- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 1 day ago by .
-
Posts
-
With judges stopping trump from deporting criminals and closing down an agency that was started via an executive order I was wondering what CAN trump do that rogue judges can’t stop?
Since it is for the judges to say what the law is (as opposed to the Congress which makes law, and the Executive which carries them out), Trump can always appeal the decision to a higher court. These decisions are by District Court judges, and can be appealed to the Courts of Appeal and then the Supreme Court. Trump could also ask the Congress to change the law, though since he didn’t do all that well in the election he would need the support of at least some Democrats. Congress funds agencies, and the president spends the money – if Trump doesn’t like that he can ask the Congress to cancel the appropriation. Being accused of a crime is not grounds for deportation. If convicted, it is a routine matter for a court to issue a deportation order, which the executive is required to carry out (unless the president chooses to pardon the individual).
Trump could try to stage a putsch, assuming the military would support him (which isn’t likely). The last putsch in America was in the 1780s, over unpaid officers in the Continental Army, which General (at the time) George Washington put down by explaining that in America soldiers obey the civilians. There was a military coup supporting a political faction in England (which are the time included New England, and most of the mid-Atlantic states down to the Carolinas) in the mid-17th century, but that backfired and within a few years the entire government was forced to flee. Given the Trump barely won the last election against one of the worst possible candidates in history, and managed to lose seats in the House, it is unlikely that an attempt by Trump to abolish the Constitution and appoint himself Dictator would be successful.
The judge is “rogue” – he’s a Democrat, and if the Republicans did better in Congressional elections most of them wouldn’t be on the bench, but Trump badly messed in the elections in 2018 onwards by supporting unelectable candidates, which is why Joe Biden could appoint left wing ideologues to the judiciary.
End the filibuster.
Let Republicans modify half the laws on the books and legally destroy the corrupt government systems so much that it would be close to impossible to rebuild the nearly hundred year old system built since Franklin Roosevelt’s terrible “New Deal”, for at least another quarter to half a century, even after Democrats have another trifecta control (whenever that might be.)
And after the filibuster is gone, expand the judiciary by increasing the number of district judges fourfold and increasing the appeals circuits threefold (by adding new circuits and/or additional judges to the existing appeals circuits).
And appoint all those new judges to fill these new judgeships in rapid fire form in the Senate, by altering the parliamentary rules if necessary. Perhaps even expand the Supreme Court to twenty three judges.
I agree with akpuerma – there is a process here. WSJ analysis says that Supreme Court could – and should – address process issues when they go out of hand, by issuing their view of when district judges should be able to issue country-wide injunctions. So, savlanut.
Akuperma,
You forgot May 1861 when Lincoln declared Baltimore to be under Martial Law.
Chief Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney ruled only Congress can declare Martial Law & Lincoln’s order is null & void.
Lincoln ignored Taney’s ruling & used his army to occupy Baltimore & enforce Martial Law.ujm: anything one party can do, the other party can undo when they come to power. A really successful party can win five straight elections, but mostly we alternate. If you end the filibuster,the Democrats can pass their agenda, perhaps as early as 2029. Note how the Democrats dropped the filibuster so Obama could appoint left-wing judges, with the result that Trump got to give conservatives a majority on the Supreme Court. Checks and balances are good.
Kuvult – the civil war was not an attempt to change the government, but was an attempt by the elected state governments of some states to withdraw from the union. It was not an attempted putsch, which is no one was charged with treason. If you are suggesting that Trump should emulate Lincoln and declare the liberal democrats to be in rebellion, and at war with the United States, you end up suggesting a break-up of the United States, which would be very bad for the frum Jews since we almost all live in Blue states so if the US splits, we will lose the protections of federal law.
akuperma: The filibuster is anti-democratic. In a democracy a majority of the legislature should be able to pass laws without a minority having veto.
> The filibuster is anti-democratic. In a democracy a majority of the legislature should be able to pass laws without a minority having veto.
You see how greek culture crept into the yiddishe shtetl of Monsey! It took just 2000 something years.
Who said we are looking for democracy?! Surely, american founding fathers did not. History assimilated lessons of Greek direct democracy and even more stable Roman Republic and decided that democracy is unworkable – for centuries. Indeed, how could you expect uncultured masses to participate in deciding complex matters of the state. Better left to the experts, appointed by the King. The idea was looked upon again in 18th-19th century and it started working after a number of trials-and-errors that cost millions of lives. US as a far-away huge province had luxury to think a little bit and then practice a little, and worked out a system that slows down democracy to make it manageable. By now, some of these safeguards are weakened (senators are not elected by legislators, states lost lots of powers, politicians have more information about voters than voters about politicians…), so stop picking on remaining ones, like filibuster, independent courts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.