Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

My main point is that he could have accomplished the same without bullying, bragging, and general asshattery. But who am I kidding? Trump is going to Trump.

Sad, and undeniable.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Not sure why I picked this quote to enter this misguided set of posts, but it has JB's name on it.

JD Vance said today that a court cannot infringe on the power of the President to shape the government in his image. This is exactly what courts are supposed to do and have for 250 years as Jim and most rational Americans understand.

While half asleep, I listened to George Conway articulate that thought, adding that the only way courts have to enforce an order being disobeyed is to get the US Marshalls to drag in a non-compliant party. The US Marshalls aer part of the Justice Dept. Who here believes the US Marshalls are going to drag a Trump official into court and potentially prison for contempt of court????? They obviously will not if yo have been watching the first few weeks of the Trump 2.0 era unfold.

So...our Canadian friend may or may not be getting right what atrocities will be unfurled onto the American people, but it will not be because the rule of law stopped it. This is how dictatorships are established, when courts no longer can control the process of what is and isn't legal.

I'm re-iterating what I've said for years, but we are approaching the point I've feared most.

The Courts will hold and curb the unconstitutional excesses of the Trump administration.    Just like they did when Biden stepped over the line many times.   The fever dream of Justices like Thomas willingly ushering in a dictatorship is not based upon any action the Court has taken to expand executive authority ever.   If one were to point to the immunity case, they are wrong.   That case, if one try's to understand it, merely clarified that the executive has immunity for official acts, same as the legislative branch and same as the judiciary.    It was only controversial at all because the left has grossly mischaracterized the opinion.

I know that I am not going to convince you because Trump is hammering at the guardrails so aggressively.   His executive orders are in so many cases bizarre, stupid, hateful, and poorly conceived.    On the underlying issue of judicial protection of the separation of powers and judicial curbing of executive overreach, I am right and you are wrong and time will demonstrate this.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"So...our Canadian friend may or may not be getting right what atrocities will be unfurled onto the American people, but it will not be because the rule of law stopped it. This is how dictatorships are established, when courts no longer can control the process of what is and isn't legal."

That's what the Trump team is presently attempting to do with the latest being Musk's call to fire at least 1% of the appointed judges. Next, Jim Jordan is quoting a sentence from the constitution regarding the authority of the executive branch and applying it to the current situation with Trump. 

They will push this to SCOTUS.

The courts are the last guardrail here. Will it hold? My guess is that Alito and Thomas are already willing and able members of the Trump camp and they haven't even seen the cases(s) yet. As for the other cons on the court, time will tell...

Rod, this frustrates me a lot.  Your opinion of Thomas and Alito's likely judicial actions is unhinged from reality.  These two justices, in particular, are your best friends if your goal is to curb executive overreach.   Consider the Chevron case decided last year.  The conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down "Chevron deference" a long standing doctrine that said that the Courts should defer to an Executive Agencie's own opinion regarding the scope of its own power.   After Chevron, there is no deference, upon challenge, the Agency can argue that any given action is within its scope.  Other parties can argue that the Agency overstepped its authority.  Level playing field for the first time in 40 years.   https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

I'm guessing that Trump's more aggressive agency heads would love to have the benefit of Chevron deference.  How about you?

Eliminating Chevron deference was a huge deal at the time, causing the Biden administration and liberals to squeal like mashed cats. Why?  BECAUSE THIS OPINION, ROOTED IN CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, CURBED EXECUTIVE POWER.   Sorry for shouting, but goodness, you currently have the court you want if someone is going to stop Trump's overreach!  Thank The Lord we do not still have the Warren Court.  Three liberals on the court sided with the administration of course, not because they are hacks, but because they have a liberal judicial philosophy that is far more permissive of executive authority and expansion.    

Thomas and Alito are not members of the "Trump Camp" if their decades of legal work is any guide.  These two will reflexively strike down any whiff of executive overreach because that is the core of their conservative judicial philosophy. 

I know quite well you are entirely and irrevocably vested in the "Thomas and Alito (etc.) are evil Trump hacks" point of view, which is of course ubiquitous in the left media and on social media.  But you are dead wrong.   These two are not going to let Trump run roughshod over the other branches of government because separation of powers and limiting judicial overreach is a lodestone of their judicial philosophy, which they indeed do believe with every fiber of their being.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Not sure why I picked this quote to enter this misguided set of posts, but it has JB's name on it.

JD Vance said today that a court cannot infringe on the power of the President to shape the government in his image. This is exactly what courts are supposed to do and have for 250 years as Jim and most rational Americans understand.

While half asleep, I listened to George Conway articulate that thought, adding that the only way courts have to enforce an order being disobeyed is to get the US Marshalls to drag in a non-compliant party. The US Marshalls aer part of the Justice Dept. Who here believes the US Marshalls are going to drag a Trump official into court and potentially prison for contempt of court????? They obviously will not if yo have been watching the first few weeks of the Trump 2.0 era unfold.

So...our Canadian friend may or may not be getting right what atrocities will be unfurled onto the American people, but it will not be because the rule of law stopped it. This is how dictatorships are established, when courts no longer can control the process of what is and isn't legal.

I'm re-iterating what I've said for years, but we are approaching the point I've feared most.

