Huckabee to Trump : Fuck rule of law, just like Andrew Jackson did

[Johan]

Huck: Trump Should Ignore Travel Ban Ruling, Like Jackson With Trail Of Tears


President Donald Trump may want to avoid taking legal advice from former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

After a federal judge on Wednesday ordered a hold on Trump’s revised travel ban, Huckabee urged the President to ignore the ruling, citing Andrew Jackson’s refusal to enforce an 1832 Supreme Court decision affirming the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation. Jackson rejected the decision in Worcester v. Georgia, leading to the forcible expulsion of some 15,000 Cherokee from Georgia along the Trail of Tears. Some 4,000 died on that journey.

According to Huckabee, this is a solid historical precedent.

“Hoping @POTUS tells Hawaii judge what Andrew Jackson told overreaching court,” Huckabee wrote on Twitter. “I’ll ignore it and let the court enforce their order.”

That is a misquotation of a remark, believed to be apocryphal, that Jackson made about Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Other stalwart Trump supporters have held up Jackson as an example for the President to follow.

William Johnson, chairman of the white nationalist American Freedom Party, told TPM last year that Trump may need to override the judicial and legislative branches to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

“You could have a Trump do what Andrew Jackson did when he defied the U.S. Supreme Court and had the Trail of Tears,” Johnson said at the 2016 American Renaissance conference, a gathering of white nationalists, pointing out that the president “controls the armies.”

Trump doesn’t appear to be planning on such drastic steps at the moment. During a Wednesday speech in Tennessee, he said he intended to take the travel ban case “as far as it needs to go,” on up to the Supreme Court.

On a surface level, though, Trump says he models himself after Old Hickory, whose portrait he’s granted a prime spot in the Oval Office. During a visit Wednesday to the Hermitage, Jackson’s home in Nashville, Trump praised his distant predecessor as “inspirational” and a “beloved president.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/huckabee-trump-ignore-judge-travel-ban-jackson-trail-tears


When the executive branch of government ignores the judicial branch (or the legislative branch), you have tyranny. I am not pretending Trump is a tyran, but that some folks on the right would like him to act as one and seem to think that the Trail of Tears was a great decision...
Let's hope Trump doesn't pays very much attention to them.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Lincoln imprisoned his political enemies. What do you think about that?

The rule of law is a two way street and these rogue judges are violating their oath. Trump has options other than defiance. He could petition congress to dissolve their districts and circuits.

The best thing he can do is to get McConnell on the phone and tell him to get going on Gorsuch's confirmation and have him in place when it hits SCOTUS.

 

[Johan]

Lincoln put his ennemies un bail ? After fair trial or just like that ?

As you sais Trump has several options to deal with those judges. But he has to do it through due process. He can't just say ,"Fuck them I'm doing things my way !". Even if they violated their oath - which I won't discuss 'cause I am not informed enough. You don't repair a wrong with another wrong.

Now he did not choosed how he's gonna deal with that si I won't call him names. I just hope he won't follow Huckabee's advice.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Lincoln put his ennemies un bail ? After fair trial or just like that ?

As you sais Trump has several options to deal with those judges. But he has to do it through due process. He can't just say ,"Fuck them I'm doing things my way !". Even if they violated their oath - which I won't discuss 'cause I am not informed enough. You don't repair a wrong with another wrong.

Now he did not choosed how he's gonna deal with that si I won't call him names. I just hope he won't follow Huckabee's advice.

You posted an article speculating what Trump might do based upon Mike Huckabee's suggestion.

There are very capable legal scholars that say Trump could ignore the judges.
At the end of the article it says Trump is unlikely to follow Huckabee's suggestion yet you make a big production out of it.

The most likely scenario is that it will be heard by SCOTUS before June.

Here is more on Lincoln's arbitrary arrests.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/26...-and-arbitrary-arrests?rgn=main;view=fulltext

 

[meesterperfect]

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is this about?

Is the Trail of Tears really being use as a precedent to justify the PREZ ignoring the Travel Ban?
I think this is either fake news or a gross misreprentaion of something.
I've heard recent comparisons to Trump and Jackson but I beieve it was on the basis of dealing with the Central Banksters.
Not Jacksons treatment of North American Native peoples.

Regarding that judge in Hawaii, its an Obama apointed judge just following orders.
And after giving it some thought, the travel ban is pretty much bullshit I think.
Ain't nobody flying into the USA to "do us harm".
The biggest thing that can be done to stop uncontrolled illegal immigration is to cut off all welfare to them.
They will go back in a month.
Then build a wall and control it.

 

[bodie54]

Lincoln imprisoned his political enemies. What do you think about that?

He even exiled one of them.

