In case you were lucky enough to miss it, after Judge James Robart temporarily blocked President Trump‘s Executive order halting immigration from seven Middle East nations teaming with terrorists, nationwide, the President responded on Twitter yesterday:
When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security – big trouble!
Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it’s death & destruction!
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
The last one inspired expressions of alarm and horror:
Senator Schumer: “POTUS’s attack on Judge Robart shows a disdain for an ind. judiciary that doesn’t bend to his wishes & lack of respect for the Constitution.”
Bernie Sanders: “Trump has to learn the very important truth stated by Washington AG Bob Ferguson: “No one is above the law, not even the president.”
Representative Jerry Nadler: ” No “so-called.” Judge Robart is a GWB appointee who was confirmed 99-0. We are watching closely your contempt for our Judicial Branch.”
Evan McMullin—remember, the Independent who ran to be President of Utah?—wrote,
“Disagreeing with a court decision is fine, but undermining the legitimacy of a judge and the Judiciary Branch is a threat to the Republic.”
(Somehow I just don’t think that a President who has for three months watched an entire political party seek to undermine the legitimacy of a duly elected POTUS–him–with protests, riots, recounts, an Electoral College rebellion, calls for impeachment, calls for military coups, Hitler comparisons, accusations of incest with his daughter, insanity, and conspiracy theories involving Russia will take too seriously the argument that three words in a tweet is a “threat to the Republic.” I could be wrong…)
Naturally bloggers, pundits and social media users have reacted to the three words with even more intensity.
1. Stipulated, for the President to do this is unpresidential, unhelpful, self-destructive and stupid. It would be one thing if he tweeted a dazzling legal analysis explaining why the judge is all wet, but this President doesn’t do dazzling, or, really, analysis.
2. It was also completely predictable. Is this how it’s going to be? Every single time he sends out one of these juvenile “neener neener, you have a big nose!” tweets in response to some perceived insult or setback, the left’s Outrage Machine is going to go into over-drive? Really? That is just plain incompetent. First, we’ve seen this junk for more than a year; we know the man is careless with words; we have seen that he has the restraint on Twitter of a heroin addict. Words from this leader just are not as significant as words from previous Presidents, because he doesn’t use language with care or even thought at times, and by now everyone knows it. That’s not good for him, as it forfeits a considerable source of influence and power if he were careful with words, but we know he’s not. So the news media and political foes only make themselves look hysterical and dishonest by acting as if what the President tweets or says should be taken literally. It can’t be. Second, since everyone who is honest about it knows his words are almost randomly generated, what does that tell us about critics who pretend otherwise? It tells us that they are dishonest and trying to frighten people in order to seed civic unrest for political gain.
3. By all means, chide the President for being petty, unprofessional and un-Presidential. Claiming that this tweet “undermines’ the judiciary, however, is hysteria. It undermines his Presidency.
4. Real, serious attempts to undermine the judiciary by a President have happened in the past. The worst was Andrew Jackson, who famously defied the Court when he wanted to remove Native Americans from their Georgia land and the Supreme Court ruled he could not. “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,” said Andy, and proceeded to inflict the “Trail of Tears.” Yet the Republic survived. Then there was President Obama, who not only attacked a Supreme Court’s decision but did so in a nationally televised State of the Union address, saying,
“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections.”
He was also wrong on the law, and misstated the Opinion, which did not approve of foreign companies spending in elections. Even Politifact, which usually was easy on Obama, agreed that he “was exaggerating the impact of the ruling.” It called Obama’s attack on SCOTUS on the Citizens United decision “Barely True.” Indeed, throughout his administration, Obama tried to bully the judiciary when his policies were on the line. That was a dangerous precedent, though one which the doomsayers reacting to Trump’s tweet chose to shrug off at the time. [See previous post, conveniently enough]
5. University of Chicago law professor William Baude offers a objective and balanced analysis in which he cautions that President Trump’s “so-called judge” tweet raises a “red flag,” because he believes that it is generally dangerous for elected leaders to question the judiciary’s authority. But Baude also concedes that Trump’s tweet contains “just a hint” of that insinuation. “[I]n general,” he says, “I do not think we should read too much into the President’s tweets . . . .”
