Presidential abuse of legal system

1. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks ago

   "The Washington Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases — almost 35 percent."
   
   Nixon defied one subpoena and it led to his resignation. How is this situation different?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Comparing the Trump administration’s legal battles to Nixon’s defiance of a subpoena isn’t really fair, in my view.  They’re two very different situations. Nixon was refusing to cooperate with a criminal investigation during a major constitutional crisis. That was about outright breaking the law and trying to cover up wrongdoing, which eventually led to his resignation.
      
      What’s happening with Trump’s lawsuits is mostly about policy disagreements and the usual back-and-forth between the government and courts. It’s pretty normal for any administration to fight legal challenges when its policies are new or very controversial. When The Washington Post talks about “defying or frustrating court oversight,” it often means they’re using legal tactics to challenge court orders, not breaking laws.
      
      Focusing strictly on lawsuits or legal challenges brought against Trump’s administration during his second term (not personal or pre-presidential cases):
      
      Lawsuits involving Trump’s second term administration concern policy decisions, such as immigration, environmental regulations, or executive orders.
      
      Some cases allege the administration overstepped legal boundaries, but these are usually about government actions rather than personal wrongdoing, as with Nixon.
      
      Examples include challenges to immigration enforcement policies,  measures, or lawsuits regarding federal agency decisions.
      
      As far as public records show, there have been no lawsuits accusing Trump or his administration itself of criminal wrongdoing or illegal acts during the second term.
      
      Courts frequently rule on policy legality, but the administration defending its actions is typical of any presidency.
      
      So, while the administration faces many legal challenges, they revolve around policy and governance disputes, not accusations of Trump or his officials breaking laws personally during his second term.
      
      Also, courts have ruled both for and against Trump’s team, which shows the system is truly working, judges are weighing things fairly, and keeping things in check. Losing lawsuits doesn’t mean the administration was breaking the law like Nixon did.
      
      So, while it’s important to hold every president accountable, these lawsuits mostly reflect political and legal battles, not the kind of serious abuse of power we saw with Nixon. The courts seem to be managing the cases fairly, and Trump is being held in check just like many presidents before him have been throughout our history. I believe Trump faced a lot more lawsuits because of his bold, unconventional agenda and his efforts to overturn many existing policies. I think it’s safe to say we’ve never had a president bring forth such a bold agenda before.
      
      Interesting thread, I hope to see many join in....

      replyreport
      1. 86

         My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         You actually think Trump's abuse of the courts is "the usual back-and-forth between the government and courts."  In regards to this, Trump is like Pluto in our solar system - nobody is close, lol.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Every new Administration tries to 'reshape' government programs and policy.
      
      That is the point of elections... of changing who controls the government.
      
      The Progressive extremists, the indoctrinated by ideology, no longer understand this... or they do and just do not care... any 'change' they consider 'illegal' and unwanted.
      
      The courts have been injected with such extremists as well, that follow ideology over law and precedence.  We even have one such person in the Supreme Court, who does not practice law... she practices an ideological agenda.
      
      That so many cases are brought against The Trump Administration's decisions shows how far 'The Left' has fallen... they are the ones representing a threat to Democracy and the rule of Law.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Ken,   I think Trump is taking an approach with the courts that we haven’t really seen from past presidents. He’s not just reacting, he’s using the legal system proactively to reinforce and accelerate his America First agenda. It seems clear to me that this is a calculated strategy. By relying heavily on the judiciary, he’s making sure his moves are legally sound and protected from accusations of overreach. What’s interesting is how the endless lawsuits thrown at him are, in many cases, turning into tools he uses to strengthen his position. And the fact that he’s coming out ahead in many of the key rulings only reinforces that this tactic is working.
         
         I agree with your point. The courts have become heavily politicized, and some judges clearly prioritize ideology over the Constitution or precedent. But Trump has learned to navigate that system in a way that works to his advantage. He’s not bypassing the law—he’s using it as a foundation to push forward his America First agenda in a way that’s legally sound.
         
