Image result for rush limbaughRUSH: Jeffrey Lord was on CNN with Anderson Cooper last night and talking about the Ninth Circuit ruling. (interruption) Don’t worry; I know they’ve started. We’ll JIP this thing. We won’t miss the press conference. Here’s Jeffrey Lord making an argument about how Trump could proceed here after the Ninth Circus continued the stay on his executive order.

LORD: Newt Gingrich when he was running for president in 2011, talking about the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case involving Guantanamo and the rights of prisoners. And Speaker Gingrich said, “I would instruct the national security officials in the Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters, and I would interpose the presidency in saying, ‘As the commander-in-chief, we will not enforce this.'” This is called departmentalism. And this goes back to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1819, “Each department of the national government is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”

RUSH: Okay, were you following that? Now, this is an admitted Trump supporter, Jeffrey Lord. He writes for the American Spectator, and he’s citing actual and true American history. He’s reciting what Jefferson wrote, and he is quoting Newt Gingrich. Now, he’s talking to Jeffrey Toobin. He’s a legal analyst CNN. As far as these people are concerned, there is no coequal branch business. The judiciary runs this country.

Yes, there’s separation of powers, but whenever a court speaks — whether they are condemning the constitutionality of a law from Congress or whether they are condemning a presidential action — the Supreme Court is it. The Supreme Court is the last word. Here comes Jeffrey Lord saying (summarized), “No, no, no. Thomas Jefferson said it’s up to each branch to decide how in the world they are going to define the Constitution’s separation of powers,” and he quoted Gingrich as saying (summarized), “Look, in matters of national security, the court can go to hell. I’m gonna ignore what the court gets wrong because they don’t have all the information I have and I’m gonna implement what I think best.”

Well, now, you can imagine the reaction this got on CNN.

TOOBIN: God sakes, Jeff —

LORD: Well —

TOOBIN: — that’s ridiculous.

LORD: Well —

TOOBIN: The idea —

LORD: Jeff —

TOOBIN: — that the president of the United States can ignore judgments of the court? You know, Andrew Jackson did it regarding the Cherokee Indians.

LORD: And Abraham Lincoln did it! Abraham Lincoln did it.

WOMAN: (snickering)

TOOBIN: Yeah, Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War —

WOMAN: (snickering)

TOOBIN: — which is a little different from what’s going on now. The idea —

LORD: Well, according to all my liberal friends, we’re in a Civil War. (chuckling)

TOOBIN: The idea (sputtering) that a president… You know, much credit to Donald Trump, frankly, for saying —

LORD: Jeff?

TOOBIN: “See you in court,” rather than saying, “I’m ignoring the court.”

LORD: Jeff?

TOOBIN: Newt Gingrich’s lunacy —

LORD: See?

TOOBIN: — is not something that —

LORD: Jeff, all I’m saying —

TOOBIN: — anyone should look up to.

LORD: I’m not —

RUSH: Wait a minute, kudos to Donald Trump? “Much credit to Donald Trump for saying, ‘See you in court'”? You know, it’s fascinating. Andrew Jackson… By the way, Lincoln did more than what Jeffrey Lord is attributing to him. Abraham Lincoln actually put a sitting member of Congress in jail. He sent the military out to roust the guy up, put him in jail. Roger Taney was a chief justice of the Supreme Court and he gave a ruling that Lincoln didn’t like on habeas corpus, and he almost put Taney in jail. The fact it was a Civil War…

You know, folks, I gotta tell you something.

I don’t think we’re that far from a Civil War in this country right now. I’m not talking about armed conflict, North v. South, but we clearly have a divide in this country that is in no way gonna be bridged. It isn’t gonna be bridged by compromise. It’s not gonna be bridged by walking across the aisle and getting along with people, and it’s not gonna be bridged by persuading people to agree with us and vice-versa. The only way this is ever gonna end is when one side gets defeated — politically defeated — and becomes a demonstrable minority.

That’s the only way any of this is gonna end. The left does not want this to end! This is normalcy for the left. You must understand this. This is what they want life in America to be day in and day out. Remember, they are victims. They are not happy. As victims, it is impossible to be happy. It’s impossible to be content. They think there are no reasons to be happy. Even when Obama was winning and he was in the White House, they were still livid and angry every day! Over what? The fact that there was opposition to Obama!

read more:

Views: 571

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Judges don't get to define or redefine the law... They are to administer the law.  In other words, each of their decisions stand on the merits of a particular case... THUS their judgment extends only to the case before them. 

A Judge's dicta and judgment should not overturn the law or the orders of the President.  It is up to the other Branches (Congress and Executive) to take notice of a Court's decisions, and where a Court finds Constitutional issues, the Congress and Executive SHOULD... take action to correct the law or orders to conform with the Constitution. That is... WHEN the Congress and President agree with the Courts... If they don't act on the Courts judgment, it falls to the People to remove the President and Congress, using the electoral and Constitutional processes provided...making the ultimate judge of the law and government the PEOPLE... not an unelected Judge.

Judges and the Federal Judiciary have usurped powers never given to these unelected Administrators of the Law (Federal Judiciary)...  They have anointed themselves KING(s), whose Judicial EDICT becomes law; the law of Judicial fiat (the law of the court), is 'Tyranny Administered' under the COLOR OF LAW.  It is not law by consent of the People, as the People have not consented to be ruled by Judges... nor have they elected them to high office.

I say again... the Courts don't legislate law... they are not supposed to make Law.... They Administer the law.  Whenever a Court decides that a law is unconstitutional... relief from that law is granted, to the plaintiff or defendant, in that particular case and that Judgment should extend no further.  All parties desiring future relief, from unconstitutional law, must bring each case before the Court... As judgment in one case, must never extend to another's case... That type of judicial system creates the basis for rule by judicial fiat... granting the Judiciary the plenary power of an absolute Monarch.. 