6. Again, I’ll invoke the Julie Principle here. Sing the following to the melody of “Can’t help lovin’ that man o’ mine,” by Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein (From “Show Boat”)…
“Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly,
Trump gotta make silly tweets, who knows why?
Can’t keep flipping out every time…..”
If another President with different documented habits in line with tradition and the office sent that tweet, it would be more meaningful. The news media and critics certainly should criticize the President for debasing his office and undermining his own credibility with such overtly juvenile tweets, but the should not pretend that. coming from him, they are more significant than they are.
7. President Jimmy Carter drove me to distraction appearing in public dressed like a peanut farmer. I felt that this harmed the prestige and image of the Presidency, but it really just hurt Carter’s Presidency. Reagan came in and erased Carter’s new standard by always dressing the part of President: no permanent change had taken place. President Obama’s involvement with NCAA basketball tournament brackets and performing on cable comedy shows similarly troubled me, but I can’t see President Trump making such trivia a permanent part of the Presidency. Similarly, his dumb tweeting doesn’t have to be a permanent scar on the office, as long as the next POTUS has the sense and dignity to avoid it.
Sources: Fox News, Badger Pundit
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts, and seek written permission when appropriate. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work or property was used in any way without proper attribution, credit or permission, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at email@example.com.
45 thoughts on “Ethics Observations On The President’s “So-Called Judge” Tweet”
CNN is running an opinion piece called “Trump’s Most Bone-chilling Tweet” .
We’re, what, three weeks into the Presidency, and it’s getting old. I find it wearing, and haven’t been online nearly as much as usual. I know what FB is going to look like without opening it. They’re unrelenting. They’ll probably keep it up for four years, too. Thing is, if something truly earth-shattering were to occur, would anybody listen, or just think ‘There they go again”?
It’s the “One-a-Day Constitutional Crisis” regimen, crella.
Thing is, if something truly earth-shattering were to occur, would anybody listen, or just think ‘There they go again”?
Exactly. At this point outlets like CNN/ MSNBC and FOX have lost all credibility with me. I have some weird opinions, but I think that this is true with a lot of the country at this point. I know I am not watching CNN / FOX or MSNBC much anymore.
Jack I will as stipulate that everything in this post I agree with.
With that said, how often do plaintiffs go judge shopping in order to increase their odds of a favorable opinion. If all judges were absolutely impartial we would not see any rebellion against any judicial nominee. Case in point Neil Gorsuch.
I read somewhere and I am still trying to verify this but Judge Robart was earlier engaged in work supporting refugee interests. If that is true should he not have recused himself?
I am not an attorney so I don’t know and why I ask the question.
No matter how hard I try to proof these I still miss my typos. Thats a problem when I can only see 4 lines of text at a time.
There are… barriers to litigants going judge shopping by being an asshole.
Case in point was the judge that Trump said shouldn’t hear his Trump University case because he was a Mexican. It was an asshole thing to say, and if he had trepidation towards an ethnic judge, he should have voiced them at the beginning of the case, and if he thought his comments on Mexicans he made during trial might bias his judge, he had a choice to make: bias the judge, or keep his mouth shut.
I think you are too quick to dismiss in Trump the President qualities which formed the basis for your eloquent denunciation of Trump the Candidate (A Nation of Assholes). In your Sept 2015 post, you note that “we could not survive [Trump’s presidency] as a culture. Placing a man with Trump’s personality and his rejection of the basic features of civilized conduct and discourse to an extent that only the obscenely rich or the resolutely misanthropic can get away with would ensure that American culture would deteriorate into a gross, rude, selfish, assault muck in which no rational human being would want to live. A generation raised under President trump would be misogynist and proud of it. It would value appearances over substance, success over character and principles. It would extol, as Trump does, the empty values of the celebrity culture. Bullying would be acceptable; “after all, the President does it.” So would boasting, posturing, bluffing and faking it. He would make us, in short, a nation of assholes.”
