Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Politix |
Rush: We're on the Verge of a Constitutional Crisis |
2017-03-18 |
[Rush] We are on the verge of a genuine constitutional crisis because of the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals opening the door for this Hawaii Obama-appointed judge to deny Trump’s travel ban the second time going, and I want to get into detail as to what this really means and what the left is really doing here. It’s not a legal dispute. This is, as I said yesterday, is a silent coup that is taking place that I’m sure has been strategized since before Trump was inaugurated. But the profound, devastating possibilities that result from this in terms of a president losing all constitutional -- do you realize with this judge’s ruling, I’ll tell you where this is going. Let’s say that Donald Trump decides at any time in the near future that he needs to deploy troops, and so he does, and so a leftist activist goes to a court, shops and finds a judge, like the guy in Hawaii, and claims that Trump said during the campaign that he was gonna do X Y, or Z, whatever, and the deployment of troops is not really for the stated purpose, and the judge could shut it down! This judge’s ruling has -- if the guy’s not stopped, if the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn this, or if Trump doesn’t just ignore it like Andrew Jackson did, then we’re getting to the point where the president, because of the judiciary, will have totally lost constitutional authority to defend the country because of this little ruling in Hawaii that was made possible by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And it’s all about this idiotic notion that a presidential candidate on the campaign trial making statements is the equivalent of an inaugurated president stating policy. |
Posted by:Besoeker |
#13 There are 124 judicial vacancies with one pending out of 890 authorized judgeships. According to the American Constitution Society: If any Senator objects to unanimous consent, then a cloture motion must be filed in order to end debate and move to a vote. Cloture motions for judicial and executive nominations require 51 votes to pass. If 51 Senators support cloture, the full Senate will vote on the nomination, with a majority required for confirmation. If fewer than 51 Senators support cloture, debate continues and a confirmation vote cannot occur. This is known as a filibuster. Prior to the November 2013 Senate rules change, all cloture motions required 60 votes to pass. Now, only cloture motions for legislation and nominees to the Supreme Court require 60 votes. Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge. It would be good to fill these ASAP. Congress has the power of the purse and Trump has veto power over pet projects going to Schumer's state should he be too much the obstructionist in these appointments. |
Posted by: JohnQC 2017-03-18 18:35 |
#12 Verge? We've had a judicial aristocracy for generations. Should have noticed back in the 80's with the Bork nomination. That's when they all should have been limited to 16 year terms. |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2017-03-18 18:22 |
#11 Snakes Chins7872, I like the way you think. |
Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-03-18 13:53 |
#10 If you want to hear a federal judge bitch up a storm, ask him whether the General Services Administration is treating him well. Not only does the judiciary not control an armored division, it basically can't buy a pencil sharpener without the cooperation and $$$ of the GSA. The GSA is clearly part of the executive branch. So instead of thinking about difficult projects like impeachment, think in terms of how Judge X's next request to the GSA is going to be handled. "Your law clerk's computer just crashed? We'll get someone out there right away -- here, I'll pencil you in for April 2025. We need to take care of all the starving immigrant children first. You're OK with that, aren't you?" |
Posted by: Snakes Chins7872 2017-03-18 13:02 |
#9 Trump may get his Andrew Jackson moment sooner than thought: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" |
Posted by: Frank G 2017-03-18 11:48 |
#8 Federal judges are making up law according to their personal beliefs, whims, political party and "cult of personality". Without strict interpretation and adherence to our Constitution it is easy to lose our way. |
Posted by: JohnQC 2017-03-18 08:07 |
#7 The judge declared his court to be a Global court, not a court of this nation and its constitution. Strip him of his US citizenship. |
Posted by: Glineger Thomoper8973 2017-03-18 03:56 |
#6 We had the same problem - activist judges, in Israel. Maybe your Sessions should talk with our Ayeled? |
Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-03-18 03:24 |
#5 Jerry Pournelle:I doubt that Ryan has the votes to impeach this Hawaiian judge, and given the Republican squishes as well as Democratic joy over the injunction, there are certainly not enough votes in the Senate to convict; but there are some Democrats who find the Courts’ interference in the political game rather alarming. |
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2017-03-18 02:04 |
#4 I need a program to keep track of all the constitutional crises the US is struggling with at the moment. |
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2017-03-18 01:12 |
#3 ![]() |
Posted by: Besoeker 2017-03-18 01:04 |
#2 Tangentially related: today the bust of former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roget B. Taney will be removed from the grounds of the Frederick MD City Hall in preparation for its relocation to a nearby cemetery. Taney wrote the infamous Dred Scott USSC decision, which was a major element leading up to the Civil War. |
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2017-03-18 01:02 |
#1 The most basic, most idiotic notion here is that the US courts should think they have anything legitimate whatsoever to say or do in the execution (executive, get it?) of US foreign policy. We didn't choose these black robed bozos to do that, and it's far past time to do something about them. |
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2017-03-18 00:44 |