Over the next four weeks, the Supreme Court is predicted to alter the way the nation chooses their representatives in Congress.
Additionally, they will decide if the First Amendment protects those who do not want do business with same-sex couples and if President Trump’s tweets are valid enough to derail his agenda.
They have leaked an ugly threat towards judges who choose to use activism instead of the law for their decision making. They have also disrespected the judges for their choice of ruling nationals and not case specific.
This is a total breach of trust on its own.
Now, the biggest test of all will be on President Trump’s travel ban.
Since Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban from a handful of Muslim-majority countries. They rejected arguments that it was pushed by discrimination from Muslims or went past his authority.
Donald Trump quickly praised the ruling with excitement.
According to steadfastandloyal:
Those judges would be eligible for removal for corruption. Although the warning is about several different issues. The court was especially harsh on judges who ruled against Trump’s travel bans. As he was doing this under the auspices of a law passed by Congress. They pointed out they could not take statements made by Trump or any of his officials on the subject.
So much for the claim that Donald Trump’s strident campaign rhetoric about Muslims rendered him unfit to wield the powers of the presidency. The Supreme Court will have none of it.
That’s the bottom line in the justices’ blockbuster decision to back President Trump against a suit by Hawaii on the so-called Muslim travel ban, overruling the lower courts.
Not only that, but the decision was a major blow to the “judicial resistance” — the attempts by judges to constrain Mr. Trump’s clearly vested powers because they don’t like the president who’s wielding them.
The vote may have been a narrow five to four. It was backed up, though, by a thumping decision by Chief Justice Roberts, eviscerating claims by the judicial resistance to Mr. Trump.
Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence, went further. He called such orders “legally and historically dubious,” warning that if the lower courts continue using them, the Supremes would be “duty-bound” to adjudicate.
It remains to be seen if these activist judges will continue their illegal rulings. They do it at their own peril since SCOTUS has the votes to spank or remove them.