Apparently one judge went rogue against the so-called President, Spicer says

[Anonymous]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sean-spicer-judge-who-blocked-immigration-order-went-rogue

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday that a federal judge went "rogue" by blocking President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration.

"I think you have one judge," Spicer told Fox News' Brian Kilmeade. "The law is very clear that the President has broad powers to keep this country safe and limit access to people that could come in to this country and do us harm."

He argued that Trump's order was a "very legal, constitutional" use of his power to ensure national security.

"And it's somewhat sad to see a judge go rogue like this," Spicer said. "It's a shame that we're not focused more on making sure that we are applauding the decision by the President to make a renewed focus on keeping this country safe."

Interesting take from the Trump and his press secretary. They feel that everyone owes them something to agree with anything that the Orange wants. Its an amazing time when President of the country publicly starts a war-of-words with federal judges.

[jsteele]

Given the normally understood definition of "rogue", the only judge who went rogue was the one in Boston who supported the ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He argued that Trump's order was a "very legal, constitutional" use of his power to ensure national security.

I know this isn't news anymore, but it's funny how the WH thinks they are the arbiters of what is legal and constitutional.

I increasingly believe that if Trump remains in office, the DoJ will at some point mount a challenge to Marbury v. Madison.

[Anonymous]

More lies. Take it to the Supreme Court, Cowards, if you are so sure the EO is constitutional.

[Anonymous]

More bashing of the judiciary to undermine its credibility. Another day, another kick in the head to the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Was there an imminent threat to national security???? That's what I would like them to answer.

[Anonymous]

Does Spicer (and Trump) not understand that the Judiciary is a separate and independent branch from the presidency? In order to "go rogue" a judge would have to be under some kind of line of authority from the President. Thankfully, judges are not.

This is Separation of Powers 101 that any 9th or 10th grade high school student who has taken the required government class would know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does Spicer (and Trump) not understand that the Judiciary is a separate and independent branch from the presidency? In order to "go rogue" a judge would have to be under some kind of line of authority from the President. Thankfully, judges are not.

This is Separation of Powers 101 that any 9th or 10th grade high school student who has taken the required government class would know.

I am not sure where Trump has no clue about Constitution or simply does not care. However, either is frightening. Mr. Khan was right, he needs a pocket book constitution.

[Anonymous]

And that they continue to castigate this particular judge, as if he did something wrong, puts him in actual threat from the crazy second amendmenters who might want to self-investigate.

[Anonymous]

There are reasonable grounds for arguing that, on the merits, the WH should prevail -- at least in part. There will be two votes against upholding and two votes for finding unconstitutional in the Supreme Court. What Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer, and Kagan do is hard to say. Gorsuch won't be confirmed for awhile. When a political actor disagrees with a judicial decision--as the Obama Administration did about the DACA ruling--you keep quiet except for brief statements and let your arguments do your talking. But ths current group is loud, dumb, and stubborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Spicer (and Trump) not understand that the Judiciary is a separate and independent branch from the presidency? In order to "go rogue" a judge would have to be under some kind of line of authority from the President. Thankfully, judges are not.

This is Separation of Powers 101 that any 9th or 10th grade high school student who has taken the required government class would know.

I am not sure where Trump has no clue about Constitution or simply does not care. However, either is frightening. Mr. Khan was right, he needs a pocket book constitution.

I think it's called a pocket Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Spicer (and Trump) not understand that the Judiciary is a separate and independent branch from the presidency? In order to "go rogue" a judge would have to be under some kind of line of authority from the President. Thankfully, judges are not.

This is Separation of Powers 101 that any 9th or 10th grade high school student who has taken the required government class would know.

I am not sure where Trump has no clue about Constitution or simply does not care. However, either is frightening. Mr. Khan was right, he needs a pocket book constitution.

It's both. He thinks he is the arbiter of the Constitution and doesn't care if the document itself or anyone else says otherwise. Remember him and his spokesperson basically saying if the president does something, it's legal. (Didn't work for Nixon but ah, the nostalgia for times when Congress had some integrity ...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And that they continue to castigate this particular judge, as if he did something wrong, puts him in actual threat from the crazy second amendmenters who might want to self-investigate.

Yeah. They are experts at walking the line. It's a federal crime to threaten a federal judge. I worked on cases where defendants went away for years for scrawling nasty messages about what they were going to do to the judges who presided over their criminal trials. Trump and his buddies are very good at not quite threatening, while subtly encouraging others to take action -- and then the instigators escape the blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are reasonable grounds for arguing that, on the merits, the WH should prevail -- at least in part. There will be two votes against upholding and two votes for finding unconstitutional in the Supreme Court. What Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer, and Kagan do is hard to say. Gorsuch won't be confirmed for awhile. When a political actor disagrees with a judicial decision--as the Obama Administration did about the DACA ruling--you keep quiet except for brief statements and let your arguments do your talking. But ths current group is loud, dumb, and stubborn.

Did Obama lashed out at the judge and called him a "so called judge"? disagreeing is no big deal, reacting like Trump did is the real problem.