In your original post on the Julie Principle, you have an apt quote from your father: “It makes no sense, to keep getting angry at people for who and what they are. You make a decision, that’s all. Do I care enough about this individual, for whatever reason, to be his friend, or don’t I? If I do, I accept the package, wings, gills and all.”
I think if we apply this logic to Trump’s boorish, careless, reckless, and divisive use of the presidential bully pulpit, we can see why many people wouldn’t be able to extend the Julie Principle to such an individual; we cannot accept the package of Trump as president, wings, gills and all. Some of his behavior is simply unacceptable, and will continue to be. That doesn’t mean that we don’t accept that Trump *is* president. Indeed, he is *my* president, even though I did not vote for him. But it seems remarkable to me that you would invoke the Julie Principle on behalf of a man whose presidential fiber you presciently impugned in 2015 and in the instance of the very behavior — crudeness, carelessness, meanness — on which the condemnation was based.
Please read Jack’s recent post relating to team bias. For the last 8 years I was told that as a conservative I was a reprehensible cretin for things I believe.
If your argumeny is that Trump speaks bluntly and uneloquently, i’ll take that over those whose use of language is designed to provide wiggle room to preserve plausible deniability.
Yes, we have grown used to focus group tested political rhetoric designed specifically pander to one group while ensuring they could deny responsibility later on.
The man has been in office 2 weeks. I ask you what misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, or other anti-american values has he exhibited.
If we are going to talk about disdain for a particular judge let me remind you that only Republican nominated judges are smeared.
These are certainly fair points. And I would hardly dispute the fact that the most vocal progressives seem to be hyperventilating about Trump’s every misstep; I don’t speak for them. Nor would I suggest that in his two weeks in office that he has indulged in outright misogyny or homophobia (though the executive order on immigration appears to have been drafted by the Bannon-led division of Trump’s cabinet, which has some xenophobic tendencies, I’ll let that pass too). But give him time, as Jack’s suggested, and Trump’s demerits of temperament will keep surfacing, and though they may not erode the office of the presidency past the point of redemption, they do represent a moral failing which I’m not completely prepared to accept. I do want to say for the record that I value this blog as a corrective for my own ample biases and for contributors like you who seem to be incredibly well-informed and articulate. I hate the fact that so many of my fellow liberals are freaking out over the most trivial shit when they ought to be finding ways to reach out to reasonable people like you, and saving the real outrage for Trump’s most major errors and — if applicable — scandals. My point here is a modest one: I personally don’t find Jack’s Julie Principle applies to Trump’s tweets or to his rhetoric in general, because I don’t find this aspect of his approach to the presidency acceptable. Therefore, I think it’s correct for people to continue to call him out on it — *within reasonable means*.
Warren, if i recall correctly, Jack has said on several occassions that Trump will either change the Presidency or it will change him for the better.
You mentioned reckless action in your first post but I can point to the bombing of Libya that left a vacuum creating a failed state. That was reckless. I recall President Obama chastising police departments without having any understanding of the facts. That was reckless. I recall President Obama talk about how the use of chemic weapons use in Syria would change his calculus. That was either reckless, irresponsible or his ego talking because he did nothing when it happened. We had an eloquent, dispassionate chief executive who said yes to all foreign powers demands. All the rhetoric soundefd wonderful but Trump did not create the divide we have today. That divide began in 2001. If my memory serves me I recall that Bush 2 was considered a illiterate buffoon – remember strategery- he was roundly criticized by progressives for his supposed poor grades in school.
Lest we forget Sally Yates. She argued that deference must be given to the President on immigration issues when she serve in the Obama DOJ.
