Trump rages at SCOTUS: "The Country can only withstand so many bad decisions from a Court that doesn't seem to care."

[Miles Archer]

“If they saw it they would never allow that money making HOAX to continue. THEY SHOULD USE THEIR POWERS OF COMMON SENSE FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY,” Trump wrote.

“They failed miserably on Tariffs, needlessly costing the USA Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in potential rebates for the benefit haters and scammers. Why??? Don’t do it again! The Country can only withstand so many bad decisions from a Court that just doesn’t seem to care.”

Trump went on an unhinged 1 a.m. rant about the Supreme Court as it considers whether to allow him to scrap birthright citizenship.

The 79-year-old president suggested on Truth Social that it’s “too bad” the Supreme Court didn’t “study” Mark Levin’s Fox News show, in which the host argued that the 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/panicked-donald-trump-79-rages-at-supreme-court-in-1am-meltdown-after-humiliating-hearing/

[MyOwnPeace]

1. He IS correct!

It all started with “Citizens United” and sealed the deal with “Unlimited Presidential Immunity!”

[Nasruddin]

18. Long before that

This institution is one of the biggest flaws in our constitution. It has failed us over and over for more than 2 centuries.
Term limits would help of course but a lot of the problems with it come from its scope, and what the consequences are of its decisions.

[DemocracyForever]

30. It all started with Bush vs Gore

courtesy of the corrupt Rehnquist 5. Our country will never recover from that judicial coup d'état!

[Auggie]

2. Pandering. He's engaging MAGA for mid-term support.

[malaise]

3. Note this line

Don’t do it again!

Time to lock him up

[yellow dahlia]

26. Yes - restrain him...somehow!

[underpants]

4. John Sauer will now wheel in an elementary school TV stand to show a Levin video

or whatever unhinged Fox News/OANN/NewsMax host properly praised Trump on their TV show.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. Oh yeah, that's real smart,

rage and insult the very people who'll decide on your policies.

[Miles Archer]

8. Every time he does that, he shines a blinding spotlight on their corruption

No matter how much of a conservative zealot Roberts might be under his fake "kindly gentleman" veneer, I HAVE TO BELIEVE he's witnessed the last 16 months, like the rest of us, and thought "WOW...did I SCREW UP or WHAT?"

Because while Trump is the perpetrator, Roberts was his enabler.

[chelsea0011]

6. He wants Birthright Citizenship to be

rules in his favor so badly that he threatens the Supreme Court. Guy is evil at everything.

[Buns_of_Fire]

7. Gratitude, trump style. And after all they've done for him. nt

[dalton99a]

9. He is threatening the justices.

[malaise]

11. Correct

Rec

[Ocelot II]

10. This is exactly why the lifetime appointment thing wasn't such a bad idea

as some people have claimed. Yes, you sometimes get stuck with duds (e.g., Alito, Thomas), but if the president can't fire the justices or influence supporters to vote them out, they don't have to concern themselves with the consequences of pissing him off. They just make decisions based on the law (or what they perceive the law to be even if we don't agree with them), without worrying whether the president who appointed them will have a hissy fit and sack them because he doesn't like a decision. If SCOTUS judges were fireable the tariff decision would have had most of them out on their ear. Since preemptive ranting didn't work for that decision, Piggy showed up at the oral argument in the birthright case and glowered, maybe hoping the lifetime-appointed judges would be intimidated (by what? Ugliness and attitude?) into accepting Sauer's pathetic arguments. When it looked like they weren't buying it he stomped out in a snit. I don't think the founding fathers anticipated a disaster like Trump, but at least they understood that protecting the federal judiciary from the political whims of the other branches or the electorate might be a pretty good idea. QED.

[Lochloosa]

17. Well said. If anyone would bother reading the reasoning behind the lifetime appointments,

they would (should) come to the same conclusion.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2018-10-02/why-did-the-framers-give-lifetime-tenure-to-supreme-court-justices

This is, in large part, because the tenure for a Supreme Court Justice is unlimited. In my quest to understand why, I turned first to James Madison’s “Notes of Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787.” Here, Madison relates the moment the framers got the judicial ball rolling in Philadelphia. For the record, it was on a Monday in June.

“On [the] motion to agree to the first clause, namely ” resolved that a National Judiciary be established, “it passed in the affirmative nem. con.,” wrote Madison.

Nem. con. is an abbreviation for a Latin phrase that means “without dissent.” So, while the delegates unanimously agreed there would be a national judiciary, deciding what it would look like, and what it would do, would take some work. One place where there was quick consensus, with little if any debate, was that lifetime term in office for justices.

Klarman said the reason for that lifetime appointment was simple: To cultivate judicial independence. If you never have to worry about being re-elected or re-appointed then, “there’s no reason to tailor your decisions to the pleasure of the institution that does the appointing,” Klarman said.

[stopdiggin]

27. Thanks. Two well reasoned posts on this topic in a row

amidst a lot of caterwauling about failed institution, etc.

