Donald Trump

Trump, the Perpetual Underdog

George Neumayr, The American Spectator

Trump looks like an underdog as the judicial branch blatantly usurps the authority of the executive branch on a matter as fundamental as the entry of foreigners from dangerous countries into the country. How is anybody supposed to take the claim of Trump as a “monstrous threat to the Constitution” seriously when Democrats and judges are busy extending the Constitution to foreign nationals in Libya, Somalia, and other terror hot spots?

Could Reince Be On His Way Out As Chief Of Staff?

Alex Pfeiffer, Daily Caller

The opening weeks of the Trump administration have been described as tumultuous by many, potentially leaving White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus’ head on the chopping block. Chris Ruddy, founder of Newsmax Media and one of President Trump’s friends, said Sunday on CNN that the “White House is showing not the amount of order that we need to see. I think there’s a lot of weakness coming out of the chief of staff.”

Join The Fight: Impeach Power Grabbing Federal Judges

We urge CHQ readers to join us in demanding that Representative Robert Goodlatte (VA-6) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee immediately holding hearings on the impeachment of Judge James L. Robart by signing our Impeach Power Grabbing Judges Petition.

Trump vs. the Judiciary

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution—to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers. A clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.

Populist Presidents and 'Demoralized' Judges

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

I don’t think Trump’s complaints about the Ninth Circuit proceeding were a big deal. It is perfectly reasonable for non-lawyers to wonder why the oral argument seemed to have little to do with the controlling statute. The president did not insult the judges. And in terms of working the refs, what he did was not in the same league as President Obama’s warning that the “unelected” Supreme Court better not reverse Obamacare, or his belittling of the justices over Citizens United as they sat before him during the State of the Union address.

Actually, Trump has a duty to ban dangerous immigrants

Seth Lipsky, New York Post

One part of the Constitution — Article IV, Section 4 — lists the few things the government must do, whether it wants to or not. These are the obligations clauses. One of the obligations is that the United States “shall protect” each state “against invasion.” Not “can” protect but “shall.” So if President Trump thinks infiltration by the Islamic State amounts to any kind of invasion, he has to act. That’s never been invoked, but, hey, there’s a first time for everything.

The Good News In The Battle Over President Trump’s Immigration Policies

Despite the pessimism many conservatives feel after the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to overturn District Judge James Robart’s plainly extra-constitutional order stopping the President from suspending immigration from seven terrorist hotspots, there is much good news in the immigration battle.

Trump Spite Leads to Defense of Idiocy

Steven Greenhut, The American Spectator

California’s legal citizens face a growing array of laws, regulations and taxes. In their zeal to poke their finger in the eye of the Republican administration, however, legislators are passing laws that provide wide areas of legal exemptions — designed mainly to benefit people who are here illegally. It’s a perverse legislative approach in a state that can never manage to deregulate anything (except, perhaps, abortion clinics).

House Democrats Compromise American Intelligence Secrets Again

Chiefs of staff for dozens of Democratic lawmakers who employed four Muslim computer staffers were informed that a criminal probe was underway into their use of congressional information technology systems, including the existence of an external server to which House data was being funneled, and into the theft of and overbilling for computer equipment.

Democratic Hysteria Over Gorsuch Is Predictable Posturing

Carrie Severino, Real Clear Politics

The left wants judges who act like legislators or delegates to a perpetual constitutional convention, minting new rights and powers that reflect their personal feelings and policy choices. It also wants judges who give the Executive Branch “experts” in today’s vast, over-regulating administrative state the power to make law.

Impeach Judge James L. Robart – Stolen Sovereignty Makes The Case

The President’s powers as Commander in Chief and his executive power to maintain the country’s sovereignty have been stolen by an unelected judge in the Western District of Washington. Stolen Sovereignty by Daniel Horowitz explains how We the People can recover the sovereignty stolen from us by judges like James L. Robart, and why judges like James L. Robart should be impeached.

Washington Officials Should Stop Stressing about the World

Obviously the world is a messy place. But what stresses American policymakers? It’s not the problem of defending the U.S. No other country has a conventional capability to reach America. Thus, America's national security team need not worry about the sort of potential threats facing virtually every other nation.

Pure Bunk: Trump Is Merely the Latest President to Challenge a Judge

Jeffrey Lord, The American Spectator

Whether the president in question was named Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower or Barack Obama, President Donald Trump’s tweets about Judge Robart are nothing if not merely the latest in a line of presidential precedents. Each in their own way — Lincoln perhaps most notably as, like Trump, his challenge of a judge came during a time of war — have been nothing if not similarly direct in their criticisms of sitting judges.

Sorry: Trump’s immigration order is totally legal

Rich Lowry, New York Post

The nationwide stay of the ban issued by Judge James Robart, a Washington state-based federal district judge, is tissue-thin. It doesn’t bother to engage on the substance, presumably because facts, logic and the law don’t support Robart’s sweeping assertion of judicial authority in an area where judicial power is inherently quite limited.