The exec branch is at war with the judiciary.

[Edgetho]

I really find it amazing that there are people like you who missed the whole point of 1776 and the ratification of the constitution in 1788. Let’s walk you through this, because what you’ve laid out isn’t just wrong, where 'just wrong' is a monumental understatement--it’s the kind of thinking that paves the road to authoritarianism.

First off, you claim the Judicial Branch isn’t co-equal. But that’s not up for debate--it’s Constitutional Law 101. Where in gawd's earth do you get such nonsense? The Constitution creates three branches--Legislative, Executive, and Judicial--with equal standing. The founders did this on purpose. Why? Because they feared exactly the kind of strongman presidency you seem to think is just fine. Hamilton made it crystal clear in Federalist 78: the judiciary exists specifically to act as a check on executive overreach.

You complain that judges are unelected--as if that disqualifies them. But that’s the point. Judges aren’t supposed to be politicians. They’re not supposed to pander to voters or bend to mob rule. Their job is to interpret the law independently, even when that means stopping the President of the United States. That’s not arrogance. That’s how the rule of law works in a constitutional republic.

You seem bothered by the idea that one judge can “stymie” a president elected by millions. But here’s the deal: the presidency is powerful--not absolute. We don’t live in a monarchy, and being elected doesn’t give a president the right to break the law. If it did, you wouldn’t have a democracy. You’d have a dictatorship with elections. They have that in Russia.

And now we get to the real heart of your argument--the threat. “The judiciary is picking a fight it can’t win.” “We’ll put their arrogant asses on the curb. Or worse.” That’s not patriotism. That’s fascism 101--threatening an independent judiciary with violence or removal because it dares to check the president’s power. You’re not defending liberty. You’re advocating the destruction of the one institution standing between this country and autocratic collapse.

You mock the idea of judicial review, but you’ve ignored every historical example, every political theory, and every warning sign. You don’t have a counterargument--you have a grievance, wrapped in populist rage and aimed straight at the Constitution.

Let me break it down plainly: If you think the president should be immune from judicial checks, you don’t believe in American democracy. You believe in a Caesar. And if you want to throw judges “on the curb” because they won’t bow to your guy, then you’re not the patriot in this conversation. You’re the threat.

You're showing us your Public School edumucashun now. The ONLY people who say the Judiciary is co-eqaual is -- The Judiciary.

The Constitution doesn't say it. Anywhere

The three branches may be equal in status only but not where it counts -- In power.

Here, read something other than the latest Marvel Comic Book for a change --

Project MUSE - The Myth of Coequal Branches

muse.jhu.edu

The idea that the three branches of U.S. government are equal in power is taught in classrooms, proclaimed by politicians, and referenced in the media. But, as David Siemers shows, that idea is a myth, neither intended by the Founders nor true in practice. Siemers explains how adherence to this myth normalizes a politics of gridlock, in which the action of any branch can be checked by the reaction of any other. The Founders, however, envisioned a separation of functions rather than a separation of powers.

Our Black-Robed activists are about to learn this simple fact the hard way. They have no power over Congress and, especially, over the Executive Branch. It's all bluster. Bluff.

If The Founders had intended for them to have the power you were taught they have by your Grade School Teacher, they woud have been given an enforcement arm. Instead, they have to ask the Executive Branch, nicely, to enforce their silly-assed decisions.

And the Executive is getting tired of their bullshit.

The Judiciary has overstepped its authority. Bigly. And if SCOTUS doesn't jerk their leash back, hard, the entire Judiciary, and our Republic, will suffer.

There is no way our Founders expected any one of 677 District Court assholes to have the power to block POTUS. No fucking way. That should be obvious even to someone as narcissistic as you

 

[Rumpole]

You're showing us your Public School edumucashun now. The ONLY people who say the Judiciary is co-eqaual is -- The Judiciary.

The Constitution doesn't say it. Anywhere

The three branches may be equal in status only but not where it counts -- In power.

Here, read something other than the latest Marvel Comic Book for a change --

Project MUSE - The Myth of Coequal Branches

muse.jhu.edu

The idea that the three branches of U.S. government are equal in power is taught in classrooms, proclaimed by politicians, and referenced in the media. But, as David Siemers shows, that idea is a myth, neither intended by the Founders nor true in practice. Siemers explains how adherence to this myth normalizes a politics of gridlock, in which the action of any branch can be checked by the reaction of any other. The Founders, however, envisioned a separation of functions rather than a separation of powers.

