jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (27 posts)

Does Trump's Attack on Judge Robart Threaten Democracy?

  1. crankalicious profile image87
    crankaliciousposted 8 months ago

    After a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush overturned the immigration travel ban, President Trump tweeted:

    "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

    Isn't this a threat to our democracy? Our country was set up with a balance of power between the presidential, congressional, and judicial branches of government so that no one branch would have too much power. Attacking the legitimacy of judges is a very dangerous precedent. It's one thing to disagree with a ruling. It's quite another to begin attacking judges, especially those appointed with a 99-0 vote by a Republican president.

    It appears President Trump isn't interested in process. He wants compliance or else.

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

      I concur, thanks....

      1. Castlepaloma profile image28
        Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Democracy is finished.
        It's Trumpway or the hellway.

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is. It joins a growing list of them including attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    3. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      I don't really see it as an end to democracy. Just the beginning of a lot of legal wrangling back and forth.

      1. crankalicious profile image87
        crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I described it as a "threat".

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      It's a judge's job to er. . . judge whether something is legal or not (the clue is in the name). This judge determined that the case met the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order.

      The government believe he erred in judgement, so made an emergency request to the ninth circuit court of appeals to resume the ban. That request was denied.

      The government will now have to file legal papers and argue that the first judge erred in judgement. The outcome of that appeal is yet to be decided.

      Regardless of the outcome, judge Robart was doing his job. Would be helpful if this so-called president understood how the legal system works.

  2. Oztinato profile image83
    Oztinatoposted 8 months ago

    Yes of course. We are all seeing the attempted birthing of facism in America. The control of the press and the courts is now high on the agenda. Soon it will be an SS style mini army surrounding Donald. The executive orders will become "decrees" by a tyrant.

  3. profile image60
    Douglas Nicholasposted 8 months ago

    So, "one Judge" can overthrow our President's orders to keep out unsafe people that haven't gone through any background checks.
    What was once a country, built on these premises of being concerned with our safety.
    Has become, a nest egg for those "pitty party poor losers".
    Should always be a balance of power.
    But, one Federal Judge over the President is asinine.

    1. crankalicious profile image87
      crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The judicial branch exists to interpret the law. That's its function. This was a conservative judge too.

    2. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      "Unsafe" BS. Trumps creates a problem and presents himself as a savior. Kind of like a firefighting arsonist. As for his ban, Trump considers giving Christian refugees priority! At the same time Egypt and Saudi Araba (homeland of the 9/11 hijackers) we're NOT on the ban list because of business ties. Hmmmmm.

  4. cheaptrick profile image76
    cheaptrickposted 8 months ago

    I watched a doc on Trump;one of those compilations of past clips where he contradicts the hell out of himself and,to be honest,it frightened me a bit...a Lot!
    Considering the anger and hatred directed at the 1% for quite some time now,how is it a good thing to elect a member of the 1% president?
    Then I watched a doc (same as above) on the Clinton's and...It scared the Crap out of me too!"It's a Big Club...and you Aint in it!"~George Carlin~
    Now I understand the statement in this election..."there was no one to vote for"~Chomsky or Pilger~I'm not sure which.
    Choosing the 'Lesser' of two evils is Not a choice...it's like choosing the method of your execution...you still end up dead...so why are we beating each other up over this?

  5. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 8 months ago

    Odd, isn't it, that a judge can, without having any information at all, change the constitutional orders of a sitting president and it is not derided as the end of democracy, but let a President give constitutional orders that libs don't like and democracy immediately comes crashing down?

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Not odd at all. The president is not above the law. He is not a king. That's exactly why the founding fathers designed the system with three branches of government, and kept the powers of each separate. As long as there is an independent judiciary, the president can't be a dictator. Trump is currently putting that to the test.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I see.  The president is not above the law but a judge is.  Got it.

        Odd, isn't it, that of all the judges to date only one has made such a sweeping order?  And without, mind you, having access to national security information that Trump indicated in his order was the reason behind the order?  But the judge doesn't need that information to determine that it is not true and the specific verbiage in the law making it appropriate does not apply.