         A perfect example came in June 2025, when the Supreme Court paused a lower court order that had blocked his administration from deporting illegal immigrants to third-party countries. That ruling allowed Trump to immediately resume deportations under his expanded enforcement powers. It was a significant win that affirmed the executive branch’s authority and showed the legal groundwork behind his immigration policies is holding firm, even under intense opposition.
         
         Ironically, the more the left tries to use the legal system against him, the more it seems to reinforce his legitimacy. When the highest court upholds these decisions, it’s hard to argue that he’s the one undermining democracy. If anything, it reveals how far the left has drifted from respecting the rule of law when outcomes don’t go their way.
         
         I must add, it would seem odd that the left does not see or realize they are being well played...

         replyreport
         1. 86

            My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            ", he’s making sure his moves are legally sound and protected from accusations of overreach." - IF that were actually true, then no conservative judge would rule against him.
            
            In truth, of the Trump cases brought before conservative judges (most appointed by Trump), 72% ruled against Trump. That is only slightly better than his 80% loss in front of Democratic judges.
            
            Given those numbers, it is hard to argue that Trump is not trying to undermine democracy.

            replyreport
      2. 86

         My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         No, they actually do not. Consider, in the first 6 months, the number of EOs by president:
         
         Trump 2 -      171
         Biden -            64
         Trump 1 -        55
         Obama -         40
         Bush 2001 -    27
         Clinton -         20
         Bush 1989 -   16
         Regan -          25
         Carter -          33
         Ford -            25
         Nixon -          52
         Johnson -      30
         Kennedy -     35
         
         So, tell me again how every new administration tries to "reshape"?  I beg to differ.
         
         Your narrative about courts rings false since Trump injected as many extreme right-wing judges (many of whom have found against him) as Biden did with qualified judges.
         
         You got the sex and number wrong on the Justice. They are Male and there are Two.
         
         As to the Rule of Law, Trump has laid that in shambles.

         replyreport
2. 75

   tsmogposted 3 weeks ago

   Inspired along with some poking about and arrived with for reading pleasure, yet explains my position as commentary.
   
   A little background music if desired. Image is a live link.
   
   
   
   And, then comes along . . . State Litigation and AG Activity brought against the federal govenment from 1980 - Table is available
   https://attorneysgeneral.org/multistate … 0-present/
   
   Note: Right click open image in new tab to see enlarged image
   
   
   
   Reagan 1st term
   Reagan 2nd term
   HW Bush
   Clinton 1st term
   Clinton 2nd term
   W Bush 1st term
   W Bush 2nd term
   Obama 1st term
   Obama 2nd term
   Trump 1st term
   Biden
   Trump 2nd term (Present or you are here – updated May 25, 2025)
   
   Followed by . . .
   
   The Lawsuit Orchard: A Poetic Satirical Parable
   
   In the beginning, there were whispers—
   sixty seeds sown in solemn dirt,
   each a prayer in the language of litigation,
   watered by hope, fertilized by grievances.
   
   The trees grew slowly in Washington’s grove,
   bearing fruit shaped like subpoenas—
   tart, paper-skinned, nested with footnotes.
   
   Then came the season of Trumpet Vine and Legal Thorns.
   One hundred sixty sprouted overnight,
   blossoming lawsuits in fractal swarms,
   their petals quoting Article II and sighing
   under the weight of existential footnotes.
   Citizens climbed the trees to shout:
   "I sue, therefore I am!"
   
   The orchard bloomed wildly—absurdly—
   lawyers plucking documents like apples,
   biting into them with bleached grins and
   finding each one hollow. Still, they chewed.
   
   Then came the Elder of Delaware,
   promising fewer pesticides,
   but still—one hundred thirty more fruits arrived,
   each bearing strange tastes:
   one of misclassified meaning,
   another of democratic doubt.
   No longer prayers—now performance.
   