Our Black-Robed activists are about to learn this simple fact the hard way. They have no power over Congress and, especially, over the Executive Branch. It's all bluster. Bluff.

If The Founders had intended for them to have the power you were taught they have by your Grade School Teacher, they woud have been given an enforcement arm. Instead, they have to ask the Executive Branch, nicely, to enforce their silly-assed decisions.

And the Executive is getting tired of their bullshit.

The Judiciary has overstepped its authority. Bigly. And if SCOTUS doesn't jerk their leash back, hard, the entire Judiciary, and our Republic, will suffer.

There is no way our Founders expected any one of 677 District Court assholes to have the power to block POTUS. No fucking way. That should be obvious even to someone as narcissistic as you

To rebut scholarship requires commensurate scholarship -- a standard I am more than willing, and fully able, to meet. Below, I’ve taken the time to respond to your comment with care and intellectual rigor, donning the scholar’s hat rather than the commentator’s cap. I would hope you respond in kind.

To wit:

While Siemers raises a provocative argument -- that the Founders envisioned a separation of functions rather than co-equal powers -- it must be noted that his position stands largely alone in the halls of American constitutional discourse. The vast majority of constitutional scholars, jurists, educators, and political practitioners continue to affirm the idea of co-equal branches as a core principle of the American system. Well, such is my experience, and I do believe it's accurate.

This prevailing view is not the product of rote classroom repetition, as Siemers suggests, but arises from the constitutional structure itself, from Federalist 51, and from over two centuries of judicial precedent and political practice. It is the courts, not the classroom, that have treated the branches as co-equal -- each with independent constitutional authority and the power to check the others. The concept has been repeatedly affirmed not as dogma, but as function.

That Siemers finds himself in the minority does not invalidate his work, but it does place it in its proper perspective -- as a revisionist argument against a constitutional interpretation long treated as settled, both in theory and in practice.

Siemers is correct to observe that the phrase “co-equal branches” is not in the Constitution and that the Founders did not explicitly describe the three branches as equal in power. But this does not mean the concept is a myth in the way he frames it. His argument rests on a nuanced -- and in some ways revisionist -- interpretation: that the Founders sought not balanced power, but differentiated function.

It is true the Framers spoke more often of a separation of functions than of literal power equality. Legislative, executive, and judicial duties were indeed meant to be distinct. However, the structural design of the Constitution -- each branch with its own sources of legitimacy (election, appointment, confirmation), fixed terms, and defined constitutional powers -- necessarily results in inter-branch checks that only make sense if none is subordinate to another.

Moreover, what Siemers calls “gridlock” is, to others, deliberate constitutional friction. Madison in Federalist 51 didn’t lament this -- he designed it:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition... It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

This is not the architecture of a hierarchy; it is one of co-dependent, checked authority. And while it may not imply perfect equality of power in the operational sense -- Congress can declare war, the president can veto, the Court can strike laws -- it does imply co-equal legitimacy and independence under the Constitution.

Siemers’ critique highlights a tension: the difference between theory and practice. Yes, in practice, some branches accrue more power than others, depending on historical era or political conditions. But that variation does not prove the Constitution intended inequality -- only that it permits the ebb and flow of influence.

In short: Siemers is not wrong that “co-equal” is a simplification -- but simplifications often express truths. The three branches may not be symmetrical in power, but they are equal in constitutional standing, in independence, and in their role in preserving the republic. That is the sense in which the term “co-equal” has real, enduring meaning -- even if it isn’t carved in stone.

It is true that the Constitution does not contain the phrase “co-equal branches.” But neither does it contain the phrase “separation of powers,” nor “checks and balances.” Yet these concepts are universally acknowledged because they are inherent in the structure and design of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution divides governmental authority among three branches, each in its own article, each with distinct powers, limits, and mechanisms to check the others. This deliberate architecture assumes no supremacy of one over the others. Article I does not say Congress can override the judiciary. Article II does not say the president may ignore the courts. Article III does not say judges command the military. The absence of hierarchy in the document is not an omission -- it is the design.