        Truly, this really does seem more legislating from the bench, and with a very decided party direction.  Trump is not King, but indicated the specific law under which the order was legal.  This judge did not bother to even respond to that - only to his personal opinion that people would be damaged...because Trump followed the law and must be stopped from doing that.

        While I supported the judicial order to allow those in transit in, along with permanent residents and citizens, this order goes so far beyond that that it doesn't make sense.  I cannot determine any legal excuse for it, and none was offered, leaving it to be a judge putting party politics above the law.

        1. crankalicious profile image87
          crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          The judge is a conservative Republican. And the question has nothing to do with the nature of the law itself, but in the criticism of the judicial branch and one specific judge, by the POTUS. You may not agree with the judge's decision, but that is the role of the judicial branch - to interpret the law. And this judge ruled that the order did not follow the law.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately, there has been no trial.  No arguments.  And no judicial decision.  Which is why the judge gave only a restraining order, comment that the order MAY not be legal; that plaintiffs MAY succeed in showing it was illegal.

            Be that as it may, I still question why only one judge has found it that way.  It's been looked over and over - why only one judge out of 10 or so?  Did the plaintiff present that much better a case or is the judge playing politics or legislating from the bench?

            1. crankalicious profile image87
              crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Again, not addressing the question. Trump has now tweeted in a way that singles out the judge and potentially puts his life in danger. I'm not interested in whether or not anyone thinks the order is legal (I personally think that if he wants to ban travel into the U.S., go ahead, but why not include Saudi Arabia and Turkey, among others? Why not just ban it altogether? There are plenty of violent people living in France). I'm asking a question about the President attacking the judge and whether or not it represents a threat to Democracy. I gather by your obfuscation your answer is no.

        2. Oztinato profile image83
          Oztinatoposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness
          Why are you an avowed atheist supporting an extreme religious fundamentalist?
          Have you no shame or reason?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Back on it, are we?  Didn't understand that religion does make right or wrong in non-religious, specific events or statements?

            You really need to shrug off that religious blanket that is blinding you so badly - religion really is not the be-all and end-all of human endeavor.  At best it is a temporary aberration in the ability or willingness to reason.

            1. Oztinato profile image83
              Oztinatoposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              You are blatantly obsfucating and simply refusing to answer a very obvious question. A hard core atheist supporting a hard core religious fundamentalist is terminal hypocrisy.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image28
                Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Atheist is a register American Religion in America why can't they do insane acts too,  along with the Christian right. About 90% of wars are Religious just ask your dog if it is OK to create genocide like GW Bush did.

                1. crankalicious profile image87
                  crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Atheism is not a religion.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image28
                    Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    You and I know that, but does the American Government know that.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, to those that put religion high on their priority list.  To those that couldn't care less what religion a person is, it isn't even on the radar screen.

                Is this really so difficult to understand?  That not everyone cares what religion Trump (or anyone else) is?

                1. Castlepaloma profile image28
                  Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Too bad an Atheist will never get into office, but who cares.

        3. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          It's not one judge. The government appealed the decision, and a panel of judges for the 9 the circuit upheld the courts ruling.

          In relation to where the judiciary fits into government, let the judge who made the ruling explain in his own words:

          "Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government.

          The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the Wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches. That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches.

          The work of the Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution.

          The narrow question the court is asked to consider today is whether it is appropriate to enter a TRO [temporary restraining order] against certain actions taken by the Executive in the context of this specific lawsuit.

          Although the question is narrow, the court is mindful of the considerable impact its order may have on the parties before it, the executive branch of our government, and the country’s citizens and residents.

          The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government. Accordingly, the court concludes that entry of the above-described TRO is necessary, and the States’ motion is therefore GRANTED"

          This judge is doing his job, and it's wrong for a sitting president to publicly criticize him. The appeals process exists for a reason. The appellate court upheld this judge's ruling.

 
working