‘This Is Worse’: Trump’s Judicial Defiance Veers Beyond the Autocrat Playbook

[Hume]

President Trump’s intensifying conflict with the federal courts is unusually aggressive compared with similar disputes in other countries, according to scholars. Unlike leaders who subverted or restructured the courts, Mr. Trump is acting as if judges were already too weak to constrain his power.

“We look at these comparative cases in the 21st century, like Hungary and Poland and Turkey. And in a lot of respects, this is worse,” he said. “These first two months have been much more aggressively authoritarian than almost any other comparable case I know of democratic backsliding.”

‘This Is Worse’: Trump’s Judicial Defiance Veers Beyond the Autocrat Playbook

The president’s escalating conflict with federal courts is even more aggressive than what happened in countries like Hungary and Turkey, experts say.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Hume]

“If even a dozen Republicans in Congress had the capacity to stand up to Trump, this would be a very different ballgame,” Mr. Levitsky said. “Trump and Musk and Stephen Miller could not do this alone. They’re doing it with the full cooperation of the majority party in Congress.”

“We’re in a bad place,” he said.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Since when do federal judges:

Run the military?
Decide US foreign policy?
Make funding and budget decisions?

Apparently the Left--Hume among them--with letting federal judges, unelected federal judges, run the country and the government.

 

[BartenderElite]

Since when do federal judges:

Run the military?
Decide US foreign policy?
Make funding and budget decisions?

Apparently the Left--Hume among them--with letting federal judges, unelected federal judges, run the country and the government.

The judicial system is what they call a "check" against the other branches. They're not "running" anything.

They're determining what is lawful & constitutional, and what isn't.

What you posted above is the Fox/admin/MAGA talking point on what they're doing.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The judicial system is what they call a "check" against the other branches. They're not "running" anything.

They're determining what is lawful & constitutional, and what isn't.

What you posted above is the Fox/admin/MAGA talking point on what they're doing.

Today, sure they are. You have judges making policy, both domestic and foreign. For example, one judge has ruled the military has to take trans people. That isn't the court's decision to make.

In another, judges are deciding what US foreign policy is vis a vie agencies like VOA and USAID.

Yet another judge is telling Trump he cannot deport foreign nationals who have been designated members of a terrorist group

What's next, a judge telling Trump he can't order airstrikes on the Houthi because the judge says so?

 

[BartenderElite]

Today, sure they are. You have judges making policy, both domestic and foreign. For example, one judge has ruled the military has to take trans people. That isn't the court's decision to make.

In another, judges are deciding what US foreign policy is vis a vie agencies like VOA and USAID.

Yet another judge is telling Trump he cannot deport foreign nationals who have been designated members of a terrorist group

What's next, a judge telling Trump he can't order airstrikes on the Houthi because the judge says so?

Hmmmmm....you sure about all of those stories? Are you characterizing those accurately?

And of course it's within the realm of the courts what kinds of rights people have under the constitution, and what rights they don't have.

It's admin propaganda that the courts have run amok. They're just doing their job, and keeping a power-hungry executive branch in check.

The founders were some smart dudes.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hmmmmm....you sure about all of those stories? Are you characterizing those accurately?

And of course it's within the realm of the courts what kinds of rights people have under the constitution, and what rights they don't have.

It's admin propaganda that the courts have run amok. They're just doing their job, and keeping a power-hungry executive branch in check.

The founders were some smart dudes.

Yes.

The courts are running amok. They've been doing it for a while now, but it's getting worse.

Remember gay marriage? 35 states put it to a vote on their ballots. The LGBTPDQRST bunch lost 35 times. They then shopped judges and got the elections overturned and gay marriage instated by judicial fiat. That's just one example of judicial overreach. The Right does it too, so it isn't a one-sided thing.

 

[BartenderElite]

Yes.

The courts are running amok. They've been doing it for a while now, but it's getting worse.

Remember gay marriage? 35 states put it to a vote on their ballots. The LGBTPDQRST bunch lost 35 times. They then shopped judges and got the elections overturned and gay marriage instated by judicial fiat. That's just one example of judicial overreach. The Right does it too, so it isn't a one-sided thing.

I remember - that's the court doing their job, also. Why are "the people" allowed to decide if "other people" have the same rights as they do?