James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, addressed this directly in Federalist No. 51, making clear that each branch must be "so far independent, that no branch should have an overruling influence over the others." He even notes the necessity for each branch to have "a will of its own." That is the doctrine of co-equality in all but name.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this interpretation in decisions such as Marbury v. Madison, United States v. Nixon, and Youngstown v. Sawyer, where it constrained the powers of one branch in favor of another -- not in a show of dominance, but in defense of constitutional balance.

So no, the words “co-equal branches” do not appear in the Constitution -- just as the word “democracy” does not. But both are embedded in its very framework. One may cling to textual literalism to deny the obvious, but the structure, the history, and the jurisprudence leave no room for doubt. The branches are equal in dignity and in constitutional design -- and that, as the courts and the Framers well knew, is the point.

The idea that the three branches of government -- legislative, executive, and judicial -- are co-equal comes from a combination of sources, none of which uses that exact term in the Constitution, but all of which reinforce the concept.

Here’s where the idea originates and is reinforced:

1. The U.S. Constitution itself
While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say the branches are “co-equal,” it establishes each branch in separate articles:

• Article I: Legislative (Congress)
• Article II: Executive (President)
• Article III: Judicial (Supreme Court and lower courts)

Each article lays out distinct powers and responsibilities, with no branch given authority to dominate the others.

2. The Federalist Papers
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote these essays to defend the Constitution. In Federalist No. 51, Madison emphasizes the need for “separate and distinct” departments of power, saying:

"In framing a government...you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

Madison argued that ambition must be made to counteract ambition, and that each branch must have the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.

3. Supreme Court rulings
Over time, the Court has affirmed the principle of co-equality in landmark cases:

• Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established judicial review, asserting the judiciary’s role as an equal interpreter of the Constitution.
• United States v. Nixon (1974): Rejected the idea of absolute executive privilege, affirming that no branch is above the law.
• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): Limited presidential power, reinforcing that the executive is not superior to Congress.

4. Political tradition and legal commentary
Legal scholars, presidents, and members of Congress have routinely referred to the three branches as “co-equal,” especially when defending their institutional authority. It has become a normative concept, meaning it's widely accepted even if not explicitly mandated.

So, while “co-equal branches” is not a constitutional phrase, it is a principle derived from the structure of the Constitution, argued in The Federalist Papers, and affirmed in case law and political tradition.

 

[Edgetho]

To rebut scholarship requires commensurate scholarship -- a standard I am more than willing, and fully able, to meet. Below, I’ve taken the time to respond to your comment with care and intellectual rigor, donning the scholar’s hat rather than the commentator’s cap. I would hope you respond in kind.

To wit:

While Siemers raises a provocative argument -- that the Founders envisioned a separation of functions rather than co-equal powers -- it must be noted that his position stands largely alone in the halls of American constitutional discourse. The vast majority of constitutional scholars, jurists, educators, and political practitioners continue to affirm the idea of co-equal branches as a core principle of the American system. Well, such is my experience, and I do believe it's accurate.

This prevailing view is not the product of rote classroom repetition, as Siemers suggests, but arises from the constitutional structure itself, from Federalist 51, and from over two centuries of judicial precedent and political practice. It is the courts, not the classroom, that have treated the branches as co-equal -- each with independent constitutional authority and the power to check the others. The concept has been repeatedly affirmed not as dogma, but as function.

That Siemers finds himself in the minority does not invalidate his work, but it does place it in its proper perspective -- as a revisionist argument against a constitutional interpretation long treated as settled, both in theory and in practice.

Siemers is correct to observe that the phrase “co-equal branches” is not in the Constitution and that the Founders did not explicitly describe the three branches as equal in power. But this does not mean the concept is a myth in the way he frames it. His argument rests on a nuanced -- and in some ways revisionist -- interpretation: that the Founders sought not balanced power, but differentiated function.

It is true the Framers spoke more often of a separation of functions than of literal power equality. Legislative, executive, and judicial duties were indeed meant to be distinct. However, the structural design of the Constitution -- each branch with its own sources of legitimacy (election, appointment, confirmation), fixed terms, and defined constitutional powers -- necessarily results in inter-branch checks that only make sense if none is subordinate to another.

