Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'This Is Not Normal': US Judge Denounces Trump's Attacks on Judiciary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'This Is Not Normal': US Judge Denounces Trump's Attacks on Judiciary

    'This Is Not Normal': US Judge Denounces Trump's Attacks on Judiciary

    "He seems to view the courts and the justice system as obstacles to be attacked and undermined, not as a co-equal branch to be respected even when he disagrees with its decisions,” U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in remarks Wednesday in Washington.
    A federal judge on Wednesday publicly denounced Donald Trump over his attacks on the judiciary, declaring that the president has undermined confidence in the legal system by impugning members of the federal bench and disparaging decisions against his administration.

    Senior Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, delivering the annual Judge Thomas A. Flannery Lecture in Washington, highlighted several examples from the past two years in which Trump assailed judges for ruling against his administration.

    Friedman bemoaned what he said was the growing belief that jurists reflexively decide cases in line with their political beliefs, and he said at least some of the blame for that trend rests with Trump.

    “We are in uncharted territory,” Friedman said, in an address trumpeting the importance of an independent judiciary.

    “We are witnessing a chief executive who criticizes virtually every judicial decision that doesn’t go his way and denigrates judges who rule against him, sometimes in very personal terms. He seems to view the courts and the justice system as obstacles to be attacked and undermined, not as a co-equal branch to be respected even when he disagrees with its decisions.”

    Later, he added: “This is not normal. And I mean that both in the colloquial sense and in the sense that this kind of personal attack on courts and individual judges violates all recognized democratic norms.”

    Friedman’s remarks, rare for a sitting trial judge, were met with a standing ovation inside the ceremonial courtroom of the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse. Many judges from the federal trial and appeals courts were in attendance, along with Trump appointees, including Jessie Liu, the top federal prosecutor in Washington, and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

  • #2
    I think that those who hope that they'll get their way if they just appoint enough judges, are going to be disappointed. Even the most partisan of judges consider their responsibilities to the Constitution and the rule of law.

    History has give us lots of cases where presidents were totally unprepared for decisions made by judges they appointed with judicial activism in mind.

    Comment


    • #3
      Barbarian hates Trump.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #4
        Stripe hates the Barbarian.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          Barbarian hates Trump.
          Do you love Trump or something, else what's with all the spamming? Barb has just outlined how things work.
          Well this is fun isn't it?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Barbarian hates Trump.
            Doesn't everybody?

            Originally posted by User Name View Post
            Stripe hates the Barbarian.
            Doesn't everybody?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
              [

              Friedman bemoaned what he said was the growing belief that jurists reflexively decide cases in line with their political beliefs, and he said at least some of the blame for that trend rests with Trump.
              It's good Friedman sees that other factors are indeed involved in the belief that politics and beliefs are very much to blame for poor judiciary decisions. We all have known this. Trump, not a nice guy, does call this correctly.
              My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
              Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
              Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
              Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
              No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
              Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

              ? Yep

              Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

              ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

              Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

              Comment


              • #8
                This is one of the healthiest things about Trump's presidency: where the judiciary is questioned.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Every would-be dictator follows the same script.
                  Attack minorities.
                  Attack the free press
                  Attack the courts

                  The first panders to the sewer-dwellers who hate the law.
                  The other two are the major obstacles to rule by decree

                  Trump is no different than any of the rest of them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                    Every would-be dictator follows the same script.
                    Attack minorities.
                    Attack the free press
                    Attack the courts

                    The first panders to the sewer-dwellers who hate the law.
                    The other two are the major obstacles to rule by decree

                    Trump is no different than any of the rest of them.
                    Except he didn't attack the minorities or the "free" press. Only the conscripted press. You know...the ones who are trying so hard to impeach the president (with Congress's help).

                    And he is attacking a judiciary that has in many cases made their own laws, contrary to the constitution, and contrary to precedent: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/...a-record-rate/

                    Even now, the Supreme Court is considering Trump's attempted reversal of DACA: a "policy" from the Obama administration. Whether you agree with Trump on DACA or not, if a previous president issues an executive order, the succeeding president has equal authority to discontinue it. That's what being president means, if anything at all. Otherwise we would all be still following George Washington's edicts.

