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:

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/10/were-in-the-midst-of-...

Views: 571

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was in my car the other day when Rush mentioned the Supreme Court case in 1948 where the Supreme Court itself said that it has no say in politics and that the politics should be left up to the two political branches.

Rush also said that in 1953, it was that Supreme Court ruling Congress then codified into the law that Trump used.

I didn't have a pen handy, so I didn't write it down, now I can't remember the court case.

Doe anyone else know it or remember it?

This might be it:

There are real-world examples of Presidents, through their Justice Department, refusing to defend existing laws in courts, although it is rare. In fact, a research of the literature uncovers, before DOMA, only eleven cases. I will not recite all the cases, but the first example occurred in 1948 in the case of U.S. v. Lovett which involved salaries for certain federal employees. Then, the Justice Department refused to defend the law in court claiming it was a Bill of Attainder. In 1963, the Kennedy Administration refused to defend a law that codified the doctrine of “separate but equal” in hospital funding. Likewise, there are cases where one Administration decided not to defend a law and the next Administration’s interpretation of its constitutionality is different and they choose to defend the law.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/davenj1/2012/07/11/can-the-president-...

Thanks Jea9, I think that it is the case Rush refereed to, but, I can't find the paragraph he quoted from.

At least now I have a place to look.

Look to the Declaration of Independence we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and we hold these truths to be self-evident that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are you happy?

we are living in a different world today most young people don't believe in that because we are not teaching it to the kids in school and college I am sorry to say that

Trump is being TOO kind and respectful of the court, by accepting their decision. He has constitutional authority..., to protect and defend the United States citizens...,REGARDLESS OF ANY COURT. Were it me..., I would IGNORE THE COURT..., and continue the march to what he KNOWS, is right!!! As the liberals are so fond of saying...,"if it saves even one life..., then it is JUSTIFIED!!!"

Absolutely... Trump needs to pull an Andrew Jackson... and tell the Courts that they are not the only ones capable of determining what is Constitutional.  Unelected Judges have usurped powers never intended... to be in their purview.  We are not to be RULED BY JUDICIAL FIAT... in other words, judicial adjudications... judicial dicta ... doesn't make law.  Judges Administer law they don't have the power to change the laws... any case found unconstitutional doesn't change the law it only gives relief to the parties in the suit... for that CASE ALONE.  Case law was never supposed to supplant Statutory law.

If the Courts find cause to rule a Statutory law or Order unconstitutional... it is up to the Congress or President to rewrite or strike down the law or Order... not the Courts.  The decision in the Courts is limited to the facts and law as applied in that CASE ALONE... PERIOD.  Every petitioner or complainant who believes the law or order is unconstitutional must bring a separate case before the courts too obtain relief... as case law and the courts dicta in one case doesn't apply to all cases...  the statutory law and order stand as issued until changed by the Congress and President.  .

No, Trump's right.  These bad decisions have been left alone for too long and they just encourage more bad decisions.  Trump said that he was going to make America Great Again.  He didn't say that he was going to polish crap to make it look better.

He needs to go to the mat on this and rub the liberals nose in it.

The fight informs the people, even the uniformed people, because they can't get away from it.

Then if the liberals keep losing on Constitutional grounds, they're going to change tactics and try something else.

Right now the liberals think that they're tough because they don't quit, well it's a test of wills now and they're up against Trump.

Who do you think is tougher?

My bet would be on Trump....he is tough...and will not stand for the silliness that has been going on...

well! let's see what going to happen

No they think they are tough because they are controlling the National Narrative... they have the larger bull horn.  It is time for Trump to step up to the Bully Pulpit and call on his supporters to rally against the horrible opinions being rendered by the 9th Circuit... not one of the three judges should be left on the bench... such a hewn cry for their Impeachment should fill the Capitols of the 50 States and the US in DC.

Where are the rallies and the protests by the Conservative Right... if they become silent in the face of true opposition... don't expect VICTORY too magically appear.  The Left relies on the Conservatives too go to work, too, keep silent until it is too late to correct the narrative and it becomes the law of the land.

Wake up we have not yet begun to fight... the good fight is taking place. Yet most Conservative Americans are either unwilling to engage the fight or are unaware that the battle has just begun.  Our Victory in November must not become a hollow one.. we must not loose our momentum and resolve... we must rally to Trump's aid NOW!  We must defeat the MSM... pulling the door posts and lintels of these institutions down around their own heads... we must summarily pummel them into oblivion... they will not reform or change... they will not voluntarily surrender their power.. it will take the force of wills and our ability to demonstrate our resolve in ways they understand... and MUST ACCEPT.

It is time to DEMAND that Sen. McConnell use the Nuclear Option to END THE FILIBUSTER RULES of the US Senate... the Democrat Party must be subdued in no uncertain terms... their power reduced to nothing.  It must be done now or we risk violent revolution and the capitulation of the week minded and vacillating RINO's.

 

there is no way to avoid it this is it folks

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

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