Moreover, what Siemers calls “gridlock” is, to others, deliberate constitutional friction. Madison in Federalist 51 didn’t lament this -- he designed it:




This is not the architecture of a hierarchy; it is one of co-dependent, checked authority. And while it may not imply perfect equality of power in the operational sense -- Congress can declare war, the president can veto, the Court can strike laws -- it does imply co-equal legitimacy and independence under the Constitution.

Siemers’ critique highlights a tension: the difference between theory and practice. Yes, in practice, some branches accrue more power than others, depending on historical era or political conditions. But that variation does not prove the Constitution intended inequality -- only that it permits the ebb and flow of influence.

In short: Siemers is not wrong that “co-equal” is a simplification -- but simplifications often express truths. The three branches may not be symmetrical in power, but they are equal in constitutional standing, in independence, and in their role in preserving the republic. That is the sense in which the term “co-equal” has real, enduring meaning -- even if it isn’t carved in stone.

It is true that the Constitution does not contain the phrase “co-equal branches.” But neither does it contain the phrase “separation of powers,” nor “checks and balances.” Yet these concepts are universally acknowledged because they are inherent in the structure and design of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution divides governmental authority among three branches, each in its own article, each with distinct powers, limits, and mechanisms to check the others. This deliberate architecture assumes no supremacy of one over the others. Article I does not say Congress can override the judiciary. Article II does not say the president may ignore the courts. Article III does not say judges command the military. The absence of hierarchy in the document is not an omission -- it is the design.

James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, addressed this directly in Federalist No. 51, making clear that each branch must be "so far independent, that no branch should have an overruling influence over the others." He even notes the necessity for each branch to have "a will of its own." That is the doctrine of co-equality in all but name.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this interpretation in decisions such as Marbury v. Madison, United States v. Nixon, and Youngstown v. Sawyer, where it constrained the powers of one branch in favor of another -- not in a show of dominance, but in defense of constitutional balance.

So no, the words “co-equal branches” do not appear in the Constitution -- just as the word “democracy” does not. But both are embedded in its very framework. One may cling to textual literalism to deny the obvious, but the structure, the history, and the jurisprudence leave no room for doubt. The branches are equal in dignity and in constitutional design -- and that, as the courts and the Framers well knew, is the point.

The idea that the three branches of government -- legislative, executive, and judicial -- are co-equal comes from a combination of sources, none of which uses that exact term in the Constitution, but all of which reinforce the concept.

Here’s where the idea originates and is reinforced:

1. The U.S. Constitution itself
While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say the branches are “co-equal,” it establishes each branch in separate articles:

• Article I: Legislative (Congress)
• Article II: Executive (President)
• Article III: Judicial (Supreme Court and lower courts)

Each article lays out distinct powers and responsibilities, with no branch given authority to dominate the others.

2. The Federalist Papers
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote these essays to defend the Constitution. In Federalist No. 51, Madison emphasizes the need for “separate and distinct” departments of power, saying:



Madison argued that ambition must be made to counteract ambition, and that each branch must have the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.

3. Supreme Court rulings
Over time, the Court has affirmed the principle of co-equality in landmark cases:

• Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established judicial review, asserting the judiciary’s role as an equal interpreter of the Constitution.
• United States v. Nixon (1974): Rejected the idea of absolute executive privilege, affirming that no branch is above the law.
• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): Limited presidential power, reinforcing that the executive is not superior to Congress.

4. Political tradition and legal commentary
Legal scholars, presidents, and members of Congress have routinely referred to the three branches as “co-equal,” especially when defending their institutional authority. It has become a normative concept, meaning it's widely accepted even if not explicitly mandated.

So, while “co-equal branches” is not a constitutional phrase, it is a principle derived from the structure of the Constitution, argued in The Federalist Papers, and affirmed in case law and political tradition.

Again, you turn to the Judicial Branch awarding itself powers that just aren't there in the Constitution.

The only reason the other two branches pay any attention to the Judicial Branch is out of courtesy.

The Judicial is about to get snapped back. Hard.

The Branch least able to defend itself wants to pick a fight with The Executive? That proves their stupidity. They have NO power. None. Zero.

