President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

If Nunes is briefing Trump on details of FBI investigation, he needs to refresh his memory on US Code section of obstruction of justice. He's in the big leagues, and he thinks he's still a backbench Congressperson from an anonymous district in California. Not to mention, he wanted leakers to go to jail on Monday and had a freakin' press conference to reveal details of US intelligence operations on Wednesday.

 

I didn't hear Franken's questioning of him, but I heard most of Durbin questioning him on the same case.

Seems the law was clear. He didn't like that he had to follow the law, but felt he had to.

It's always unclear to me why folks get angry with the judge who follows the law instead of the legislators who write bad laws.

The only other option is for the judge to enforce a law as he wishes it were written. A legal system can't work that way.

In the trucker case, he would have been protected had he failed to operate an unsafe vehicle despite an order to do so.

In his case, he operated the vehicle rather than stay with a disabled vehicle as ordered.

The law didn't protect him in this case. That's a problem with the law, not with Gorsuch's decision.

 

They're not alone in their perspective.

Trump Feels ‘Somewhat’ Vindicated After Hearing from Devin Nunes

 

Voter fraud never happens!!

 

Honestly, his response was far more measured than I would have expected. Of course, we still don't know "what they found" that so alarmed Nunes.

 

Re: Following the law, there is a lot of wiggle room there. For example on the Hobby Lobby case, Gorsuch said he went with the definition of person that includes corporations and said its black and white, written down, that's the law. The senator grilling him said that wasn't the intention of the law and that context is supposed to be used, etc.

If following the law were easy, we wouldn't need judges.

 

The temperature was below zero and the heater in his cabin didn't work and the worker woke up numb and couldn't feel his feet. He was in danger of freezing to death and decided to take matters into his hands to save his life.

Neil Gorsuch’s Arrogant “Frozen Trucker” Opinion Shows He Wants to Be Like Scalia

 

Actually, the law did protect him because the majority found in the trucker's favor. Gorsuch was the one on the fringe. Hardly a case of "the mean old law made me do it." He ruled the way he wanted.

 

It sounds good on paper, but not too sure picking the battles is in everyone's best interest at this time. From the Rolling Stone article:

Fight what needs to be fought. Don't hold back for a rainy day. The drops are falling all around.

 

I understand that and so does Gorsuch.

I wouldn't have fired him and don't think he deserved to be fired.

He clearly did the safe thing.

None of that is in question.

The question was whether the law protects him from getting fired as a result of his (wise) decision. It doesn't.

Someone should change the law and work on writing better ones in the future. Blaming the judge who decided based on the law makes no sense.

 

And yes, Gorsuch wrote a minority opinion, so I guess you could say he was "wrong".

It's still not a good way for a legal system to work.

Judges aren't supposed to assume what the law intended.

 

Context wasn't voted on in either house nor signed by the President. You like the "living Constitution" approach. He doesn't. For a strict constructionist, there usually isn't much wiggle room.