The Congress and Executive should always take, under advisement, the ruling of the Courts on Constitutional issues regarding the law... Where they agree with the Court, the Congress and President, should modify or amend the law(s) and Order(s) (policy) of the Nation, to comply with the Constitution as determined by the Courts... WHEN THEY DISAGREE the COURTS Don't automatically overrule the other Branches of Government... It then, is up to the PEOPLE, thru the electoral process to remove the President or members of Congress... too replace them with individuals that do agree with the Court... or they may keep their President and Congress... and the Courts will be left to adjudicate their opinion CASE BY CASE before the Bench.

The Judiciary are not KINGS... absolute Monarchs whose judgment is law... Nay, they usurp such power and those that do must be removed from their offices by Congress... Impeached immediately. Also, all officers of the Court who subscribe to the supremacy of the Judiciary... as Monarchs in robes... must be disbarred and removed as OFFICERS OF THE PEOPLE's COURTS.  We must purge out the lawyers who support the  supremacy of the Courts.

The problem is, that once you let the Supreme Court be only high court that can interpret the meanings of the words used in the Constitution, the Constitution is no longer the Supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court is now above the Constitution and an Article V Constitutional Amendment is no longer needed to change the Constitution.

Just corrupt the Supreme Court and you corrupt the Constitution.

In any contract, if there is a conflict with the words, terms or phrases used in a contract, you must go back to when the contract was written to know what the words, terms or phrases meant and how they were used, at the time of the writing of the contract.

The Problem is that Legislative and the Executive Branches of our government refuse to take the Judicial Branch of Government out to the wood shed and beat the living hell out of them.  In fact, the Congress and President have grown accustomed to using the courts to do what they find political suicide... such as passing laws that promote abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, limits on gun ownership, etc.  They see the Courts as an untouchable venue to destroy our constitution and cultural standards without suffering politically... from the vote/will of the People.

The justices only have their positions during good behavior.

Violating the letter, purpose and intent of the Constitution is not good behavior.

It's time that the Justices got judged!

The Wood Shed is an excellent idea, seems nothing else sinks in, and these "Non-Americans" keep working against their Country.

 Corruption is already "in the door" at the Supreme Court. If a Judge does NOT believe that  our Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, then (s)he has been adulterated. It is not too hard to vet any judge and their past. Some of the justices are without any doubt, liberals. That is NOT Constitutionally conducive.

Trump should ignore the the unconstitutional court ruling. He has the legal right to do so. Three people don't have the legal right to over ride the law. That is tyranny.

Morton   Go to President Trump facebook and post this after you get approved. It did not take but a minute to be approved.

Three unelected Judges... need to be removed from the bench... Impeached for Judicial Activism.  Congress needs to act too remove such BAD CONDUCT on the benches of America's Federal Courts.




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Michael RamirezPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel


Judicial Watch->  Emails Show Dossier-Connected Obama State Dept Officials Set ‘Face-To-Face’ Meeting On ‘Russian Matter’ Shortly Before 2016 Election

Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday released 84 pages of documents showing Obama’s State Department was central to pushing the ‘Trump-Russia’ hoax shortly before the 2016 election.

The email exchange between then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer, a very close associate to Christopher Steele, show them discussing a ‘face-to-face’ meeting in New York on a ‘Russian matter’ in September of 2016.

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch and The Daily Caller News Foundation today released 84 pages of documents, including a September 2016 email exchange between then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer, a close associate of dossier author Christopher Steele, discussing a “face-to-face” meeting on a “Russian matter.”

(In June 2016 Nuland permitted a meeting between Steele and the FBI’s legal attaché in Rome. Nuland told CBS News that the State Department knew about the Steele dossier by July 2016.)

According to an op-ed Winer wrote for The Washington Post in 2018, also in September 2016, “Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the “dossier… I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.”

A September 17, 2016, email exchange between Nuland and Winer – that was classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy – discusses the political situation in Libya, but also brings up a “Russian matter:”

From: Winer, Jonathan
Sent: September 17, 2016 at 12:40:00 PM EDT
To: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Libya Update

Would like to discuss this and a Russian matter.

From: Nuland, Victoria J
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 1:31 PM
To: Winer, Jonathan
Subject: Re. Libya Update

In ny face to face?

From: Winer, Jonathan
Sent: September 17, 2016 at 1:56:05 PM EDT
To: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Libya Update

Yes that was [sic] be good.

From: Nuland, Victoria J
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 1:58 PM
To: Winer, Jonathan
Subject: Re. Libya Update

Good. I’ll reach out when im there Sunday. [Redacted]

If Victoria Nuland’s name sounds familiar it’s because she has been on Judicial Watch’s radar for a long time and in many of TGP’s previous reports.

In December 2018, Judicial Watch released documents revealing that Victoria Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department’s urgent gathering of classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Donald Trump taking office.

In a related lawsuit, Judicial Watch is suing the State Department communications between Ambassador Nuland and employees of Fusion GPS, as well as top ranking Department of Justice, FBI, and State Department officials.

“The Obama State Department was central to the effort to target President Trump with the Russia smear,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These new emails further show that senior Obama State Department advanced the Russiagate hoax just before the 2016 presidential election.”

Tom Fitton   @TomFitton

BREAKING: Obama State Department was central to the effort to target President @RealDonaldTrump with the Russia smear. New emails show how senior Obama State Department advanced the Russiagate hoax just before the 2016 presidential election.

Embedded video

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service