   Six moons into the Trumpet’s second coming,
   The orchestra responds,
   thirty fruits rolled in—smaller, but dense.
   Each thudded to the ground like
   metaphysical pomegranates
   ripe with the juice of partisan fermentation.
   
   Meanwhile, the People built altars
   to the Grove of Due Process,
   chanting existentialist hymns:
   "We are governed, therefore confused."
   "We file lawsuits to remember we are not algorithms."
   "Essence comes after election."
   
   And beyond the orchard,
   Totalitaria stood with iron soil and no trees.
   There, no one sued. No one filed. No one prayed.
   The silence wasn’t peace—it was preemptive essence:
   the people born already adjudicated.
   
   So they looked back to the Orchard of Absurdity,
   and wept—
   not because it made sense,
   but because it didn’t—and that
   was all the proof they needed.
   The Break of Dawn
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Is the poem from you? It was great!!

      replyreport
3. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks ago

   https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3en0 … eD-fhgnGUA
   
   Executive Orders
   
   Trump 385 in 4 years and 6 months
   Reagan 381 in 8 years

   replyreport
   1. 75

      tsmogposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Appreciate the article. Interesting!

      replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      That’s an interesting comparison, and it’s true that Trump signed a high number of executive orders in a relatively short period. But I think the raw number doesn’t tell the full story. What really sets Trump apart from other presidents, including Reagan, isn’t just how many executive orders he issued, but the boldness, intent, and immediate impact of many of them.
      
      For example, Trump used executive orders not only to reverse long-standing globalist policies and challenge bureaucratic norms, but also to follow through on the very ideologies he ran on. Issues like border security, trade reform, energy independence, and reducing federal overreach weren’t just talking points, they were central to his platform. So, many of his executive actions were attempts to deliver on promises in areas where he believed Congress or the federal bureaucracy was too slow or unwilling to act. His "America First" approach marked a sharp departure from previous bipartisan consensus, especially on foreign policy and international agreements. One of the most controversial examples was his executive order restricting travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, a move that sparked global headlines and legal challenges, but which stemmed directly from his campaign promise to prioritize national security.
      
      In the end, most of Trump’s executive orders weren’t just policy; they were a reflection of his campaign agenda, both in 2016 and again in 2024. Love them or hate them, they weren’t surprises; they were signatures of his promise to govern the way he campaigned.
      
      Also, consider how Trump’s executive orders often directly confronted the administrative state and courts, sparking legal challenges that highlighted just how disruptive or transformational his presidency was compared to others. Reagan, by contrast, while conservative, worked more within traditional institutional boundaries.
      
      Trump wasn't just issuing a lot of executive orders; he was using them to upend the status quo in a way we haven’t seen in modern times. That’s one major reason why many view his presidency as fundamentally different, not just in quantity, but in character and ambition.
      
      The article was interesting, I agree, and I’ve mentioned it here before: Trump is using the courts in a way I’ve never seen before to push his agenda forward quickly and strategically. In my view, this is a deliberate play. He sees the judiciary as a guiding force and is leaning on it to ensure that his actions are grounded in legal precedent, making it much harder to accuse him of breaking the law while pursuing his America First agenda. I think that should be pretty obvious at this point. Ironically, the more lawsuits they throw at him, the more he seems to use them to his advantage. And so far, he’s winning a good number of the important ones.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         What actually sets Trump apart from ALL other presidents is his Lawlessness. That is why so many Right-Wing Trump appointed judges had ruled against him.

         replyreport
   3. 86

      My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Of the 385 for Trump, 171 were in 2025. Who needs a Congress if you have got Trump?

      replyreport
4. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks ago

   "When the highest court upholds these decisions, it’s hard to argue that he’s the one undermining democracy. "
   
   When during his first term his cohorts broke every precedent to pack the Supreme Court with his minions, it's hard to argue that they all aren't undermining democracy.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      C'mon Kathleen - Presidents have used their position to put in SCOTUS judges with their own viewpoints for decades.  There was certainly no precedent broken.
      
