I see a collision of wills happening with the District Courts grabbing executive power. At this point, the President is in two critical struggles that will define his success, replacing OCare and getting the tax system fixed. He cannot ignite a media storm about judicial fights while they are underway.
Sad as it may by, I believe the strategy is the following:
- Wait for the SCOTUS nominee to get on the court
- Slow walk the appeals until then
- Hope no incident of terror or heinous crime occurs in the meantime by a refugee or visa holder from one of the countries in the order
- Maintain the rallies and label the judges as overreaching
If there is an incident , I expect he will either declare the rulings have no foundation in law or find a friendly judge to remove the stays on the grounds of overreach. With blood on the ground, he will have the cover to act and knock the judiciary back for years.
Sad day those are the options, but I believe his opponents give no choice. I do believe they are trying to provoke him to react without the cover of an incident to split the GOP from him.
https://youtu.be/0S13mP_pfEc
“He cannot ignite a media storm about judicial fights while they are underway.”
This may sound a tad ingenuous, but pourquoi pas?
Donald Trump has broken every single political rule on the books as of yet and won the fight. He even has Charles Krauthammer confused and that is a remarkable accomplishment indeed.
“This may sound a tad ingenuous, but pourquoi pas?”
At the risk of merely repeating what I just said in another thread, or essentially what TKC said in his last sentence- I think the gop establishment is itching for a way to get rid of Trump.
If he ignores a judicial decree, they can plausibly say that Trump is a dangerous tyrant, etc, etc, etc.
I wouldn’t agree nor would most Trump voters- but that would be a nice fig leaf for an impeachment.
In my view Trump is being wise to let the insane ruling stand, while appealing it. It seems so off base that it is indefensible both politically and legally, but yet the obvious fact that it was issued is a sign that the left is attempting to goad Trump into making a catastrophic mistake.
This is a sign of desperation, I think. I read elsewhere that this 43-page ruling was shat out only hours after the case was filed, plainly indicating a setup- especially since Barry also made a supposedly surprise visit to Hawaii just before.
Thus, considering that it is rather obviously legally indefensible, I think the goal here was to get Trump to defy it, resulting in the gop and the left uniting to impeach him.
It doesn’t appear to have worked. Advantage Trump, once again.
I agree with Xennady and TKC1101.
Trump’s best course is to assign a solid legal team to the appeals, complain about the baselessness of the rulings, which are clearly grounded in emotions and not in law, and then focus on getting the rest of Team Trump in place.
Years ago there was a cartoonist, Gahan Wilson I think was his name, who drew cartoons where animals were sentient and kept that idea from humans. One such cartoon showed a group of bears collected about this one bear, who had a target on his back. The caption was, “Bummer of a birthmark!”
In some ways that seems what the Left is doing. They have gone about putting a target on their backs. And unlike republicans of yesteryear, Trump WILL call them out on it.
I am hardly any expert on Jackson. However, 2 things about him strike me.
– He had Martin Van Buren as his consiglieri. Martin was one of THE great political tacticians. Not sure Kellyanne is in the same league, although her engineering of Trump’s election WAS impressive.
– People kept underestimating Jackson. Look at the events with the 2nd National Bank. The opposition brought up the renewal of charter thinking Jackson could not possibly veto it and win his next election. He did and he did. The episode with the SCOTUS – where his actions were overruled by the court. He just disregarded the ruling.
Now, in that vein, ?what are we missing. There is speech of “impeachment” but that would be a BIG step in a circumstance where the courts have overstepped their boundaries. You can speak of a constitutional crisis, but it well could be one where the courts lose power and position. All the evidence is against them, including the very beginning – granting status to states in this debate.
Let’s take that one step further. The Left has engaged in violent “demonstrations”. ?Could we see the same from the Right if Trump were impeached over this. ?Are people on the right ready to physically fight.
We are, generally, more orderly AND more peaceful. But consider the possibility of trucking in violent “demonstrators” into, say, NYC, and then attacking the officer of Schummer. Taking down the broadcast facilities of Communist News Network.
I don’t consider these probable, but I do consider them possible. People are fed up, and those are the times to stir men to combat. Remember, the Revolution didn’t occur overnight; it was a series of bad choices by England – AND the fanning of the flames by Massachusetts.