BUT, that all went down in the midst of a devastatingly violent rebellion that threatened to break the union. Does that justify it? Hard to say. Folks have been debating that ever since. But we aren't in the midst of one of those at present, so there's no parallel at work here.

 

[Jack Davenport]

The current daily undermining of this president, the unwillingness to accept the result of an election and an opposition party that can send billions of dollars of negative campaign ads against him everyday, is if not comparable to a civil war, is a least an attempted silent coup d'etat.
Speaking of zero evidence, there is none to indicate that Trump colluded with the Russians to swing the election.

I credit him with turning the tables by accusing the previous administration with surveiling him. It completely changed the narrative and they are having to admit there is no credible evidence of collusion.

Never in my life have I witnessed a bunch of sore losers like we are witnessing now.

No matter how much they think they should have won, half of this country did vote for him and that should be respected.

Even as unhappy as many of us were, with Obama's election, and with those questioning his citizenship, or whatever else, it never reached the point where the media were taking those false narratives and reporting them as fact, nor were members of congress seriously considering impeachment or alludiing to it from the get go.

So in my view , Trump is dealing with his own unique situation, and the way the judiciary are behaving, we are on the verge of a constitutional crisis with these blocking of his executive orders. These judges have betrayed their oath. A president doesn't even have to be right with their EO's. They simply can issue them. They have been granted that power.

 

[Johan]

Speaking of zero evidence, there is none to indicate that Trump colluded with the Russians to swing the election.

True. And I don't think Russia hacked the election. My only concerns is wether or not Trump has business deals with Russia, wether or not there's a conflict of interests between Trump's interests and the nation's interests.

No matter how much they think they should have won, half of this country did vote for him and that should be respected.

One could argue that more than 50% of the people voted for Hillary and that it also should be respected.

Even as unhappy as many of us were, with Obama's election, and with those questioning his citizenship, or whatever else, it never reached the point where the media were taking those false narratives and reporting them as fact, nor were members of congress seriously considering impeachment or alludiing to it from the get go.

It actually plays in his favor : the time and the column inches used by medias to speak about all this is wasted and won't be used to speak about the real subjects that matters : what's happening in congress, the American HealthCare Act, the new budget, what's happening with EPAd, Department of Education, etc...

 

[Jack Davenport]

True. And I don't think Russia hacked the election. My only concerns is wether or not Trump has business deals with Russia, wether or not there's a conflict of interests between Trump's interests and the nation's interests.

One could argue that more than 50% of the people voted for Hillary and that it also should be respected.



It actually plays in his favor : the time and the column inches used by medias to speak about all this is wasted and won't be used to speak about the real subjects that matters : what's happening in congress, the American HealthCare Act, the new budget, what's happening with EPAd, Department of Education, etc...

One could argue that 60 percent of the states voted for him and under our system not only should it be respected, but it should be accepted.

We are not a monolithic country we are a union of states. Each state gets a say so in the process, if not then we should dissolve the union.

A couple of populous states do not get to decide the outcome for the rest of the country by virtue of padding the vote totals.
Their electoral votes were counted and put in the proper column.

This has been discussed ad nauseum since the election. You still cannot seem to grasp the concept. We are 50 states governed by 50 different individuals. The true meaning of federalism.

We all get a voice. Under your logic, Bernie Sanders would not be a U.S. senator as he comes from a small state.

 

[Johan]

This was just an answer to you saying that half of the country voted for him and that it should be respected. Yes, he should be respected, he's the potus. But being respected doesn't mean not being called out when, he's wrong. I guess you're gonna answer by telling that Obama wasn't called out. Even if it was true, it's not an excuse for the medias not to call ou Trump. A wrong doesn't compensate a previous wrong.

A couple of populous states do not get to decide the outcome for the rest of the country by virtue of padding the vote totals.

The problem is that yes, a bunch of states decide the election. Not because they are the most populous but because they are swing states. Your point would be fine if every state was a swing state.
Don't you think something is fucked up when both candidates focus their campaign on a few swing states and almost ignore the other states, because one has 100% of winning some states while the other has 0% chance (and the other way round in somle other states) ?

We all get a voice.

Nope.
Conservatives in California and Liberals in Texas never have their voices heard. Their vote doesn't count 'cause in the end, Texas will always be for the GOP candidate and California will always be for the Democratic candidate.

Under your logic, Bernie Sanders would not be a U.S. senator as he comes from a small state.

You seem not to know how european country's parliaments are elected.
In France, we have the Assemblée Nationale, the equivalent of your US Senate. The députés -equivalent of your US senators- are elected in their circonscriptions (equivalent of your counties) to represent their local constituents and defend their interests at the national level in the Assemblée Nationale.
This is also, globally, how the german Bundestag, the UK House of Commons, the spanish Congreso de los Diputados, the italian Camera dei deputati, etc. are elected.
Under that logic, Bernie will stil be US senator.