The alternative is to believe that the Military, Congress, the Courts, The DC police, the huge remaining administrative apparatus, and the voters will stand by while Trump ignores Supreme Court orders.   This sort of total collapse of government is not going to happen.   List the most egregious executive orders issued so far, and there are plenty of them, and I bet you that I can find a cite to the court case challenging each order and in many cases enjoining them while the judicial process grinds out.   I will not gloat then, but in four years you will see that the US government and the US voters have no apatite or tolerance for a wannabe dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

At the end of the day, when all is said and done by the courts, the ONLY mechanism the courts have to enforce their contempt of courts order is by an order to the marshals' service to arrest and or incarcerate the offender. All Trump has to do is have one of his lackeys, in this case AG Pam Bondi, order the DOJ to in turn order the marshals service not to take action. The aforementioned scenario is already been discussed by judges and legal experts on MSM.

That said, I expect Alito and Thomas to fully support Trump's position on executive action in essentially the same manner that the GOP in congress does.

I'm not going through a rehash of the immunity case again except to say we agree to disagree on it.

On edit: I'll add that the judges on the lower courts have generally ceded to Trump on the basis of his, for all practical purposes, blanket immunity on the cases he's faced...

And you really think the Army, The DC police, 50 state governors, the career employees in the US Marshall's service, the entirety of Congress, the Federal Judiciary, and the voters are just going to stand by twiddling their thumbs if/when Trump and Bondi provokes a constitutional crisis in this manner?   I don't believe you really think this.  Hardly.   Trump would back down and comply, while arguing that he won.  If he did not, he would be arrested, impeached and removed from office.   The Army, The DC police, the career employees in the US Marshall's service, Congress, the Federal Judiciary, and the voters are not all Trump hacks afraid to stand up to Bondi.

Incidentally, our last AG arguably manipulated and weaponized his authority upon demand by the President.  The Courts and the voters had the last word, didn't they?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'm not going through a rehash of the immunity case again except to say we agree to disagree on it.

On edit: I'll add that the judges on the lower courts have generally ceded to Trump on the basis of his, for all practical purposes, blanket immunity on the cases he's faced...

Hogwash.   Consider this, and feel free to rebut it if you desire, but I do not think it is rebuttable:

If the Supremes had gone the other way in the immunity case, and held the President "not immune" for official acts, then Trump and his AG could bring charges against Biden for his official acts.  One obvious example is Biden on day 1using executive orders (clearly an official act) to thwart/pause enforcement of existing immigration laws passed by Congress.  Thus opening the borders to a flood of illegal immigrants.   

Without immunity for official acts, I'd bet Biden would soon be facing charges for violating many immigration laws passed by Congress years ago.  Would you be OK with that?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'm not going through a rehash of the immunity case again except to say we agree to disagree on it.

On edit: I'll add that the judges on the lower courts have generally ceded to Trump on the basis of his, for all practical purposes, blanket immunity on the cases he's faced...

Hogwash time two.  Smith re-filed while arguably eliminating the "official acts" from the indictment.  There was plenty to prosecute in the "unofficial acts."  Trump would still be under serious criminal prosecution if the Ds had not fumbled the election.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'm not going through a rehash of the immunity case again except to say we agree to disagree on it.

Sorry, but I had to rehash it, and I think the immunity case is manna from heaven to all future and past presidents, especially Joe Biden.

I also want to rehash the Chevron doctrine case.   Because of that ruling, Trump's EPA (and any other Trump agency) does not have the benefit of a legal presumption that any act they take is within the scope of their authority.  On the contrary, there is no presumption of the validity of a disputed agency policy or action, and the resistance can litigate against Trump's agencies with a level playing field.  

Are you gonna tell me this is a bad thing?

You and all liberals ought to be sending thank you cards to Thomas, Alito, and Roberts (who wrote the opinion).

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

I am buoyed by your faith in the durability of your system.  I sure hope you are right...  

What, pray tell, is Vance on about in his questioning the legitimacy of courts denying the government's ability to act.?  Is he not advocating that the President should not be bound by the courts?

In this BBC article.....

According to the BBC article, Vance said:  "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."  This is absolutely true.  It is not controversial.  Legitimate power is the thing.   Obviously many litigants believe the Trump administration is exceeding its legitimate authority.  Hence the lawsuits.  I think those who are extrapolating this into a constitutional crises are premature.  They are presuming that Trump will disobey the Court if/when he loses in Court.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

It's not what I think, it's what the (retired) judges and legal pundits think that matters and given Trump's propensity to ignore the fundamental structure of our constitution and our government by way of anointing Musketeers to deconstruct the government and by virtue of his own SCOTUS-approved immunity as well as his shielding from the GOP congress specific to impeachment (or virtually anything else he does), he may very well order Bondi to order the Marshals service to not to engage in any court appointed enforcement proceedings on the issues.

Everyone is speculating that there will be a Constitutional Crisis, when Trump disobeys the Court.  Don't you guys know by now that This is Trumps MO?  Bluster mightily and then back down.  Do you also think he is going to be able relocate 2M Palestinians and re-develop Gaza as a resort?

This speculation is the same as the "end of democracy/Hitler" crap that contributed to the Ds defeat at the polls.

I am 99% confident that the system reins Trump in if/when he oversteps his authority.  https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jd-vances-tweet-is-no-crisis-law-courts-politics-2d807c79?st=3rwfpg

It's a little early to be bemoaning the fall of the Republic.