Self-defense in the judicial branch

The President’s comments about the judges and the process of the judicial branch have been very widely publicized. He has questioned the integrity of judges, said that they would be at fault for terrorist attacks, and disparaged the simple process of judges questioning attorneys making arguments.

In US v Nixon, there are reports that the Supreme Court was under great pressure to make a unanimous ruling. To my understanding, this was because there were serious concerns that the lack of a unified stance on the limits of presidential power might have severe consequences on the system of checks and balances. With potential criminal acts by the President being the reason for the case, I think we can all agree that the stakes were indeed very high.

The stakes today seem to be lower: there isn’t any sort of Constitutional crisis, but the basis of the separation of powers is being called into question by the chief executive. Do you think the courts are going to be influenced by these statements eminating from the Executive Branch such that rulings of the Judiciary may take on a new tone of defending its role in the functioning of our laws? Or will the courts try to be above this fray, and simply call balls and strikes, regardless of how much the integrity of the courts may be impugned?

All I can say is, that I hope not.

A greater danger, is if and when the rest of the government decides to ignore the courts, simply because Trump gets huffy.

Judges are people. There’s no way that reasserting judicial authority won’t be in the back of their minds, if not in the front.

And Trump is a fool for not controlling himself in light of this. (But he’s a fool in so many other ways anyway, so nothing new here …)

That would mean and end to “Rule of Law” and a beginning of “Rule by Fiat”.
fi·at - ˈfēˌät’

  1. a formal authorization or proposition; a decree.
  2. a crappy little Italian car painted the color of Bathroom Tile.

I’m assuming the more Trump shits on the independent judiciary, the more likely judges are to vote against him. The same way the more he shits on republicans in congress, the more they will oppose him.

However I’m not sure how much opposition from the judiciary he will get. Judges tend to be fairly professional people and I’d guess wouldn’t vote based solely on that issue.

There’s nothing independent about about activist judges.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg sorry for calling Donald Trump ‘faker’


One would hope not, but humans are humans and Trump is an idiot (yeah, I know…) for maligning the justices who are set to rule on this. It’s not unlike his criticism of the CIA. You don’t mess with those folks, even though theoretically they should brush such messing off.

If we’re seriously worried about the spy agencies undermining elected authority, then surely they are deserving of criticism, it seems to me.