Four ways Trump is trying to be king.

A king would freely ignore court rulings, at least if we're talking about the sort of king that has unlimited dictatorial power.

If the Democrats take their cases to the courts and prevail, I think that Trump will abide by whatever the courts say.

A king would freely ignore court rulings, at least if we're talking about the sort of king that has unlimited dictatorial power.

If the Democrats take their cases to the courts and prevail, I think that Trump will abide by whatever the courts say.

Said the guy who has an orgasm every time he reads about a mass shooting.

If the President ignores court rulings, he might find himself impeached and removed from office.

It seems to me like appeals are a safer option.

So, henceforth, every local judge or circuit court will make executive decisions all the time and the president will be a figurehead?

That doesn't sound like what the framers intended.

Also, you have provided very weak evidence that the courts even have jurisdiction over the executive branch. To be true, that would have to appear in the Constitution (in writing). All you've found is that the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law.

Trump Makes His Staff Go On TV and Declare Him Calm And Stable.

Brandon9000 wrote:

So, henceforth, every local judge or circuit court will make executive decisions all the time and the president will be a figurehead?

Are you referring to federal judges? I can't see how state-level judges would be making many rulings over federal matters.

But at any rate, no.

a) Rulings that overstep legal jurisdiction should be appealed to higher courts. If the matter is urgent, emergency stays can be sought and granted.

b) Judges that routinely overstep their legal jurisdiction can be impeached and removed from office.

c) Congress can also choose to not impeach the President if they agree that he is right to disregard the legal system.

Resolving the problem with "a" is preferable. Resolving the problem with "c" should be a last resort.

Brandon9000 wrote:

That doesn't sound like what the framers intended.

It isn't. If any lower level judge tried to do such a thing, higher courts should be quick to overturn their ruling.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Also, you have provided very weak evidence that the courts even have jurisdiction over the executive branch. To be true, that would have to appear in the Constitution (in writing). All you've found is that the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law.

I also quoted the part that says that judges are responsible for interpreting the law.

...Rachel Maddow looks at how Donald Trump has steadily lost ground in his fight to keep his finances, campaign, and administration opaque to oversight and investigation...

I dont believe that Trump is a complete moron.

Do you think it desirable that any time the president makes any ruling that liberals don't like, no matter how clear it is that it's within his powers, he has to go through a series of appeals lasting months?

There has been no case so far that I've heard of that "expediting" the matter brought the time period for it to be overturned down to less than several months.

And as for judges who rule frivolously against the president when there is no legal basis or they have no jurisdiction being impeached, so far that hasn't happened one single time.

Brandon9000 wrote:

And as for judges who rule frivolously against the president when there is no legal basis or they have no jurisdiction being impeached, so far that hasn't happened one single time.

They have however been overturned by higher courts. It looks to me as if the system is working.