Disheartening and demoralizing
Neil Gorsuch is not impressed by Trump’s repeated attacks on the judiciary over the past week. He had a meeting with Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Dem, today.
Trump on Wednesday morning declared that an appeals court’s hearing Tuesday night regarding his controversial immigration executive order was “disgraceful,” and that judges were more concerned about politics than following the law.
The remarks followed earlier tweets from Trump disparaging “the so-called judge” who issued a nationwide stop to his plan and saying the ruling “put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system.”
Blumenthal said Gorsuch, whom Trump nominated to the Supreme Court just over a week ago, agreed with him that the president’s language was out of line.
It would be pretty appalling if he didn’t.
“I told him how abhorrent Donald Trump’s invective and insults are towards the judiciary. And he said to me that he found them ‘disheartening’ and ‘demoralizing’ — his words,” Blumenthal said in an interview.
Gorsuch “stated very emotionally and strongly his belief in his fellow judges’ integrity and the principle of judicial independence,” he added. “And I made clear to him that that belief requires him to be stronger and more explicit, more public in his views.”
It does, sort of. If that’s what he thinks then he should say so publicly. We really don’t want Trump attacking the judicial branch.
The contretemps added another layer to the roiling nature of Trump’s young presidency. Some historians wondered if Supreme Court nominees had ever separated themselves in such a way from the president who nominated them; others tried to recall if a president had ever given a nominee reason to do so.
Well, Trump likes to break all the records.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, a group promoting Gorsuch’s nomination, said the judge’s remarks simply confirmed what those close to Gorsuch already knew.
“He’s always been a person independent of the president, and it was shown by his statement,” she said.
Those on the left, meanwhile, said Gorsuch would need to do more than that.
“Is Gorsuch distancing himself from Trump? As we say on the Internet: LOL,” Drew Courtney of People for the American Way said in a statement. “To be clear: Donald Trump’s pattern of attacks on federal judges is more than demoralizing — it’s a threat to the separation of powers and our constitutional system, and it’s hard to imagine a more tepid response than to call them ‘disheartening.’ ”
You mean because Trump isn’t just some talking head, but someone with the power to actually weaken the judicial branch? Fair point.
Speaking Wednesday at the Major Cities Chiefs Association Winter Conference in Washington, Trump said he listened to the oral arguments at the appeals court and was disappointed at what he heard.
“I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” Trump told the group. “But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”
Trump said the arguments were “disgraceful” because his executive order “can’t be written any plainer or better and for us to be going through this” — he paused to mention that a judge in Boston had ruled to allow the order to continue.
In other words he babbled and veered off the point the way he usually does.
Trump said the courts were standing in the way of what he was elected to do and that even “a bad student in high school student” would support his policies.
“We want security,” he said. “One of the reasons I was elected was because of law and order and security. It’s one of the reasons I was elected … And they’re taking away our weapons, one by one. That’s what they’re doing. And you know it and I know it.”
And fluoride. And ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream. And you know it and I know it. Bad! Nordstrom. Emails. Alec Baldwin. Carnage. Bathrobe. Melissa McCarthy. Judges. Weapons. Pouring in. It’s a disassster. I don’t have my glasses, the writing is very small.
Trump’s comments were the latest escalation in a worsening dispute between the executive branch and the judiciary that the president has personally carried out on social media and in public remarks. While it is not new for a president to disagree with the actions of another branch of government, Trump’s crusade against the federal judiciary comes before the legal process has fully played out and is unusual for its threatening tone and use of personal invective.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Wednesday that the president is expressing his frustration with a process that he believes should be subject to common sense.
“He respects the judiciary,” Spicer said. “It’s hard for him and for a lot of people to understand how something so clear in the law can be so misinterpreted.”
And you know what? That’s his problem right there. He’s ignorant as pig shit, and he’s having hourly public tantrums because he doesn’t like it that the law is not as simplistic as he thinks it should be. Well tough shit. If he knew anything at all about it he would already know the law is not just “common sense.” Of course a lot of people think the law should be “subject to common sense” but they’re not the god damn president, are they. He is. He has a responsibility to understand how all this works. It’s truly contemptible that he’s whining because It’s Not That Simple. Of course it’s not!
