vote to limit judicial oversight of the executive branch.

[Qwapisking]

“The Founders of this Great nation set it up like a three legged stool...no one leg has more power than the other two lest the stool falls over” L.Star. of course they didn’t anticipate just how soon the stool would become ubiquitous in each leg. “what we term “The swamp” is more like a construction site outhouse that hasn’t been serviced in decades” L.Star

[ClearCase_guy]

Ignoring judicial decisions has consequences such as contempt of court.

I would argue that the little judges who are trying to give Trump a hard time are in contempt of the US Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mississippi v. Johnson reinforced the separation of powers by affirming that the judiciary could not enjoin the President from performing his executive duties, particularly those involving discretion. This case set a precedent for the immunity of the President from judicial injunctions concerning discretionary actions. Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 18 L. Ed. 437, 4 Wall. 475, 1866 U.S. LEXIS 897

I would like to see the little judges charged.

[TexasFreeper2009]

I do believe in the three co-equal branches of government.

But that doesn’t mean that every congressional aid is = to the president or that every circuit judge is equal to the president.

It means that the SC is equal to the congress as a whole and to the president.

[ComputerGuy]

The courts are toothless by design.

[glennaro]

Those woefully ignorant of history need an occasional “one across the chops” to understand reality.

[butlerweave]

but Trump can investigate these same judges ,LOL

[Frank Drebin]

“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

Jefferson was a wise man.

[joshua c]

you can expect the district whores to give the left what they want

of course the left has their favorite whores and seek them out whenever they are losing and need to stop their political opponents

regardless of the US Constitution

you just have to appeal until you find a judge that has read the document

[itsahoot]

We could get the current Supreme Court to once again declare that the powers are co-equal but separate. We could do that a second time.

I have serious doubts that the Supremes would do that again, in fact I am quite sure they won't. Just my personal feelings about how corrupt the system really is. It will take a tyrant to bring these crooks into submission and then we have to fear the tyrant.

We have seen that play out hundreds of times in Western Movies. A town is so corrupt they hire a gun fighter to clean it up, then they have to plot to remove the gun fighter.

[TheDon]

I used to think that as well. Upon reflection however, Congress is the supreme branch. It can remove justices and the president from office. The other branches have no such power over Congress.