                    But a federal judge has been granted absolutely NO authority to uphold a previous president's executive order over the objections of the current president. It is purely an executive function. So why is this even being considered in the Supreme Court? Because of lower court rulings that are making law outside of their jurisdiction.

                    From the New Yorker:
                    A team of lawyers from the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, along with several groups of daca recipients, advocates, universities, and multiple states nationwide, will argue that the President ended daca without properly considering the impact the decision would have on its seven hundred thousand recipients and their families—more than a million people in total. A federal statute called the Administrative Procedures Act requires the government to provide transparent and substantial reasons for adopting public policies, whereas the Trump Administration, these groups have argued, acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” way, a violation of the law.
                    Who's to say that the decision was made "without properly considering the impact"? Why would a judge be the one to decide that vs the president? But should the president be involved in setting law any more than the judiciary? No. That's Congress's job. And if that's Congress's job, then President Trump is merely reverting to the constitution by rescinding Obama's policy in this case.

                    I can see why judges would be perturbed when Trump does his venting, despite their being in the wrong in many cases, but nowhere does the constitution prevent a president from insulting or offending people.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Derf View Post

                      Except he didn't attack the minorities
                      Except for calling them "rapists and drug dealers with a few good people." More to the point, he attacked a judge who is a native-born American citizen, saying that he cannot be impartial "because he's a Mexican." Is it any wonder decent people detest him? There's more. Want to see more?

                      or the "free" press
                      From the very conservative National Review:
                      At his rally last night, President Trump referred to the press as “the enemy of the people.” He has done that frequently. “Enemy of the people” has a long, horrific pedigree, of course. You will find it in the French Terror. You find it again in the Soviet Terror. Thousands of people were executed as “enemies of the people.”

                      And who are “the people”? Members of your party? Anyone else? In today’s France, Marine Le Pen’s slogan is “Au nom du peuple,” “In the name of the people.” Which people?

                      It comes naturally to American conservatives to bash the press, or the “mainstream media,” which have been antagonistic to us over the years. But a free press is vital to democracy. It also distinguishes us from dictatorships.

                      Last year, Trump sat with Vladimir Putin, who pointed at reporters and said, “Are these the ones who insulted you?” The two leaders then had a good chuckle over that. Of course, reporters in Russia don’t insult Putin and stay safe for long.

                      Later in the year, Trump sat with Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. When reporters tried to ask Duterte about human-rights abuses, Duterte called them “spies.” This got a laugh out of Trump.

                      You could forgive Filipino journalists if they didn’t laugh. Duterte is a killer of them. He made the notorious statement, “Just because you’re a journalist, you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a (profanity).”

                      On to another
                      news story from yesterday, which tells of a remarkable event at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. It was a Tea for Trump, staged by Virginia Women for Trump, in honor of the president’s birthday. There was a fashion show, which included a woman modeling an Asian-style dress. The music that accompanied her was the North Korean national anthem, in honor of Trump’s new relationship with Kim Jong-un.

                      This is the sort of thing the Right would go nuts about, if Democrats committed the same act. And we would be well justified. How many years have I spent lampooning and decrying Che Guevara T-shirts, and other Commie chic?


                      North Korea is a brutal Communist regime, a gulag state. It is probably the worst, most torturous, most murderous state on earth. Some of its propaganda is musical propaganda, disgusting. I wrote a piece about this last year (here).

                      In a sense, conservatives have been asked to forget many things in recent years: the value of free markets, the need to reform entitlements, the importance of character in office . . . Must we shed our anti-Communism too? Heaven forbid.

                      https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...s-and-anthems/

                      Only the conscripted press.
                      No. He has criticized Fox somewhat, but nothing like the anger and frustration at the free press.

                      You know...the ones who are trying so hard to impeach the president (with Congress's help).
                      Actually, Judge Napolitano works for Fox. Thought you knew.