Congress can remove any and all of them through Impeachment, the Executive controls the Police Powers and the Military. But the Judicial Branch wants to pick a fight? With a sitting POTUS??

Stupidity. Tell us how any one of 677 District Courts Justices can stop POTUS in his tracks any time one of them feels like it.

Can they stop troop movements? Can they award themselves oversight of how Aircraft Carriers are deployed? Can they tell POTUS how to dress, what he can eat, where he can shit?

Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station

Politics

It's getting ridiculous. BTW, are you paying attention? Didja know how Howell and Boasberg have family involved in the Deep State Grift?

I doubt it. The Judicial Branch IS the Deep State. SCOTUS better do something.

While there is still a SCOTUS

 

[Rumpole]

Again, you turn to the Judicial Branch awarded itself powers that just aren't there in the Constitution.

The only reason the other two branches pay any attention to the Judicial Branch is out of courtesy.

The Judicial is about to get snapped back. Hard.

What you call “awarding itself powers” is in fact Marbury v. Madison (1803), a landmark case in which Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review -- the Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that violate it. This was not a power invented in a vacuum. It arose directly from Article III, which vests the judiciary with the authority to decide “all cases... arising under this Constitution.”

The idea that the other branches listen “out of courtesy” is historically inaccurate. They listen because the rule of law requires it -- and has, for over two centuries. The judiciary has invalidated executive orders, struck down acts of Congress, and clarified constitutional rights -- and those decisions are binding unless overturned by constitutional amendment or subsequent ruling.

If the judiciary were truly ignored at will, the implications would be severe: no branch could check another, and constitutional government would dissolve into raw power. That is not “snap back.” That is collapse. So whose side are you on? The Republic that embraces democracy? Or a republic that caters to dictatorial power?

 

[Edgetho]

What you call “awarding itself powers” is in fact Marbury v. Madison (1803), a landmark case in which Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review -- the Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that violate it. This was not a power invented in a vacuum. It arose directly from Article III, which vests the judiciary with the authority to decide “all cases... arising under this Constitution.”

The idea that the other branches listen “out of courtesy” is historically inaccurate. They listen because the rule of law requires it -- and has, for over two centuries. The judiciary has invalidated executive orders, struck down acts of Congress, and clarified constitutional rights -- and those decisions are binding unless overturned by constitutional amendment or subsequent ruling.

If the judiciary were truly ignored at will, the implications would be severe: no branch could check another, and constitutional government would dissolve into raw power. That is not “snap back.” That is collapse. So whose side are you on? The Republic that embraces democracy? Or a republic that caters to dictatorial power?

The Judiciary awards itself power and we just stood by and accepted it because, at that time, it served a purpose. It was necessary in a young Republic during those times.

The Judiciary has now overstepped its bounds. They have gone way past what the Founders intended.

Besides, even just a few years after Marbury, Andrew Jackson disregarded a SCOTUS ruling saying, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,"

The Trail of Tears ensued.

Courts get ignored all the time by the Executive. If SCOTUS wants to be ignored, all they need do is remain inactive. If they don't snap back these dimocrap scum, activist Judges (they are) then all they need to do is hide under their benches like they're doing now and watch as The People lose respect for them. When that happens, the other two branches can start ignoring them.

We're at a crossroads here and flowery debate isn't going to solve anything. Part of it was caused by the way Trump has been mistreated by Judges and persecutors for the last 9 years. They keep it up and the Federal Judiciary could lose its power of review. Not sure I'd like that, but it's headed there.

Why is this even a topic for discussion?

Because dimocrap scum activist Judges are giving themselves power they haven't been awarded by The People. And We The People take that shit kinda seriously. We fought a War over it. Two, if you consider 1812 a re-invasion by the Brits (it was).

I would warn the Judicial Branch -- "Tread lightly. You're on thin ice"

 

[Mashmont]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US


When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

Just six short month ago, the judiciary was 'broken'. The Supreme Court was 'broken'. Now it's all good. Shazam!

 

[Mac-7]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US


When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

No, the activist lib judges are at war with the executive branch

 

[Rumpole]

No, the activist lib judges are at war with the executive branch

No, they are just doing their job, trying to reign in exec exceeding the constitution and the law.

 

[Mac-7]

No, they are just doing their job, trying to reign in exec exceeding the constitution and the law.