Here's a clue - conservative appointments tend to hold - conservative opinions. Sometimes they change course over a period of time, sometimes they don't. not fond of conservative legal opinion? Try electing people who appoint employing different standards. (it has been done in the past) But, in almost all cases - independence is a desired feature - while marrying them closer to their patrons and benefactors - is not going to engender an improved result.

[Lochloosa]

31. Judge David Souter was a prime example.

At the time of his appointment, John Sununu told Bush he would be a home run for conservatives. Whoops.

[johnnyfins]

12. He is crazier than a shithouse rat.

Mark Levin is one of the old guard snake oil salesmen. A complete conjob hoax.

[johnnyfins]

13. Can an undocumented person be charged

with a crime in the United States? YES!

That means they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. IF THEY ARE BORN HERE, THEY ARE A CITIZEN!

[Ocelot II]

16. Exactly. The "subject to the jurisdiction" bit was meant only to exclude children of foreign diplomats,

because foreign diplomats on US soil are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That's why their cars have special license plates - diplomats can't even be busted for running a stoplight. Diplomatic immunity is one of the oldest and most widespread practices in international relations, and the principle was in effect when the 14th amendment was written. Everybody else, whether documented or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and is bound by its criminal and civil laws - arguments to the contrary are ridiculous. If an undocumented immigrant isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the US such that their child can't be considered a citizen, that would also mean that immigrant can't be arrested, charged or prosecuted for any crime.

[thesquanderer]

20. and a couple of other exceptions, besides diplomats...

see https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/28/the-original-meaning-of-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states/

[LeftInTX]

21. Diplomatic immunity isn't always 100%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devyani_Khobragade

On December 11, 2013, Devyani Khobragade, then the Deputy Consul General of the Consulate General of India in New York City, was charged by U.S. authorities with committing visa fraud and providing false statements in order to gain entry to the United States for Sangeeta Richard,[1] a woman of Indian nationality, for employment as a domestic worker for Khobragade in New York.[2] She was additionally charged with failing to pay the domestic worker a minimum wage.[3]

Khobragade was arrested the next day by U.S. federal law enforcement authorities,[4] subjected to a "strip search", presented to a judge, and released the same day.[5][6] Her arrest and treatment received much media attention particularly in India, and led to a diplomatic row between India and the United States.[7][8]

One week later, Khobragade was transferred by the government of India to the UN mission in New York, subject to clearance from the United States Department of State, which would entitle her to full diplomatic immunity.[9] Her former post entitled her only to consular immunity.

On January 8, 2014, the U.S. issued Khobragade the G-1 visa that granted her full diplomatic immunity.[10] Following this an unknown US State official is reported to have stated "The US requested waiver of immunity (of Devyani Khobragade). India denied that request. We then requested her departure, as per the standard procedure and the charges remain in place."[11] The next day, Khobragade left the United States by plane to India.[12] That same day she was indicted by a federal grand jury with visa fraud and making false statements.[12]

On March 12, 2014, Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered that all charges against Khobragade be dismissed because she had diplomatic immunity at the time of her indictment on visa fraud charges due to her posting to the United Nations prior to the indictment.[13][14] Two days later, Khobragade was re-indicted on the same charges.[15][16]

[Ocelot II]

23. Pretty much 99%, though, as this case suggests.

As a practical matter foreign diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which is the point of the 14th Amendment argument.

[stopdiggin]

28. a major sh*t show - in which the U.S. government gave ground (and lost face) at pretty much every juncture

not sure if your illustration really makes a great argument ...

(although I will award points toward you in bothering to search it out .. reason we have, and benefit from, these kinds of discussion .. )

[Amethyst Ring]

14. How about a president who doesn't care

About anything except himself, including the innumerable 'bad decisions' he makes?

How long are we supposed to put up with that?

[MustLoveBeagles]

15. Since he got to pick 1/3 of the Justice's

I have zero sympathy for the raging loudmouth fat ass.

[no_hypocrisy]

19. Aw, he's just mad that he can't fire them via Executive Order or like Pam Bondi.

And he's been advised the numbers aren't in Congress to impeach even one of them.

I remember hearing that Eisenhower was greatly distressed and regretful that he selected Earl Warren for SCOTUS as he believed that Warren would vote consistently conservative. (Excuse the alliteration.)

[LeftInTX]

22. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried

[Renew Deal]

24. He can ask Congress to pass tariffs. Why doesn't he do that?

[Bmoboy]

25. He is insane. Therefore ...

He can have them arrested for 'national security" reasons and replace them with Rudy, Eastman, Cannon, Blanche, Habba, Halligan, Ellis, Chesebro, and Roy Cohn.

[yellow dahlia]

29. What's it gonna take?

I know the two obvious options require cooperation from RepugliCONS...but.

Wouldn't JD want to lead the way to the 25th? OR

Aren't the R's in Congress scared enough to vote to impeach?

He is indeed a Mad King...and he has his hands on the tools of destruction. Mass destruction!

What's it gonna take?