Is it productive for Trump to push legal limits?
theAspenbeat.com,
by
Glenn Beaton
Original Article
Posted By: Big Bopper,
3/18/2025 8:29:06 PM
I won’t leave you in suspense. I’m a lawyer, so the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.
If you’re in the tribe that thinks whatever Trump does is wrong, or the opposite tribe that thinks whatever Trump does is right, then read no further. Just skip the analysis and instead warm up your cheers or your jeers for the Comments below, as your tribe dictates.
But if you’re in neither tribe, but are just a political partisan (which is different than being in a tribe) or a political neutral (are there any these days?) then read on.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Geoman 3/18/2025 8:44:11 PM (No. 1916921)
FTA: "Let’s look at the big picture. In virtually all democracies (almost by definition), the final interpretation of laws is made by the judicial branch, not by an executive branch. The Constitution that we conservatives hold dear requires the executive to defer to the courts in interpreting the nation’s laws.
If the executive doesn’t like a law, his remedy is to get the law changed if the people’s representatives concur. It’s not to say “I can do whatever I want because the people elected me.”
Pretty much the gist of Beaton's article.
4 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
AntiStatist 3/18/2025 8:57:37 PM (No. 1916926)
So who’s the check on the judicial branch?
The judiciary’s duty is to ensure actions are within the limits of the Constitution.
However, the federal district system has blown well beyond that to become a bunch of super-executives, interpreting the Constitution to suit their politics.
The system is thus corrupt and unworthy of deference.
The SCOTUS needs to step up- Trump is right on his actions, and the likes of Boasberg wrong and in bad need of a legal knockout.
Enough with the judicial tyranny. The people didn’t elect them.
37 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Msquared112 3/18/2025 9:03:14 PM (No. 1916928)
This second guessing frosts my butt. Americans are so unused to GOP strength that they can’t quite swallow that a POTUS would actually do what he promised to do and what the voters want him to do. But let a few squealing pigs on the Left raise a fuss and some conservatives run for the hills. Man up, Glenn, and stop feeding the enemy.
35 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Catherine 3/18/2025 9:08:45 PM (No. 1916935)
Well if judges can second guess a president on his legal actions, why do we need a president? We were never meant to be controlled by judges who all have different opinions of 'within the law.'
36 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
earlybird 3/18/2025 9:16:17 PM (No. 1916936)
Tribes, cults.... I resent that smug superciliousness. I am an independent thinker and I don't see anyone who makes more sense than President Trump.
29 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
earlybird 3/18/2025 9:24:02 PM (No. 1916943)
If the executive doesn’t like a law, his remedy is to get the law changed if the people’s representatives concur. It’s not to say “I can do whatever I want because the people elected me.”
So the peop[e who elected the President are not the "people's representatives"? What glaring sophistry.
16 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
dwa 3/18/2025 10:18:38 PM (No. 1916966)
The gist of the article is what number one says. But, it assumes that the judges are impartial and are ruling in accordance with the law and the Constitution. These judges are not. If they were, their decisions throughout their time on the bench would reflect wins for both liberals and conservatives, but they do not. In addition, this current batch of judges is ignoring SCOTUS rulings and Congressional laws that state the judges do not have jurisdiction in some of the areas where they making their rulings. That is arrogance. They are heavily skewed to the liberal position and thus to me prove they are not impartial. So, it is not Trump that is pushing the legal limits, it is these activist, leftist judges.
32 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Sunhan65 3/18/2025 10:54:19 PM (No. 1916975)
"The Constitution that we conservatives hold dear requires the executive to defer to the courts in interpreting the nation’s laws."
No, it doesn't.
17 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
synchronicity 3/18/2025 10:57:49 PM (No. 1916976)
Biden and his followers bragged that they ignored the law and they got away with it - anyone remember any push back on this from the press or the Supreme Court? The Marquis of Queensbury rules only apply if both parties agree to the rules - one hasn't so its the person with the most clout at the moment who makes the rules which happens to be Trump. Full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes!
12 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
davew 3/18/2025 11:15:21 PM (No. 1916981)
The only people pushing any limits are the district judges who issue writs of mandamus against President Trump based solely on their personal hatred of him. They consistently ignored President Biden's student debt forgiveness executive orders and his failure to enforce immigration laws, as they agreed with his politics. The problem is we have incompetent and arbitrary political hacks who have been appointed as judges to the federal courts based on their loyalty and contributions to the Democrat party.
14 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Quigley 3/18/2025 11:52:11 PM (No. 1916991)
What if it's the court which is exceeding the legal limits? Justice delayed is justice denied, and so the court wants to delay, even knowing that the ruling would be reversed on appeal.
Impeach them. Recuse them. The courts had better eliminate or isolate these rogue judges if they want to preserve the dignity of the judicial branch.
8 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
DanvilleBill 3/19/2025 12:55:25 AM (No. 1916997)
The judicial experts and Constitutional scholars on this thread appear to be ignoring the simple fact that the laws we have on the books were written and subsequently interpreted and acted upon by humans born, raised and educated in the USA. At least most of them were. Not all, of course.
Maybe it would be better to remove the 'human' factor by turning the entire legal system; judges, juries, legal scholars, lawyers, politicians, the very laws themselves, over to the upcoming AI machines. It shouldn't take too long if we just let those same AI machines handle the conversion with the new super computer capabilities headed our way.
No more humans involved. It'll be great!!
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
franco 3/19/2025 3:17:09 AM (No. 1917005)
This is the second highly disappointing column in a row from this guy. There's nothing in The Constitution that says the Executive Branch must permit the judiciary to render that document as a suicide pact, either... but that's what this clown begs for in carefully cloaked verbiage. Beaton, far as I'm concerned, you can beat it!
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
NotaBene 3/19/2025 3:49:01 AM (No. 1917006)
Experience tells me President Donald Trump is always right.
5 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
mifla 3/19/2025 5:25:58 AM (No. 1917019)
DC is a swamp that politicians have been saying they want to clean up for years, but nothing ever gets done.
Until now. I don't care if Trump is not using the "DC way" to get things done. He is using his way to get things done.
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
petrichor 3/19/2025 6:31:38 AM (No. 1917054)
Luckily, the gang members have tatoos identifying their participation. Wear the uniform of the enemy and you are the enemy.
4 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Strike3 3/19/2025 8:19:24 AM (No. 1917119)
It all depends upon your definition of "legal."
0 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Ruhn 3/19/2025 9:06:47 AM (No. 1917151)
The premise of the article is bass ackwards. It should read: "Is it productive for the federal judiciary to push legal limits?" The answer is obvious, regardless of your 'tribe'. Pipsqueak US district court judges (like Boasberg) are going waaay outside their lane and above their weight class infringing upon Article II plenary powers of the President. The precedent was already established in USSC case Ludecke v Watkins in 1948.
Congress needs to either impeach Boasberg, Roberts, and the lot of them, defund the US District Courts, or eliminate them altogether. Drastic? Yes, but also Constitutional. Bottom line: the federal judiciary CANNOT be a law unto themselves.
1 person likes this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
mc squared 3/19/2025 9:37:08 AM (No. 1917171)
Maybe I'm just simple minded, but why have even minimal hearings before the return if an illegal? They're here without consent (or documentation) so ship 'em back. No hearings needed.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Big Bopper"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)