Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Congratulations! That one takes the cake for hogwash of the decade in the annals of the history of the astromart! YOU had posted in the past in regards to if there was any blame to be assigned for any of the lack of action in the federal cases against Trump, it out to be borne by Garland who is arguably the slowest and most feckless AG we've ever seen!

I was thinking of Garland's people's protection of the Bidens.  You are right that I think Smith should have moved sooner if he had a legitimate case.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"And you really think..."

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.

"Incidentally, our last AG arguably manipulated and weaponized his authority upon demand by the President."

Congratulations! That one takes the cake for hogwash of the decade in the annals of the history of the astromart! YOU had posted in the past in regards to if there was any blame to be assigned for any of the lack of action in the federal cases against Trump, it out to be borne by Garland who is arguably the slowest and most feckless AG we've ever seen!

Biden, himself, noted Garland was one of his biggest mistakes. He couldn't carry out a mission to weaponize the government even if he was authorized and ordered by Biden to do it! He's no Bill Barr!

By the way, I'm not sure I can sleep tonight unless you acknowledge the immunity decision protects Biden, and that the elimination of the Chevron doctrine enhances the position of all those litigants who think Trump and his agencies are overstepping their authority.   Yay 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.

I'm going to get snarky now.  

You are mixing immunity in with legitimate separation of powers questions.  Immunity applies only to criminal acts.  It is irrelevant to separation of powers and constitutional scope of authority questions.  

Also, you and your pundits are whining because Trump's "musketeers"  (clever, I like it) are chopping budgets and freezing funds.  Here is the deal.  The president has the authority to chop budgets and freeze funds.  That is his job.  Running the executive is definitely within the scope of executive authority.  If you and your pundits don't like Trump's approach, then win the damn election next time.   But spare us the "End of the Republic" foolishness.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

As I said, the courts will try, but fail. 

Potential Example:

The Supreme Court overturns the dismissal of Transgender soldiers. Trump says any common-sense interpretation of the constitution refutes that and orders SECDEF to not re-hire them. Hexeddeath agrees and reiterates Trumps policy as law. The court summons the DOJ to order Hexdeath in front of the court, and Trump tells DOJ to ignore this illegal order.

who do you think Pam Bondi is going to obey?

EDIT I’m not certain the Supreme Court wouldn’t find in favor of Trump on this specific example, but there will be PLENTY of cases where they will unanimously go against Trump IMO.

Hi Russ - this is indeed a bad example, because I doubt that firing the trans soldiers is outside the scope of Trump's authority.   The Court/Congress have not made the transgendered a protected class, so they are probably at-will employees.  By the way, I disagree with his decision, it is repugnant and hateful, and I think it is wrong.  We all must remember that the issue is whether or not a decision or policy exceeds Trump's executive authority, not whether the decision or policy is repugnant, hateful, or wrong.   

That said, you put your finger on the issue, as usual.  When the Supreme Court does, inevitably and unambiguously, find that Trump has implemented an agency policy that exceeds his constitutional authority, I think Trump will comply, or more likely "sort of" comply by making a change to the policy that may or may not be sufficient, probably causing more litigation.  (This happens all the time).  In the meantime the policy is often on hold.  I do not think Trump will provoke a Constitutional crisis by telling the Court to go to hell.  He might want to, but he does have advisors who understand the separation of powers.  I do not think the US Marshalls will support him if he does tell the Court to go to hell, no matter what Bondi and Trump say.  If the US Marshalls do not act to support the Court's ruling, I expect the Congress to impeach and convict Trump or Bondi.  Congress does not want unlimited executive authority.  Even the Trump supporters in Congress.

I don't think this will happen, but if the US Marshalls stand down, and if Congress allows Trump to render the Supreme Court and themselves irrelevant, then we have a genuine civil war grade Constitutional Crisis.   If Trump cancels future elections, then we have a dictatorship, and I do expect civil war.  If he does not cancel the elections, then I expect the freedom loving citizens of the United States to make Trump, Vance, and Congress pay biggly at the ballot box.  If the people roll over and accept dictatorship, then we got what we deserved.

I do not think it ever gets this far.   As you said, we will see.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I'm going to get snarky now.  

You are mixing immunity in with legitimate separation of powers questions.  Immunity applies only to criminal acts.  It is irrelevant to separation of powers and constitutional scope of authority questions.  

Also, you and your pundits are whining because Trump's "musketeers"  (clever, I like it) are chopping budgets and freezing funds.  Here is the deal.  The president has the authority to chop budgets and freeze funds.  That is his job.  Running the executive is definitely within the scope of executive authority.  If you and your pundits don't like Trump's approach, then win the damn election next time.   But spare us the "End of the Republic" foolishness.

Here is an example of a presumably Democrat, Clinton appointed judge lifting his initial injunction and allowing Trump to proceed with a policy the Federal Government's Employees Union despises.  Why?  Because the policy is indeed within his authority according to this judge.  No doubt there will be appeals.   In my view, if the Democrats are pissed that Trump is shrinking the government, then they should have won the election.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/12/judge-restores-president-trumps-buyouts-for-federal-employees/78479179007/

I think the premature "Constitutional Crisis" wailing fueled by speculation of what Trump "might" do, or fueled by a one-sided take on Vance's tweet is very harmful.  If Trump actually does provoke a Constitutional crisis, it would be nice if the voters did not look at the headlines and say "here the doomsayers go again...what is this, the 1000th time they wailed about Trump ending democracy?"   