As for Bannon, Ms. Pelosi called him a white supremacist outside of the House floor- Absolutely reckless and has caused irreparable harm. If anyone can demonstrate through Bannon’s opinions that he is a neo-nazi or anything where he claims whites are superior then you can argue that point. But, if your argument is based on the fact he does not believe in certain progressive causes that is nothing but scapegoating. Many people feel that certain progressive causes are wrong.
When I was young in the early sixties I was called a nazi because of my last name. I was too young to know better so I just ignored it. I know better now and I won’ t be quiet when it id used against me. That is my N word.
But the response to this is so obvious. My Dad’s view not only applies, it applies necessarily. There is a choice with a candidate,just as there is a choice with a friend. I don’t know if I would choose to accept Trump’s deficits to have him as a friend—I don’t know him well enough to know what kind of friend he is or would be, and as a POTUS, I don’t have to.
As a candidate, clearly his deficits were too much: nothing he offered overcame them, or could. But a citizen can reject a candidate. A citizen cannot reject a President. My father could tell his sociopathic friend to get out of his life, and out of his life he would be. But a citizen cannot reject an elected President….that’s the way the nation was designed. For four years, he is my nation’s leader, and that is more important than the boorishness, bad manners, incivility and childishness. So I accept it as part of the relationship I am committed to for four years. Constantly bitching about it will just render the relationship unbearable for both of us. As with a difficult friendship, both parties must do what they can to make it work, excpet that with a President, there is no choice. In the case of the relationship between POTUS and the public, what he can do is fix things and make the country stronger, safer, more prosperous and better for all. What we can do is not complain constantly about style, quirks and baked-in weaknesses, and give him a chance, because if he fails, we’re all in trouble. And it is also the fair and responsible thing to do.
This is obviously a very reasonable response. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your thinking for me. I suppose the only thing I would add is that I, for one, do not reject Trump as our elected president. I find some aspects of his policy and temperament extremely objectionable, though. Unless I’m totally misinterpreting the Julie principle, it’s his temperament which you’re encouraging us to — I won’t say look past or dismiss — but to avoid constantly griping about. Fair enough. I think there’s a case to be made that it’s in the country’s best interest to encourage the President to follow his better instincts. But I do think there’s some area between ignoring things like his boorish tweets completely and going into hysterics which it is reasonable and ethical to occupy. I may be wrong, and both you and Chris have given me a lot to think about.
Of course, nothing says this relationship has to last four years. Trump hasn’t done anything impeachable yet, but give him time. If this is how chaotic and incompetent his first two weeks have been, do we really think he will improve from here on out? This is usually the “grace period,” but even if liberals and the MSM had decided to give him one (which we haven’t–and, IMO, for good reason) his own actions would have blown it by now.
No, there are times when you just have to end the relationship. We just need to convince enough Republicans to help us end it.
Bad law, bad logic, bad ethics. You don’t impeach Presidents because you don’t like their style or policy. That’s what elections are for, and advocating otherwise just drives committed citizens away from progressives and Democrats, who are signalling that nobody can ever win power but them and that there is only one side of every argument: theirs. The arrogance and hypocrisy is astounding, and as I already wrote, really, really foolish. The whiff of it is what lost Hillary my vote, the escalation of it since Nov. 8 has caused so many I know to say, “You know, I didn’t support Trump or vote for him, but I’ll never support his opposition again.”
I said long ago that Trump might be a buffoon, and he certainly has some buffoonish attributes, but Hillary was a proto-totalitarian, and there was no way I was voting for a proto-totalitarian. The party that stood behind her was also proto-totalitarian. The second sentence of your post above has been borne out by what followed this election, and is being proven out more every day. It’s proven out every time the minority in the Senate walks out of a committee to prevent a vote from taking place. It’s proven out every time some rinky-dink mayor or governor with delusions of grandeur says he’s going to nullify a Federal statute. And it’s proven out every time a riot breaks out in some college town or big liberal city and results in trashed property and injuries, but the liberal authorities stand around with the proverbial thumb. Howard Dean’s tweet that those rioters are those who will be running this country one day is both idiotic and scary.