But he’s a narcissist. He’ll never learn anything.
Okay, okay, but would a “good student in high school student” support his policies? Not this one. I knew more about the presidency in 7th grade than he knows at 70. I was an A student in civics, and I have a very good brain. I know a lot of things. And I know…that the president is not, was never intended to be, an emperor with absolute power, and that there is such a thing as checks and balances.
Then I went to college and got a degree in political science and realized it was even more complex than I had ever imagined. (Yes, I know, I’ve claimed to be a scientist, and I’ve claimed to be a playwright. Can I help it if it took me a long time to figure out what I wanted to be when I grew up? I’ll get there some day, I promise).
There are zillions of books written about the presidency, about previous presidents, and about the men who wrote the constitution and designed the presidency. Even one of them should be able to disabuse him of his ideas about what his job is, but he will not read.
To quote the great Mark Twain: “He who will not read is no better off than he who cannot read.” So, maybe the whole question is irrelevant.
Hey, I totally get you. Three careers and counting, only loosely based on my specialist degree at that. I figure by the time I’m 70 I might have found my niche. Hopefully it will be reading books all day interspersed with the odd walk in the local wilderness.
Sounds like a little slice of heaven. Only, I would probably have to add in a bit of writing, too, and the occasional (like, once a week if possible) trip to the theatre.
Hm. The way I read this, the US president and his press secretary seem to analyse the situation in two terms: whether the intent of the executive order was “clear” and “simple”, and whether there is public support for it. Now I am not a constitutional scholar, not even an American citizen, but even from here I can tell that this totally misses the point, right? The questions are really whether the order is (a) illegal and (b) unconstitutional. Whatever the answer, clarity, simplicity and popularity don’t enter into the equation at any stage, do they?
“I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” – In which Trump calls the courts biased.
Yes, but he called a court biased before.He claimed that the judge in the Trump U case would not be partial because he was “Mexican.”
Except in alt-land, did you mean to write “would NOT be impartial”?
Alex SL, you are totally correct. Something can be very clear and simple – example, kill all non-whites – and that doesn’t mean you get to do it. If it violates the Constitution, it’s supposed to not be done. That being said, our courts have permitted many things that appear to violate the Constitution, but that fit their own agenda. The 2000 election is a good example.
Also, the Constitution is (or is supposed to be) a living document, and not something unchangeable. It leaves a lot of things vague, so what violates the Constitution is often open to interpretation. Trump and his people appear to have determined that it doesn’t violate the Constitution if they do it, and that is a novel interpretation of Constitutional, but not totally without precedent among our presidents.
If Gorsuch was really concerned he could withdraw his candidacy to the court.
Fair point, Gorsuch could withdraw, but if he’s got integrity that holds up, better to have him fight on the inside. Although I would hate to be within 10 parsecs of Trump. Oh wait, I am. Crap….
I’ve wondered about Catholics who claim they still remain Catholic because they want to reform the church from the inside. I think it’s a waste of time, but I guess if they are willing to support LGBT and women’s rights then it can’t be all bad if they don’t mind the company they have endure.
That’s what Kennedy said to Kennedy (his brother) about Hoover (the sucker) wasn’t it? Inside the tent …
Kevin @ 10, my personal experience of Catholics who say that is that they do absolutely nothing to attempt active reform of the Church, and are therefore complicit with every bad thing the Church is known to do. They seem to think that having sotto voce discussions with an atheist mid-week, miles from their priest somehow qualifies as fighting to change the Church and that kissing arse and behaving themselves like good serfs while in his presence is not just going along and providing support.
Rob @12 I think you’re right. My respect for these inside Catholic reformers is low. I hear of nothing active in their reformation attempts. It’s more of a personal conscience crisis. It’s as if they think there’s such a thing as disobedience-by-prayer.
Disobedience by prayer, I like it. Still, if you believe in God, maybe you can believe in that!