Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America have all bad news, starting with a federal judge putting a hold on Pres. Trump’s immigration order without citing any law or constitutional provision and Trump’s subsequent tweets attacking the judicial system. We also blast Trump for his moral equivalence in dismissing Vladimir Putin as a killer by saying America’s done a lot of bad things too. And we discuss and debate whether the slower GOP strategy on Obamacare and tax reform is responsible leadership or letting a golden opportunity slip away.
Subscribe to Three Martini Lunch in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
The problem we have isn’t that trump is pointing it out, its that our judiciary really is fundamentally corrupt, and is in fact facing a legitimacy crisis.
This is the toxic brew inherently contained with the doctrine of judicial supremacy. It is a collective delusion that cannot survive the violence done to it by the judiciary itself.
Going the full baghdad bob on this issue does not stop the tanks from rolling into town.
The judiciary has become nothing more than a trump card in a nihilist game of power. We are worse off for it, but lying doesn’t make it not so.
This is further compounded because only one side really even believes that the judiciary should be about the law and not desirable outcomes, or that the law is anything other than a prop towards desirable ends. Since a trump card cannot exist without bilateral agreement to its nature, there is inconsistant incentive to treat it as anything otherwise, because it would be foolish to do so.
What Guruforhire says is correct. The second part is that you guys just admitted that the judge’s decision was not about the law or legality of the order in question. I say that the judge should be hit with personal lawsuits if anything untoward happens. He was going beyond his charge, and needs to be held to account. If a terrorist slips in right now from one of those countries and commits an act of murder or mayhem, the judge ought to be at least civilly, and perhaps criminally liable.
I wouldn’t go that far, but the guy due to this decision and others is a total whackadoodle and should not be a judge. At some point conservatives are going to have to nut up and start acting like there are 3 CO-equal branches of government, and not the pantomime to get your team into the ubergovernment.
The judge isn’t worried about liability – he has sovereign immunity.
Seawriter
And that should only apply when he follows the actual law.
It should, but it won’t. After all a judge has to rule on it.
Seawriter