This isn’t the UK, and the impeachment process isn’t a vote of no confidence, that you can just call for and vote on like a vote to name a post office. You know the process, it’s spelled out in the Constitution, and it applies only to treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. That last phrase does not include implementing policies that the minority party doesn’t like. To do otherwise is abuse of the process. However, absent a Democratic “wave” in 2018, which is unlikely to flip the Senate, I don’t see it. The idea that the very party that is attempting to govern by spite and vengeance and obstruction is going to flip members of the GOP to bring Trump down is a pipe dream. Yes, Nixon lost the support of his own party in 1974, after it was clear he’d broken the law and the choices were to resign or to continue embattled in office for 2 years. Trump hasn’t, and to say that in two weeks he’s where Nixon took six years to get is just demagoguery and more proto-totalitarianism.
Trump hasn’t, and to say that in two weeks he’s where Nixon took six years to get is just demagoguery and more proto-totalitarianism.
I didn’t say that.
“However, absent a Democratic “wave” in 2018, which is unlikely to flip the Senate, I don’t see it. The idea that the very party that is attempt”
Don’t think for a minute that the next time they get both houses and presidency that they won’t go full extremist in “revenge” for all the faux outrages they are supposedly fighting “against” in the present.
Bad law, bad logic, bad ethics. You don’t impeach Presidents because you don’t like their style or policy.
I just said he hasn’t done anything impeachable yet, so I’m not sure what this is in response to.
That’s what elections are for, and advocating otherwise just drives committed citizens away from progressives and Democrats, who are signalling that nobody can ever win power but them and that there is only one side of every argument: theirs.
Do you really think progressives would be acting like this if Kasich had won?
I have no idea. Kasich is more conservative than Trump. All I can do is judge how they are acting now. From their current conduct, I must presume that the current Democratic Party does not endorse the basic principle that you lose an election and look ahead to winning the next one, rather than trying to overthrow the elected opposition.
“Of course, nothing says this relationship has to last four years…”
If everything in your post were said about a President Hillary, I suspect you would feel differently. Trump uses (poorly thought out) words; the Clintons have actually done things to get impeached and imprisoned. If they were not protected by the MSM and liberals, they would both be in jail.
. Trump uses (poorly thought out) words; the Clintons have actually done things to get impeached and imprisoned.
What are those things?
Sorry for the late reply; I have been busy at work the past few days and had not checked back posts for replies.
“What have the Clintons done that got others impeached and imprisoned?”
-Lied about a “Lewinsky” in the Oval office under oath (damn that DNA on the blue dress!) and then tried to lawyer out of it by twisting the definition of the word “is.” Second President to be impeached, but was protected by all Democrat Senators (and 10 RINOs) from being thrown out of office on charges of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Bill lost his law licence over this as well. Need I say that normal citizens go to jail for these crimes?
-Whitewater: 15 associates took the fall to protect Bill and Hillary, and Bill pardoned several in the aftermath. The improper handling of records ‘lost’ the evidence that directly implicated the Clintons, but the smoke was quite thick around this matter. Tax evasion was later discovered but too late to prosecute. Obstruction of Justice (Rose Law Firm records) were dodged (found in the White House Residence, and no one knew a thing about them… just appeared on that coffee table magically) Normal citizens DID go to prison, at least until Clinton pardoned his cronies.
-FBI Files improperly used (suspected to have been used to target political enemies); Official findings were ‘oh, there was no proof that they were used to target Clinton enemies’ even though the White House had no other reason to have those files, and finding them there did break laws. IRS audits suddenly appeared on many of those enemies, as well as many who had publicly criticized the Clintons (The IRS would never target audits at the behest of the White House, right? uh, oh yeah, Obama and Hillary did this recently) Rules and laws don’t seem to apply to the Clintons.