You want to flood America with criminal foreign gangs

And having done that under biden, now you want to keep them here at all costs

If you cared as much about America as you do the foreign shit hole countries you would support what trump is trying to do

 

[BackAgain]

History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.

The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.

This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.

Why?

Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.

He is also attacking the press.

TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:

1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.

Trump is at war with both.

I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.

Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:

Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:

Viktor Orbán – Hungary

1. Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
   
   
2. Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
   
   
3. Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
   
   
4. Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
   
   
5. New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.

Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

• After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
• He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.

Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)

• Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
• Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.

Russia – Vladimir Putin

• Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
• High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
• Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.

Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu

• Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
• Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.

In each of these cases, the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula: delegitimize, then dominate.


Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US


When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.

Here’s what history and political science tell us:

• Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
  
  
• Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
  
  
• In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
  
  
• This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.

To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part: fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.

The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.

Recent U.S. Examples

1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:

• Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
• In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
• More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.

2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:

• GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
• Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
• Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.

3. Disregard for Rule of Law:

• Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
• He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
• His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.

What Political Theorists Warned

Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Revolution):

• Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
• She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
• She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.

Umberto Eco (Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:

• “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
• “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
• “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
• “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.

When a president or his allies attack judges, seek to defund or defang oversight, and promise retribution rather than due process, they are checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--even if they wrap it in the American flag.

So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:

• Normalized lawbreaking
• Escalating attacks on institutions
• A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances

If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:

1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).

Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.

Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.

Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.

Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.

This is what is at stake.

Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.

Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.

Would someone please wake up?

*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.

I looked up verbosity in a dictionary and saw a picture of Dumphole.

Good grief. Dumphole, you ponderous dickhead, if you imagine you have a point to make, you never do. Nobody reads your entire walls of words, anyway. Get to the fucking point someday. My God. Those poor wasted electrons.

In reality, of course, many in the judicial branch have declared war on the Executive Branch and, in the process, those judges have transgressed the Constitutional separation of powers.

 

[Rumpole]

You want to flood America with criminal foreign gangs

And having done that under biden, now you want to keep them here at all costs

If you cared as much about America as you do the foreign shit hole countries you would support what trump is trying to do

reread what I wrote:

 

[BluesLegend]

You want to flood America with criminal foreign gangs

And having done that under biden, now you want to keep them here at all costs

If you cared as much about America as you do the foreign shit hole countries you would support what trump is trying to do

If need be, we'll get the Judiciary straightened out in Trump's 3rd term. We have 8 years to IMPEACH these Dem shill judges.

 

[Mac-7]

If need be, we'll get the Judiciary straightened out in Trump's 3rd term. We have 8 years to IMPEACH these Dem shill judges.

There will be no third term for trump unless its under JD Vance

Vance is more than capable of carrying on the Trump revolution

 

[Mac-7]

reread what I wrote:

I did and it didnt change my opinion

You wrote:

“No, they are just doing their job, trying to reign in exec exceeding the constitution and the law.”

most of the decisions rendered by the partisan lib judges will be overturned by higher courts

Because the lawless democrat judges are wrong

 

[Rumpole]

I did and it didnt change my opinion

You wrote:

“No, they are just doing their job, trying to reign in exec exceeding the constitution and the law.”

most of the decisions rendered by the partisan lib judges will be overturned by higher courts

Because the lawless democrat judges are wrong

Well, you disagree. Care to offer something beyond a mere brush off? Like a path of reasoning, historical examples, anything to make your brush off more substantive. I stand by my opinion, which is on solid ground.

 

[Mac-7]

Well, you disagree. Care to offer something beyond a mere brush off? Like a path of reasoning, historical examples, anything to make your brush off more substantive. I stand by my opinion, which is on solid ground.

I’ll let the black robes fight it out since thats what they get paid for

We’ll see how many decisions of the partisan lib judges get overturned

I expect almost all of their decisions will not survive

 

[Rumpole]

I’ll let the black robes fight it out since thats what they get paid for

We’ll see how many decisions of the partisan lib judges get overturned

I expect almost all of their decisions will not survive

History is on my side. Some 60 TROs, injunctions, stays, have been upheld. When he tried to overturn elections in many states, some 60+ cases ruled against Trump and were upheld, and no, they are not all liberal judges, some even appointed by Trump. Trump is exceeding his authority considerably, and it's no wonder why he is failing in court.

