Trump Channels ACLU Donation Request

Typical Trumpicide -- quote a phrase successfully used against you by your opponents and get ridiculed. Donald Trump has responded to the 9th Circuit decision by tweeting "See You In Court."

What a moronic thing to say, considering that's where he has been and he's been losing. Does he even realize he's channeling the ACLU? The ACLU has been using this graphic for three months . When the ACLU first posted it along with a request for donations in November, it had its biggest fundraising day ever -- more than $15 million. (That's now been surpassed by $24 million in donations received just during the weekend he tried to enforce his Muslim ban.)


The ACLU promised:

If Donald Trump is elected president and tries to implement any of these proposed policies, he and the U.S. government will spark legal and constitutional challenges that will require all hands on deck at the ACLU. The ACLU and its more than 300 attorneys in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., stand ready to challenge and impede implementation of his proposals, should he see them through. (Donald Trump, after all, changes his positions all of the time.)

Have no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s policies, if implemented, would trigger a constitutional crisis. But you can also be certain that the ACLU will fight in the courts, in Congress, and in the public square to preserve the rights guaranteed to all people by the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Donald Trump may believe the president is above the law, but he is mistaken. As always, we are standing guard to ensure that the rule of law always remains stronger than the rule of one man.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups are making good on their promise to see him in Court. This graphic has been all over the internet -- probably only Fox News missed it. I just reposted it yesterday in a post about Gitmo, adding:

See you in Court, Donald. If you have the attention span, you might try and remember that federal judges, just like the ones you keep bashing on immigration, will decide whether your orders pass constitutional muster.

Donald Trump leads one of three branches of Government. Republicans control the second branch. Thankfully, for the time being, he is not in control of the third branch, the judiciary.

Unfortunately, there are 100 plus vacancies on the federal bench waiting to be filled. But until he packs the courts with conservative activist judges, "See you in court" is a phrase that will just make his opponents cheer. (Hopefully he'll be impeached or resign before he gets to fill them all.)

< More Incompetence: Spicer Confuses Orlando and Atlanta | Massive Raids By ICE >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And there is great Meme running around out there (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:19:05 PM EST
    It's Dubya, and Obama, Bill, and Carter. They are gaggled up, even touching each other, and they are all laughing together. The script reads, 'And then he tweeted to a Court I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT'

    Here's the image used

    Of course (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:46:22 AM EST
    Trump is going to use anything he can to get money. Grifters gotta grift.

    How does fighting with the courts (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    work to his personal financial advantage? I actually don't see that connection. I thought it was just his deeply ingrained inability to compromise or to "lose."

    I think it is the fact (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    that he is going to use his fight as a reason to raise money. He's already been asking for money regarding something else I have read. He already has registered a 2020 reelection committee. I guess he could put the money in there and use it.

    But directly fighting with the courts does nothing to raise money for himself.


    It isn't easy to coin a term (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:09:38 PM EST
    In the internet age, but Trumpicide...I think you are onto something J. I'm running with it.

    A judge of the Ninth Circuit has called for (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:22:02 PM EST
    a vote on whether to rehear en banc (by 15 judges, I think that would be, or maybe it's 11) the question of whether to grant a stay of Judge Robart's order. (That is all the 3-judge panel decided Thursday, not to grant an interim stay of the lower court's order. The order itself was not affirmed on the merits.) It takes a majority of all the court's 25 or so judges to have the matter actually reheard. I doubt the call for a vote will generate a majority in favor of rehearing, considering the delay that would generate, and the fact that a politically balanced panel produced a thoughtful, unanimous, per curiam decision. I do find it odd/surprising that the court invited new 14,000-word briefs (around 50 pages) to be filed by Thursday - more than twice the length of the briefs filed with the 3-judge panel.

    The total number of judges eligible (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:53:03 PM EST
    to vote on the question of whether to rehear the government's stay request is 27 ... The circuit's 25 "active" judges plus Senior Judges Canby and Clifton, because they were part of the 3-judge panel. So it will take 14 yes votes just to undertake a rehearing. I predict they won't get 14.

    List of Judges of the 9th Circuit (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by RickyJim on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    is here. A Chief Judge, 19 Senior Circuit Judges and 24 Circuit Judges.  I guess the "active judges" are the Chief Judge and the Circuit Judges.

    I might have made a little mistake (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 12:26:25 PM EST
    As senior judges, it seems Canby and Clifton don't get to vote on whether to rehear the case en banc. But if at least 13 of the 25 active judges do vote yes, which seems pretty unlikely, then Clifton and Canby would be eligible, if they opt for it, to be included in the random drawing of 11 names to sit on the en banc panel.

    Removing Trump (none / 0) (#10)
    by smott on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 04:15:50 PM EST

    Does anybody think Trump goes easily?
    Let's suppose he gets so unhinged they go 25th on him and even GOP is so spooked they go for it.

    This guy would nuke the world before he steps down.
    Just like his voters who will drive the car off the cliff with THEM in it, so long as YOU are in it too.

    I think taking Trump out of office will be bloody and ugly. No way he goes just because some document says he should.

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 09:46:17 PM EST
    he would go easy. I think it literally would take the secret service cuffing him and removing him from office and probably they would have to take down some of his aids too.

    He would fight the 25th amendment solution in court before he would willingly leave office. And then only after he had expired all legal remedies would the secret service have to come in an forcibly remove him.


    In the unlikely event (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 08:51:27 AM EST
    they invoke the 25th, they need to make sure they have Defense, CIA and Homeland Security on their side.  So, if Trump wants to throw a tantrum, he won't have the military.  

    It would really not be that bad.  The government would just not pay attention to Trump.  Let him stamp his feet.


    I'm sure he'd take a bribe... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    in lieu of making our planet uninhabitable...or be susceptible to blackmail. We just need Putin's files or a gofundme.

    Tr*mp's DOJ is giving up the court fight (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 17, 2017 at 12:14:33 AM EST
    Per the Ninth Circuit's order to file a full brief by today, the government filed (and so did the State of Washington) a 50-page brief supporting their position. However, the brief also states:
    Rather than continuing this litigation, the President intends in the near future to rescind the Order and replace it with a new, substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns. ... In so doing, the President will clear the way for immediately protecting the country rather than pursuing further, potentially time-consuming litigation. Under the unusual circumstances presented here -- including ... the complexity and constitutional  magnitude of the issues, the Court's sua sponte consideration of rehearing en banc, and respect for the President's constitutional responsibilities -- the government respectfully submits that the most appropriate course would be for the Court to hold its consideration of the case until the President issues the new Order and then vacate the panel's preliminary decision.
    In response, the court of appeals has suspended the en banc process, at least for now. The court did not say what it intended to do in the event a new E.O. is issued next week. The documents filed today are posted on the court's website.