-Hillary Clinton made a $100,000 profit trading cattle futures in 10 months with a minimal $1,000 investment — far less than the $12,000 the contracts would normally go for. There was thick smoke around this one, too: the brokerage firm had improper transactions, alleged to have assigned winners and losers to past stock transactions. That rate of return is far from believable, but no charges were filed once again. Normal citizens go to prison for this.
-The Clintons vandalized the White House, and attempted to steal furniture, according to the GAO. Theft and destruction of government paroperty would land me in jail.
-Email server. Mishandling of classified docs. I would have gone to jail for any ONE of those docs, much less the numbers everyone agrees she tampered with and exposed to who knows what enemies of the USA. I could go to jail for revealing anything that was classified 20 years ago, when I had Top clearance, even if it is no longer classified now
-The body count is higher than statistical probability would support. Look at one scandal, you find a dead body. Look across all the Clinton scandals, and the list beggars belief. Common threads, similar deaths under suspicious circumstances, violent deaths. Clinton insiders die younger under more inexplicable circumstances than statistics allow, as well as Clinton enemies. There are more than 100 people who refuse to testify on anything the Clintons have a part of. 45 people have gone to jail- White House Staff, Cabinet members, Justice Department employees- rather than implicate the Clintons. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
-The Clinton Foundation raised about $500 million between 2009 and 2012. According to IRS documents, $75 million went to charity, while $25 million went to travel expenses (which benefited the Clintons directly), $110 million went to went to employee salaries (not the Clintons), and $290 million for ‘other expenses,’ unspecified in the documents. In 2013, tax returns show the Foundation raised $140 million, with only $9 million donated. Many donors got governmental favors and US policy influences after donating, even while Hillary was StateSec (including a half million donation from Algeria in 2010, a clear violation because it was not disclosed.) Qatar (Up to $5 million, $1 million confirmed), Kuwait (up to $10 million, $5 Million confirmed), and up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia (10 million confirmed.) This one goes on and on. $165 million in State Department approvals of Arms deals to 20 government donors, after they donated under Hillary’s watch. More smoke.
I could go on (why do you think my avatar is SlickWilly?), but that is enough to show criminal behavior.
Chris and I are thinking of teaming up and going on the road…
On that road trip, don’t forget to take Chris, Chris and Chris with you.
Don’t leave Chris out… we like him
In your Sept 2015 post, you note that “we could not survive [Trump’s presidency] as a culture. Placing a man with Trump’s personality and his rejection of the basic features of civilized conduct and discourse to an extent that only the obscenely rich or the resolutely misanthropic can get away with would ensure that American culture would deteriorate into a gross, rude, selfish, assault muck in which no rational human being would want to live. A generation raised under President trump would be misogynist and proud of it. It would value appearances over substance, success over character and principles. It would extol, as Trump does, the empty values of the celebrity culture. Bullying would be acceptable; “after all, the President does it.” So would boasting, posturing, bluffing and faking it. He would make us, in short, a nation of assholes.”
I just thank God in Heaven that, until today, Trump has not appeared dressed as a Peanut Farmer . . .
I have to admit. The misery of liberals warms my heart. Everyday is like Christmas. I hope you all never stop melting down. It is too entertaining!
I like Elizabeth Warren’ speech in Baltimore. There is an opposition, and it has a right ….. even a duty … to oppose.
“We will resist every single effort to make America into a small and spiteful place. We will resist every injustice. We will resist every effort to divide us. We will resist every effort to disgrace our Constitution. We will resist every single step toward the takeover of our government by billionaires, bankers and bigots.”
If that is ‘freaking out’ then so be it.
Freaking out, and demagoguery. Non-substance, pure emotion, and intellectually vapid. What exactly does that screed mean? It has less content than “Make America great again.”
