Conservative legal scholars warn about Trump

feedback.pdxradio.com forums feedback.pdxradio.com forums Politics and other things Conservative legal scholars warn about Trump

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20319
    Andy Brown
    Participant

    Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

    Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

    “Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asked Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.

    With five months to go before Election Day, Mr. Trump has already said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics. He has encouraged rough treatment of demonstrators.

    His proposal to bar Muslims from entry into the country tests the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom, due process and equal protection.

    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story
    And, in what was a tipping point for some, he attacked Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Federal District Court in San Diego, who is overseeing two class actions against Trump University.

    Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat.

    “They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,” Mr. Trump said. “O.K.? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case?”

    Continue reading the main story
    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story
    David Post, a retired law professor who now writes for the Volokh Conspiracy, a conservative-leaning law blog, said those comments had crossed a line.

    “This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,” Mr. Post said. “You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.”

    “If he is signaling that that is not his position, that’s a very serious constitutional problem,” Mr. Post said.

    Beyond the attack on judicial independence is a broader question of Mr. Trump’s commitment to the separation of powers and to the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown and an architect of the first major challenge to President Obama’s health care law, said he had grave doubts on both fronts.

    “You would like a president with some idea about constitutional limits on presidential powers, on congressional powers, on federal powers,” Professor Barnett said, “and I doubt he has any awareness of such limits.”

    Source: Today’s NY Times

    #20322

    Trump is no conservative, but conservatives will vote for him because of the unacceptable alternative. A few conservative eggheads and experts will get their noses out of joint over Trump, but nobody is listening to them because they reek of sour grapes. (i.e., Bill Kristol).

    #20323
    Amus
    Participant

    This is really just so funny!

    When the ignorant start railing against “eggheads”.

    Welcome to Idiorcracy!

    ‘Idiocracy’ writer: I never expected my movie ‘to become a documentary’

    #20324
    LurkingGrendel
    Participant

    Agreed. Avoid smart people. What do they know?

    #20325
    Amus
    Participant

    #20328
    LurkingGrendel
    Participant

    Idiocracy is here. Trump is President Camacho.

    #20329
    Andy Brown
    Participant

    F&B bloviated: “conservatives will vote for him because of the unacceptable alternative.”

    Yes they will, but not enough in the states he would need to climb the deep blue wall. If Clinton wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) that have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the last six elections, she will be the 45th president. It’s that simple.

    And here’s the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida’s 29 and you get 271. Game over.

    Add to that the percentage of the Hispanic vote in Florida and the attitude of Trump towards them, well, there is no chance the GOP will succeed.

    Plus what has become increasingly clear is that any state with a large or growing nonwhite population has become more and more difficult for Republicans to win. It’s not just Florida. Virginia and North Carolina, long Republican strongholds, have moved closer and closer to Democrats of late. (Obama won both states in 2008 and carried Virginia in 2012.)

    So you see, F&B, you can post up your drivel all you want but it does not make a convincing argument. I suggest you bloviate now, because your ability to post here is now on a ticking clock. Thanks for stopping by. It shows you are indeed a hypocrite as well as uninformed and unable to make a cogent, substantiated point. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.