      You want to complain about SCOTUS judges, complain when they rule from ideology, making new law, rather than interpreting the existing law to the best of their ability.
      
      True, while you will find examples of conservative judges pulling this stunt the large majority of such cases belongs to the liberal side of the equation.  It is the liberals, after all, that have repeatedly proclaimed that our Constitution was a "living document", subject to change at their whim.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         How close to an election are justices traditionally nominated? Garland had months. Barrett had weeks.
         
         Can you tell the difference between several months and a couple of weeks?
         
         Having the power to do something is not the same as doing the right thing.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            That's true, I forgot about McConnell breaking his own rule that he set with Garland in allowing Barrett to be nominated. Talk about killing Democracy.

            replyreport
      2. 86

         My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         But NEVER has the Senate Leader went to such lengths to stop a Democratic president from making a lawful appointment. That was shameful to the nth degree!

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Kathleen Cochranposted 11 days agoin reply to this

            Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
            
            Rogue Judges Contained
            
            How much power to stop the President should federal judges have?
            
            And when we can no longer find a trace of the land of the free and the home of the brave, these folks will be the first to ask: How the hell did this happen to us?

            replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      "When the highest court upholds these decisions, it’s hard to argue that he’s the one undermining democracy. "  Sharlee
      
      "When during his first term his cohorts broke every precedent to pack the Supreme Court with his minions, it's hard to argue that they all aren't undermining democracy." Kathleen   
      
      I see you have quoted me--- In this case, I feel the need to reply. With a few facts.
      
      President Trump didn’t undermine democracy by appointing Supreme Court justices. He fulfilled his constitutional duty exactly as every president before him has done: by nominating justices when vacancies occurred. Every one of those nominations, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, was confirmed by a MAJORITY in the Senate, which was controlled by the elected representatives of the people.
      
      If you're referring to the so-called “court packing,” that’s not an accurate use of the TERM. Court packing refers to expanding the number of justices to tip the ideological balance,  something Democrats have openly floated. Trump didn’t add seats. He simply filled them, per his duty..
      
      As for “breaking precedent,” let’s talk facts:
      
      Gorsuch replaced Scalia, and yes, Merrick Garland was blocked, but that was the Senate's decision, not Trump’s. And it was based on the Biden Rule from 1992, where then-Senator Biden said Supreme Court appointments shouldn't happen in an election year.
      
      Kavanaugh was confirmed after a highly publicized and deeply partisan process,  but again, through legal and constitutional channels.
      
      Barrett was nominated and confirmed in 2020,  the same year Democrats said it was illegitimate to do so. Yet historically, 8 out of 10 justices nominated in election years by a president whose party controlled the Senate were confirmed.
      
      You may not like the outcome, but that doesn’t make it undemocratic. In fact, it’s the definition of democracy: elected leaders using constitutional powers granted to them by the voters.
      
      So no — these justices aren’t “minions.” They’re judges with lifetime appointments who have, in fact, issued rulings Trump supporters haven’t always liked (see: SCOTUS upholding Obamacare in the past, or rejecting Trump’s post-election cases).
      
      Let’s not redefine democracy as “anything we agree with” and call everything else corruption.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         "8 out of 10 justices nominated in election years by a president whose party controlled the Senate were confirmed."
         
         Source?

         replyreport
      2. 86

         My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         I will agree with you that none of the Justices Trump appointed are "minions" and neither are most (but not all) of the judges he got put on the bench.
         
         That said, two of the Justices, Thomas and Alito, are driven purely by ideology. Following them up in a close 3rd is Gorsuch and possibly Jackson on the liberal side.. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett sometimes break ranks from their ideology.

         replyreport