Supreme Court Nominee Calls Trump’s Attacks on Judiciary ‘Demoralizing’


#1

nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban.html?_r=0

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, privately expressed dismay on Wednesday over Mr. Trump’s increasingly aggressive attacks on the judiciary, calling the president’s criticism of independent judges “demoralizing” and “disheartening.”

Gotta say, I have to admire a man who speaks up even when it might well be very much not in his own interest to do so.


#2

Well, I’m sure Trump – continuing his winning streak of presidential behavior and conduct – will fire off some angry tweets about how the media misrepresented what Gorsuch REALLY meant. Or the serial gum-chewer Spicer will at his next briefer.

Nothing to see here, move along now… :slight_smile:


#3

I think it’s time to consider impeaching some judges for various reasons.


#4

Time for DJT to be taught a lesson and to learn the limits of his power and that he is not Vlad Putin and to learn there are 3 branches of government for checks and balances in the country that was already great before he came along and than 1 of those is the judiciary.


#5

Fortunately we live in a country where the rule of law prevails, and the founders of this nation wisely ensured that we have an independent judiciary. Judges can’t be impeached just because a president (or senator or congressperson) doesn’t like their decisions.


#6

The lesson we are learning is that we have activist courts who are more interested in foreigners getting headaches at airports instead of the security of Americans.

Speaking of checks and balances, I think its time to consider impeaching some of these judges. :thumbsup:


#7

For what? Disagreeing with the President?

Once more, we can’t impeach judges just because we don’t like their decisions.


#8

And also not because a particular POTUS thinks a judge is a “so-called judge” or because the particular POTUS objected to the heritage of a judge born in Indiana before becoming POTUS.


#9

I agree but very confusing because many of the same people who advocate for the rule of law to prevail do not want it to prevail in certain cases. :rolleyes:


#10

Too late for the 1973 Supreme Court justices who circumvented the 10th Amendment.


#11

Actually the founders adopted the government of the early Romans. Three branches of government, judicial, executive, and legislative. Lot of similarities there. Senate, two parties, Cabinet. 2 consuls running the executive branch however.


#12

Due to the presence of checks and balances as you cite, there is nothing wrong with Trump being critical of the judge’s decision. Could he be a bit more cordial? Of course! But, he’s not going to take things lying down, nor should he. Every possible thing that could be stacked against him has been and still is; therefore, if he gets a little salty, why should we always be so quick to pounce?

May God bless you all! :slight_smile:


#13

Based on the criticism of Trump he is well on his way to being a great president. The great Abraham Lincoln ignored the courts finding he had no right to suspend habeus corpus. He then had an arrest warrant drawn up for the Chief Justice. FDR tried to pack the supreme court with extra justices. Trump will have to step up his game if he is to achieve true greatness. Merely criticizing district court judges for their obvious usurpation of power isn’t going to achieve civic sainthood.


#14

Agreed.


#15

:thumbsup:
Yes indeed. Here in California we’re under the leftist-activist thumb of the 9th Circuit, one of whose judges–openly homosexual–was instrumental in thwarting the will of the people a few years back on the subject of same sex “marriage.” Well, I guess its moot, now, ever since the leftist-activist wing of SCOTUS convinced Justice Kennedy to go along with them in making the grotesque mockery of Holy Matrimony the law of the land.


#16

:clapping::rotfl::rotfl:

:clapping::rotfl:


#17

Might win Gorsuch a confirmation vote or two from the Democrats…:rolleyes:


#18

No. For disagreeing with Luigi.:smiley:


#19

You can’t impeach someone without a crime being committed.


#20

Haven’t followed the case at all, have you?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.