 

[Jack Davenport]

This was just an answer to you saying that half of the country voted for him and that it should be respected. Yes, he should be respected, he's the potus. But being respected doesn't mean not being called out when, he's wrong. I guess you're gonna answer by telling that Obama wasn't called out. Even if it was true, it's not an excuse for the medias not to call ou Trump. A wrong doesn't compensate a previous wrong.

The problem is that yes, a bunch of states decide the election. Not because they are the most populous but because they are swing states. Your point would be fine if every state was a swing state.
Don't you think something is fucked up when both candidates focus their campaign on a few swing states and almost ignore the other states, because one has 100% of winning some states while the other has 0% chance (and the other way round in somle other states) ?

Nope.
Conservatives in California and Liberals in Texas never have their voices heard. Their vote doesn't count 'cause in the end, Texas will always be for the GOP candidate and California will always be for the Democratic candidate.

You seem not to know how european country's parliaments are elected.
In France, we have the Assemblée Nationale, the equivalent of your US Senate. The députés -equivalent of your US senators- are elected in their circonscriptions (equivalent of your counties) to represent their local constituents and defend their interests at the national level in the Assemblée Nationale.
This is also, globally, how the german Bundestag, the UK House of Commons, the spanish Congreso de los Diputados, the italian Camera dei deputati, etc. are elected.
Under that logic, Bernie will stil be US senator.

Let's get something straight. The United States will never and I repeat never move to the popular vote deciding a presidential candidateelection.

The only possible way for it to happen would be for a 2/3 majority of state legislatures to amend the constitution and they would have to be Democrats.
In the event that it did happen it would result in the 1/3 minority of states seceding.

The voices were heard loud and clear but they do not get to shout down the rest of the country that also has a say in the process.


Where in the hell did I mention a parliamentary system. I think I have heard of it before, sometime during my 12 years of school and 7 years of college.

How in the hell does a parliamentary system translate to us and Bernie Sanders?

Just sit the hell down and shut up.

The United States has pivoted to populism.

You need to accept it and move on.

BTW your Assemblée Nationale would be similar to our House of Representatives who are elected in greater numbers and from a district level. They are not like our senators elected at the state level.
Wrong again Pierre.

It turns out you do not understand how our officials are elected.

 

[sean miguel]

So in my view , Trump is dealing with his own unique situation, and the way the judiciary are behaving, we are on the verge of a constitutional crisis with these blocking of his executive orders. These judges have betrayed their oath. A president doesn't even have to be right with their EO's. They simply can issue them. They have been granted that power.

But it's the judiciary's job to do the right thing and follow their conscience and to stand up for the little guy. That's what we elected these judges to do. You know, because they're accountable to us. Fuck rule of law indeed.

/s


Trump should ignore these judges' rulings (let them enforce it) and also send U.S. Marshals to take them into custody. I have other suggestions that I'm sure would get me into trouble.

 

[Jack Davenport]

But it's the judiciary's job to do the right thing and follow their conscience and to stand up for the little guy. That's what we elected these judges to do. You know, because they're accountable to us. Fuck rule of law indeed.

/s


Trump should ignore these judges' rulings (let them enforce it) and also send U.S. Marshals to take them into custody. I have other suggestions that I'm sure would get me into trouble.

It has been the left's goal for the past 50 years to put into place judges that disregarded the constitution for judicial fiat.

That is what these latest judges have been doing.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Johan]

Let's get something straight. The United States will never and I repeat never move to the popular vote deciding a presidential candidateelection.

I know. But I still think it would be better. And you won't shut me up on that

Where in the hell did I mention a parliamentary system. I think I have heard of it before, sometime during my 12 years of school and 7 years of college.

How in the hell does a parliamentary system translate to us and Bernie Sanders?

I did not spoke about a parliamentary system either. I just told you that, here, the president is elected by the popular vote but the parliament memebers are elected at the local level.

The United States has pivoted to populism.

You need to accept it and move on.

I've accepted it. But I still think you made a mistake and, on that too, you won't shut me up

BTW your Assemblée Nationale would be similar to our House of Representatives who are elected in greater numbers and from a district level. They are not like our senators elected at the state level.

True. But the role of our Assemblée is comparable to the role of the US Senate more than to the role of the House of Representatives.

It turns out you do not understand how our officials are elected.

I think I understand US politics much more than yourself understand french politics

Maybe you guys should take examle on US when it comes to how politics and elections are organised. At least no politician ever claimed there's been massive voter fraud. And we don't need more than a month to determine who won the election...