That's constitutional. Equality is written into our constitution and the fabric of our nation. Someone's rights are subject to a vote? Not in America.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I remember - that's the court doing their job, also. Why are "the people" allowed to decide if "other people" have the same rights as they do?

That's constitutional. Equality is written into our constitution and the fabric of our nation. Someone's rights are subject to a vote? Not in America.

No, it isn't. The courts do NOT make law. They don't make national policy, nor do they make foreign policy. What you are claiming is the courts can and should do the job of Congress and legislatures. Gay marriage--marriage in general--is NOT a "right." It is something that the government decides by laws enacted by the legislative branch and approved by the executive. Judges have the limited role of weighing in on the legality of the act based on WRITTEN law. Judges cannot make rulings out of thin air.

When lowly district federal judges can and are setting national policy and in effect running the federal bureaucracy there is a huge problem. The courts are usurping the powers delegated to the legislative and executive branches of government. The US was never intended to be run by unelected judges and lawyers, but it is increasingly happening.

 

[BartenderElite]

No, it isn't. The courts do NOT make law. They don't make national policy, nor do they make foreign policy. What you are claiming is the courts can and should do the job of Congress and legislatures. Gay marriage--marriage in general--is NOT a "right." It is something that the government decides by laws enacted by the legislative branch and approved by the executive. Judges have the limited role of weighing in on the legality of the act based on WRITTEN law. Judges cannot make rulings out of thin air.

When lowly district federal judges can and are setting national policy and in effect running the federal bureaucracy there is a huge problem. The courts are usurping the powers delegated to the legislative and executive branches of government. The US was never intended to be run by unelected judges and lawyers, but it is increasingly happening.

Ah, okay.

So, I'm sure you'd have no issue if a blue state decided that anyone who voted for Trump cannot get married, and passed that on a referendum without any court challenge.

It's not about marriage being a "right." It's about equality under the law.

MAGA's no longer respect the Constitution. Trump's word is law now.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ah, okay.

So, I'm sure you'd have no issue if a blue state decided that anyone who voted for Trump cannot get married, and passed that on a referendum without any court challenge.

It's not about marriage being a "right." It's about equality under the law.

MAGA's no longer respect the Constitution. Trump's word is law now.

Trivial objections fallacy based on a non sequitur.

 

[BartenderElite]

Trivial objections fallacy based on a non sequitur.

Nope. A perfect analogy, which you could not address.

Nothing fallacious about it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nope. A perfect analogy, which you could not address.

No, you came up with a very narrowly defined scenario where you further defined parameters incorrectly such as what a "right" is.

Question: Do you have a right to a driver's license? How about a right to a college education?

 

[BartenderElite]

No, you came up with a very narrowly defined scenario where you further defined parameters incorrectly such as what a "right" is.

Question: Do you have a right to a driver's license? How about a right to a college education?

Now, those last 2 examples are fallacious.

We're talking about a basic human practice when it comes to marriage. Voting to ban gay people from that practice is the same as voting to ban Trump voters from that practice. It's just as arbitrary, and just as unconstitutional.

The courts are doing their job. You can't have your dictatorship just yet.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Now, those last 2 examples are fallacious.

We're talking about a basic human practice when it comes to marriage. Voting to ban gay people from that practice is the same as voting to ban Trump voters from that practice. It's just as arbitrary, and just as unconstitutional.

A question cannot be fallacious. The answer could be, but the question? No.

What's the purpose of marriage and the state's interest in it?

 

[Walt]

Make funding and budget decisions?

Congress passes the budget. The president executes the budget. The courts decide any disputes about the budget. trump is not an absolute dictator. he is still under checks and balances.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Congress passes the budget. The president executes the budget. The courts decide any disputes about the budget. trump is not an absolute dictator. he is still under checks and balances.

So? Since when does the court(s) decide how the budget is executed? That's the job of the executive branch, not the judicial.

 

[Walt]

Question: Do you have a right to a driver's license? How about a right to a college education?

The courts have found that you have the right to be judged about both, whether you are Black or white. Before, states were allowed to block Blacks from getting into college.

 

[Walt]

A question cannot be fallacious.

Was it the unicorns or the dragons who told you that?

 

[BartenderElite]

A question cannot be fallacious. The answer could be, but the question? No.

What's the purpose of marriage and the state's interest in it?

The state only has one interest in that area: equal treatment under the law.

If you didn't think they were good examples, why did you ask the question?