6 thoughts on “Can The Courts Really Stop Trump?”

  1. I think he has it right. Custom has imbued the judiciary with this assumption that they are THE arbiter of the meaning of laws and the Constitution. But the Constitution doesn’t say that. The presumption of the Constitution was that all branches should be involved in interpreting and protecting the Constitution. Almost all of the Presidential vetoes in the early republic were because the President considered the bill unconstitutional.

    What should one do in response to lawless behavior on the part of a judge like Dem hack Boasberg?

    They are not high priests, the only ones who can gaze into “the mysteries” of the law. They are stinking politicians in robes. They are as unaccountable as any power existing in the US oligarchy. [Triad, note purposeful ID change.]

    1. Great comments, J. Sobran. (And BTW, I used to enjoy Joe Sobran’s writing many years ago in National Review).

      The manner in which the judiciary conducts itself– and the manner in which the political and media classes set expectations regarding the judiciary’s role– is a fundamental problem AND a fundamental error. And there are huge implications.

      1. Perhaps the 2 worst flaws in the Constitution are (1) judges APPOINTED for life (which “Anti-Federalists” pointed out at the time rendered them unaccountable) & (2) the incredible hurdle of impeachment as the only remedy to bad judges.

        1. I agree, J. Sobran. There are other flaws to the Constitution, but these are pretty big.

          Chief Justice Roberts could remedy some of this in various ways. But the chatter is that he is compromised, and that he might not have much more time on the High Court. I don’t know whether these things are true, but he surely has behaved for a long time as if he is compromised.

Comments are closed.