“Thus, considering that it is rather obviously legally indefensible, I think the goal here was to get Trump to defy it, resulting in the gop and the left uniting to impeach him.
It doesn’t appear to have worked. Advantage Trump, once again.”
Isn’t that what I said or least implied?
“Isn’t that what I said or least implied?”
I took your comment to mean that Trump should simply ignore the court decree, which was apparently incorrect.
Sorry for my lack of clarification but I do know that Trump has no history of “ignoring” anything; he goes after his enemies with not only vehemence but facts and precedences.
He’s smarter and shrewder and far more fearless than everybody in D.C. He may not be able to overcome the behemoth, but if I was “a betting man,” I’d place odds on him.
He has the American public (whether the polls and MSM care to admit it or not) behind him. That is real power.
To put it in even simpler, everyday terms, my electrician (also a vet) told me today he’d work to defeat any legislative candidate in the near future who defies Trump policy.
“To put it in even simpler, everyday terms, my electrician (also a vet) told me today he’d work to defeat any legislative candidate in the near future who defies Trump policy.”
I’m on the same page as that guy, and I expect nearly all people who voted for Trump are too.
I also expect this terrifies the gop- and the left, but eff them. I think the gop establishment wants a public that views politics as boring and impersonal, so far above their head that no one will imagine they can or should take more of a personal interest than to pick between two bad options on election day.
People like Trump- or Reagan- who inspire the proles to show up at rallies or form a personal connection with the candidate or to vote in surprising ways can potentially cause them to lose control.
Long ago, when I watched Reagan win in 1980- the states he won were shown as blue, by the way- I never imagined that the party leadership was striving to make him lose. Now, in light of later experience, I don’t doubt it. Anyone think John Anderson thought he’d be the next president?
I don’t. But pardon my rambling.
I’d be happy to pardon your rambling because it is so unusually rational. (Now that’s a word we haven’t been hearing lately.)
I have faith in the Donald (I feel so affectionately towards him, I’m finding it to difficult to give up my pet name for him) and believe he will resolve many issues sooner than later.
This is what I can’t forgive:
I was having so much fun with politics for the first time in years and now I’m back to feelings of disgust and disdain towards the obstructionists. You know, this stress could have some serious implications on my health; any attorney on this site think I may have a legitimate suit? :))
“I’d be happy to pardon your rambling because it is so unusually rational.”
I sure try, so thanks for that. And I must say that I have fond memories of debating the virtues of Mitt Romney with you, circa 2012. For what it’s worth, you Romney fans succeeded in convincing me that I could vote for him.
I also recall that you were an early Trump supporter at the bad place- then you were gone. Much later, I found out that you had been banned. As a paying customer of the site, I was both surprised and not pleased.
None of my business, but I thought then and now that they went after you because of your support of Trump, which made my departure from the site easier.
Shrug. More rambling, about water under that proverbial bridge.
“There is speech of “impeachment” but that would be a BIG step in a circumstance where the courts have overstepped their boundaries. You can speak of a constitutional crisis, but it well could be one where the courts lose power and position.”
True. But I think these folks- the left and the gop establishment- need Trump gone sooner rather than later, by any means necessary. If we get a Constitutional crisis and a spot of violence from die-hard Trump supporters, so be it.
If Trump remains in office, they lose- and they know it. But Trump has done nothing that will give them anything like any sort of plausible excuse to remove him.
Hence, I take this bizarre ruling as an attempt to goad him into giving them an excuse for impeachment. I wouldn’t be surprised if the articles of impeachment were already written, needing only a few details to be filled in later. Then, when given the excuse, they’ll move as quickly as possible, with the idea of presenting the country with a fait accompli, removing Trump before his supporters could mobilize.
Now I obviously can’t claim to know the future and I don’t know how this would play out in actual practice, either. But I reiterate my view that these people are desperate, which leads them to take long and stupid chances.
But its moot, because Trump hasn’t taken the bait. Advantage- you know.
The corrupt federal judiciary must be broken.
But they are appointed so we have to fix the executive branch that nominates them and the legislative branch that confirms them. These judges do not appear from nowhere.
Yep. End lifetime appointments and restrict the power of judicial review.
***