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Trump will simply declare the order unconstitutional and half the country, and some in the media, will believe him and take up the cause. I actually do believe the courts will do the right thing. Unfortunately, they are toothless in the face of an executive branch unwilling to obey the court. 

we’ll see.

Russ, the bolded part is based upon double speculation.  I think the bit about an executive unwilling to obey the Court is premature.  Trump himself has proven by the entirety of the J6 riots all the way through to the pardons, that he would probably have no problem disobeying the Court.   We do not know how Bondi and the Rest of the justice department would act at all.   You will recall that Trump has been "disappointed" by his AG's independence in the past.   So, there is no reason yet to conclude the Courts are toothless, or that the executive branch will support Trump in genuine defiance of a Court order.

I'm probably repeating myself too much.   Sorry.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Jim, this is exactly what I am saying. Trump will defy the tyrannical overreach of the courts to save democracy.

even a broken clock is right twice-a-day. Good job, Richie!

Check out the WSJ article I linked to yesterday:  https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jd-vances-tweet-is-no-crisis-law-courts-politics-2d807c79?st=3rwfpg

It is the Court's job to curb themselves if they are inclined to overreach.   Historically they have been very good at it, and this conservative court is far less likely to meddle with the proper affairs of the Executive, Roe v. Wade style, than past liberal courts.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

What shall be done about the extra-constitutional presence of Musk? He is unelected, DOGE  is in no way official with no congressional backing. And yet, 'DOGE' is enacting all manner of closures and firings.   

We all saw the chilling scene the other day, where one guy, not any sort of legal law enforcement officer, blocked the doors of a Government office and refused to allow the dozens of workers to gain entry.  He was acting on Musk/Doge orders, no doubt.  

Dave

This is an excellent question, and is the question me and Russ have been fumbling around looking for.   I don't know the answer of course.  No doubt it is being litigated as we speak.   

One side will presume that Musk/DOGE is extra-constitutional, since he has not been elected or approved by Congress, and no statute passed by Congress created DOGE.   Could be that they are right.   

Although the other side will note that the vast majority of executive branch employees, consultants, and the like are not elected and are not approved, so they might be right.  No doubt Trump's team has found at least a semblance of authority for DOGE in some statute somewhere.  It is undeniable that the Executive has authority to spend it's budget, hire/fire executive employees and so on.

DOGE was created by executive order.  Here is an issue I bet is being litigated:  Was that order outside/within the scope of Trump's authority?  This is exactly the kind of issue ripe for a Supreme Court ruling, because other agencies have historically been created by statute.   Gimme a minute and I am going to do some googling.

Originally Posted by James Brown

This is an excellent question, and is the question me and Russ have been fumbling around looking for.   I don't know the answer of course.  No doubt it is being litigated as we speak.   

One side will presume that Musk/DOGE is extra-constitutional, since he has not been elected or approved by Congress, and no statute passed by Congress created DOGE.   Could be that they are right.   

Although the other side will note that the vast majority of executive branch employees, consultants, and the like are not elected and are not approved, so they might be right.  No doubt Trump's team has found at least a semblance of authority for DOGE in some statute somewhere.  It is undeniable that the Executive has authority to spend it's budget, hire/fire executive employees and so on.

DOGE was created by executive order.  Here is an issue I bet is being litigated:  Was that order outside/within the scope of Trump's authority?  This is exactly the kind of issue ripe for a Supreme Court ruling, because other agencies have historically been created by statute.   Gimme a minute and I am going to do some googling.

Well, that didn't take long.  There are at least three major lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of DOGE altogether and no doubt dozens or hundreds of lawsuits questioning specific DOGE actions.  Many suits were filed on Jan 20.  This lefty-biased source has a good summary:  https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-legal-challenges-to-elon-musks-doge-explained/

So this is a great set of cases for us to watch.  It raises all the constitutional issues one could ask for.   No doubt many of the cases will end up in a consolidated form before the Supreme Court soon enough.  Google shows dozens of opinion pieces on the left and right that support either side's arguments.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I think the immunity decision, besides being a bad one as well one as being solely brought forth before the court due to Trump's actions of which he escaped prosecution because of it, is an unnecessary one because no DOJ would prosecute an ex-president for the actions/examples that have been cited by conservative causes such as a president ordering the assassination of a terrorist abroad (ex Bin Laden).  

The immunity decision does, however, offer the protection from prosecution for presidents engaging in acts of malfeasance such as those by Trump or Nixon, with the latter likely not resigning under the umbrella of privileged communications while in office.

Trump did not escape prosecution because of the immunity decision.  Why would you say this?  Smith filed a revised post-immunity decision indictment, and there was lots of meat on the bones of that indictment.  Judge Merchan correctly ruled the immunity decision did not apply to the NY case, which is about the only thing that judge did right.  

Trump escaped prosecution because the Democrats fumbled the election, and now president Trump in effect said, "do not pursue that case against me."   This is his right, and I agree it is not justice.  You know what I would say next.