It’s also transparently self-contradictory. Her party is opposing a qualified SCOTUS nominee that it unanimously approved once, out of pure spite…and many party officials have admitted it. The entire reaction to Trump’s election has been spiteful. Divisive? The entire strategy of the Left has been to utilize group identification to divide the nation: labor against management, black against white, male against female, illegal immigrants against law-abiding citizens, class against class, gays against religion, while calling whites who objected bigots. Nice.
Disgrace to the Constitution? Like unilaterally amending Obamacare without Congress? Illegal appointments to the NLRB using an imaginary recess? Droning US citizens without due process of law? Illegal bombing in Libya? Illegal suspension of immigration law enforcement? Employing the IRS for political harassment? A health care bill passed with the assertion that the mandate wasn’t a tax but a penalty, then when it was clear that a penalty violated the Commerce Clause, it was defended before the Supreme Court as a tax? Attempts to force religious institutions to provide services that violate their faith?
Democratic ideologues like Warren ignore and deride the Constitution at will; they may NOT grandstand about the Constitution, or divisiveness, or spite.
And her last sentence is self-parody: is she emulating “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion?” “Billionaires, Bankers and Bigots” is worse. The first two words are USED as bigotry. Warren is a bigot.
My father was a banker for 35 years. Never pretended to be a minority to steal a job; never used a stereotype against a group in his life; fought in Europe for the rights of elite asses like Warren to be assholes, had his foot blown up, got out of his hospital bed to fight in the Battle of the Bulge, and would do a damn sight better in a leadership position than Elizabeth Warren on the worst day of his life. She impugns my father because he was a banker?
Warren, meanwhile, derides “billionaires” while she supported movements funded by George Soros and Hillary Clinton, who sucked up to billionaires constantly and who courted Goldman Sachs. Warren is 67, was cloistered in the fantasy world of academia from the age of 27, has never built anything, run a business, made a payroll. She is the epitome of an ivory tower leftist, and believes in a crushing statist bureaucracy, run by smug and narrow-minded people like her. Her self-righteous posturing should set off every ethics alarms you have.
Glad you “liked her speech.” Ugh.
Strong letter to follow.
Did you drink my brand of coffee this morning? Usually it’s ME who’d cut loose like that, deserved as it may be in Fauxcahontas’ case.
It was last night, and I felt it was justified, Still do. Saying that one “likes’ that sort of naked demagoguery and hypocrisy has to be addressed.
Well, if I can’t make exceptions to my own rule, what’s the point? Besides, a Senator condemning bigotry while engaging in it deserves obscenity. Worse, really.
Agreed, just saying it is a precision F-strike.
“[Elizabeth Warren’s] self-righteous posturing should set off every ethics alarms you have.”
It does, plus, it sets off more than a few of my own unethical dog whistles. Ditto your two-word, all-caps paragraph, Jack.
It is my understanding that G. Washington was very wealthy. He’d correspond to a today ‘billionaire’. And if also I understand correctly, US government has always been slanted toward money-people and money-enterprise. America and Americans have always been seen and understood as very interested in and driven by economic motives.
One of the *better* (most admired) Presidents was the WW2 Roosevelt who was quite wealthy. And Kennedy?
George was either the wealthiest President or second to Trump, whose exact wealth is indeterminate. Both Roosevelts and Kennedy were wealthy, though not in George’s league. Hoover was wealthier than the the Roosevelts. The assumption by Warren that billionaires are inherently cruel, greedy, and earned their money on then backs of the oppressed is working class hero nonsense, and pure class hate and bigotry.
The business of America is business.
“Stipulated, for the President to do this is presidential, unhelpful, self-destructive and stupid.”
I assume that you meant UN-presidential here?
That was my Julie-Principle-d presumption about what he wrote.
Boy, are you the only one who catches those????
No, I just forgot about it by the time I got to the comments… 🙂
“Now, a TRO doesn’t necessarily have to explain in detail what is wrong with a law, regulation or order.”
There you go. The Judge ordered briefing — seems to be the correct thing to do. I’ve argued TROs before, the burden is not a big one, especially when you are essentially arguing for the status quo for a few days.