Trump is obviously wrong in attacking judges. But he's correct about one thing. | Opinion

More than 15 nationwide injunctions have been issued to Trump's administration. The president is raising valid concern, hidden in outlandish posts.

www.usatoday.com

136. Setting the Record Straight on the Anti-Trump Injunctions

President Trump and his supporters are mounting increasingly noisy attacks on lower-court judges. But their claims combine shameless hypocrisy with shameful distortions of the facts.

www.stevevladeck.com

Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In election cases, Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump and allies, express skepticism

President Donald Trump’s campaign and those who support it have faced dozens of losses and skeptical judges, including some judges appointed by Trump.

www.abajournal.com

 

[Mac-7]

History is on my side. Some 60 TROs, injunctions, stays, have been upheld. When he tried to overturn elections in many states, some 60+ cases ruled against Trump and were upheld, and no, they are not all liberal judges, some even appointed by Trump. Trump is exceeding his authority considerably, and it's no wonder why he is failing in court.

Trump is obviously wrong in attacking judges. But he's correct about one thing. | Opinion

More than 15 nationwide injunctions have been issued to Trump's administration. The president is raising valid concern, hidden in outlandish posts.

www.usatoday.com

136. Setting the Record Straight on the Anti-Trump Injunctions

President Trump and his supporters are mounting increasingly noisy attacks on lower-court judges. But their claims combine shameless hypocrisy with shameful distortions of the facts.

www.stevevladeck.com

Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In election cases, Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump and allies, express skepticism

President Donald Trump’s campaign and those who support it have faced dozens of losses and skeptical judges, including some judges appointed by Trump.

www.abajournal.com

Well, you will just have to see who is right

Personally I think every judge that is overturned by a higher court should be kicked off the bench for being incompetent

 

[Rumpole]

Well, you will just have to see who is right

Personally I think every judge that is overturned by a higher court should be kicked off the bench for being incompetent

Congratulations, such a comment deserves an award for being the Zenith Of Ignorance.

It reads like the musings of a man who’s skimmed the Constitution the way a child skims a math textbook--just long enough to decide it's full of things he doesn’t like.

To demand the removal of every judge overturned on appeal is to confess a complete and dazzling lack of knowledge of how the judicial system works. It is not the job of a trial judge to guarantee agreement with appellate or supreme courts. It is the judge’s job to interpret law in good faith, based on precedent, evidence, and the unique circumstances of each case. Reversals do not mean incompetence. They mean that law, unlike dogma, is a living, breathing, and occasionally contested thing. Disagreement between courts is not dysfunction--it’s the architecture of a functioning legal system. If the Appellate courts were meant to rubber stamp the lower courts, well, they wouldn't be needed. If the judges on the lower courts were removed every time they were overruled, we'd have few judges left. It's either/or, you can't have both. You see, applying the technique 'Reductio Ad Absurdum' to your contention reveals it's flaw, though it wasn't necessary, it was rather obvious without applying the method to reveal it.

Some of the greatest legal minds in American history--Brandeis, Holmes, Marshall--were overturned. And often, those decisions later became guiding lights in jurisprudence. Reversal is part of the natural evolution of legal thought, not an indictment of intelligence or merit. Only someone utterly foreign to the concept of nuance could equate disagreement with failure.

The judicial system isn't a game of "gotcha." It's a deliberative process among coequal thinkers, often working with unclear statutes, conflicting precedents, and evolving social contexts. To fire every judge who dared to apply their judgment--and whose judgment was later revised--is to demand a judiciary of cowards, not scholars.

That idea isn't just anti-intellectual. It’s authoritarian. It comes from the same cracked moral compass that mistakes obedience for virtue and thinks the only good judge is one who never offends a mob’s gut feeling. What it truly reveals is a hostility to checks, balances, and thought itself. It's not a philosophy. It's a tantrum. And not a very original one at that.

 

[Leo123]

Our judicial branch has been contaminated with George Soros funding of far-left, Marxist, radical people. It's so obvious, just look at the latest ruling by Boasberg and his retraction. He is a hand-selected radical and just got shot down by SCOTUS. There are too many of these what I call, traitors, in our judicial system.