Saturday, February 04, 2017


It's called "rule of law".  Maybe you should get some of the lawyers in the DOJ to explain it to you?  

When did the POTUS become the Fearmonger-in-Chief?  Who elected that?

The rule of law?  It goes something like this:

The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the Wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches. That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches. The work of the Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution. …

[T]he court is mindful of the considerable impact its order may have on the parties before it, the executive branch of our government, and the country’s citizens and residents. The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government.

“The President's attack on Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee who passed with 99 votes, shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the Constitution, making it more important that the Supreme Court serve as an independent check on the administration," Schumer said in a Saturday statement.

“With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process," the minority leader added.
Which, by the way, raises this interesting question:

Will that be before, or after, the Super Bowl?

Again there's that pesky problem of the "rule of law":

“You’re here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the U.S. from these individuals coming from these countries,” [Judge] Robart said, “and there’s no support for that.” 

Lawyers call that the "rational basis test."  Fail it, and you pretty much can't issue a governmental edict.

Can we start with you?

Nothin' but good times ahead!

Update:  at 6:48 p.m. Twitter time:

The boy can't help himself.  Who, then, is going to help us?  At some point somebody else in the DOJ has to refuse to represent this clown's opinions in a court of law.

And yes, that's 9 tweets on the subject, and it isn't Sunday yet.


  1. I'm looking forward to a Democrat asking Gorsuch about his past statements on the delay in Garland being confirmed for the federal judgeship and whether or not he condemns the Republicans for obstructing a Supreme Court nominee.

    If I were on the commitee I'd tell him that I would find evasive non-answers and refusal to answer questions to be disqualifying. I'm tired of them getting away with pretending they don't know how they would vote on specific issues when everyone in the room knows how they will vote if confirmed.

    Trump may make it inevitable that he will have to be removed from office. I wonder where the American version of Elba would be.

  2. As far as I'm concerned, these tweets alone belie his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

    40% of the country wants to see him impeached. I think that's a low number, now.

  3. What is our country coming to when a man with bad intentions can lose the popular vote by nearly 3 million and still be elected so-called president of the US?