                      And he is attacking a judiciary that has in many cases made their own laws, contrary to the constitution
                      Turns out the courts get to say what's constitutional. That's their job. It must be frustrating. He appoints conservative judges, and they still enforce the Constitution, most of the time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                        Is it any wonder decent people detest him?
                        Don't pretend you're a decent person barbie- you're a dishonest partisan scumbag

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Derf View Post

                          Except he didn't attack the minorities or the "free" press. Only the conscripted press. You know...the ones who are trying so hard to impeach the president (with Congress's help).

                          And he is attacking a judiciary that has in many cases made their own laws, contrary to the constitution, and contrary to precedent: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/...a-record-rate/

                          Even now, the Supreme Court is considering Trump's attempted reversal of DACA: a "policy" from the Obama administration. Whether you agree with Trump on DACA or not, if a previous president issues an executive order, the succeeding president has equal authority to discontinue it. That's what being president means, if anything at all. Otherwise we would all be still following George Washington's edicts.

                          But a federal judge has been granted absolutely NO authority to uphold a previous president's executive order over the objections of the current president. It is purely an executive function. So why is this even being considered in the Supreme Court? Because of lower court rulings that are making law outside of their jurisdiction.

                          From the New Yorker:


                          Who's to say that the decision was made "without properly considering the impact"? Why would a judge be the one to decide that vs the president? But should the president be involved in setting law any more than the judiciary? No. That's Congress's job. And if that's Congress's job, then President Trump is merely reverting to the constitution by rescinding Obama's policy in this case.

                          I can see why judges would be perturbed when Trump does his venting, despite their being in the wrong in many cases, but nowhere does the constitution prevent a president from insulting or offending people.
                          Outstanding post, Derf

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post

                            Except for calling them "rapists and drug dealers with a few good people."
                            He called all minorities "rapists and drug dealers with a few good people"? I don't remember that.

                            More to the point, he attacked a judge who is a native-born American citizen, saying that he cannot be impartial "because he's a Mexican." Is it any wonder decent people detest him?
                            His style is not something I'm fond of, but it is at least worth considering that a person with Hispanic heritage might be more favorable to other Hispanics than a non-Hispanic might be. Obama surely considered the issue when appointing Sotomayor to the bench, even as other Hispanics might think they would receive some advantage from it. Surely Obama was saying "White judges on the bench won't be as equitable to Hispanics as to white people." Are you saying he shouldn't have done that?



                            Turns out the courts get to say what's constitutional. That's their job. It must be frustrating. He appoints conservative judges, and they still enforce the Constitution, most of the time.
                            No, the Constitution says what is constitutional, and only the constitution can. The judges are to apply the constitution, as well as other laws properly approved by Congress and the President, to the cases that come before them. If there is a conflict between laws, the judiciary rightly should be deciding which one takes precedence.

                            That is NOT what is happening when a judge rules against a president rescinding a previous president's executive order. The effect is an executive order that originates from the judicial branch. I hope you see the incongruity in that statement (I underlined the important words in case you missed them).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Derf View Post
                              He called all minorities "rapists and drug dealers with a few good people"? I don't remember that.
                              He called Mexican immigrants "rapist and drug dealers with a few good people." It's his way of bonding with his base. As Lindsey Graham said:
                              "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," Graham continued. "He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represents the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for. ... He's the ISIL man of the year."


                              His style is not something I'm fond of
                              That's what Churchill said about Benito Mussolini.

                              but it is at least worth considering that a person with Hispanic heritage might be more favorable to other Hispanics than a non-Hispanic might be.
                              Whereas it would be offensive for anyone to suggest that an Anglo judge might be more favorable to other Anglos? I get it.

                              Obama surely considered the issue when appointing Sotomayor to the bench,
                              She's not black, Derf. Or did you think Obama was Hispanic? Or is it "whites and all those other people?"

                              No, the Constitution says what is constitutional
                              The Constitution doesn't say anything. It's words on paper. The federal judiciary is the final authority on what it says.

                              The judges are to apply the constitution,
                              Which is what gripes Trump no end. He's not used to having to play by the rules.

                              That is NOT what is happening when a judge rules against a president rescinding a previous president's executive order.
                              You can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. But then it ends.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X