Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Stephen Miller goes Kellyanne Conway: Trump adviser blasted for dishonesty on Sunday morning shows
Source:
Salon
URL Source: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/13/ste ... nesty-on-sunday-morning-shows/
Published: Feb 13, 2017
Author: Matthew Rozsa
Post Date: 2017-02-13 09:10:01 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 3017
Comments: 12
President Donald Trump took to Twitter on Sunday morning to praise his senior policy adviser Stephen Miller for his televised defenses of the president. But critics have pointed to a series of troubling statements by Miller that displayed contempt for basic constitutional principles and, like Trump’s more prominent spokesperson Kellyanne Conway, reek of dishonesty. “It’s so much worse than I thought,” Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” said Monday. Brzezinski was referring to Miller’s statement to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday criticizing the judicial branch for standing up to President Trump’s executive orders. “We do not have judicial supremacy in this country,” Miller had argued at the time. “That was the worst performance out of anybody,” Scarborough said. “That was horrendous. An embarrassment.” Scarborough and Brzezinski weren’t alone in condemning Miller’s performance. During an appearance on ABC’s “The Week,” Miller repeated a number of false claims about voter fraud in order to advance President Trump’s narrative covering up for his loss of the popular vote. These included dishonestly claiming that Democratic voters were bused into New Hampshire to swing that state to Clinton, dishonestly claiming that noncitizen voters helped account for Clinton’s popular vote margin of victory, and dishonestly claiming that the White House has already provided proof of widespread voter fraud, according to The Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler. Poster Comment:Stephen Miller's credibility is rapidly running out
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
“That was the worst performance out of anybody,” Scarborough said. “That was horrendous. An embarrassment.” It's not an embarrassment at all. I am sure it is quite horrifying to those who would like to rely on the judiciary to thwart the will of the people. Truth is, the power of judicial review is not unlimited. It is limited by custom. Historically, the judiciary does not overreach too far in directly challenging the Executive or Congressional power, to avoid the head on confrontation that would destroy the prestige of the judiciary. Historically, the judiciary has generally exercised deference. But in the two major instances that it did not show deference: during the Civil War (when it attempted to reverse Lincoln's arrest of those who published material favorable to the secession), and during the New Deal (when the Supreme Court, for a year, overturned all of FDR's reforms), the President stood up to the court and forced the court to back down. In Lincoln's case, he didn't really force the court to back down. He simply ignored it. Disregarded its edicts. The court was rendered impotent, useless and powerless. The court has no army and no control over budgets. It has no enforcement arm. So if a President simply defies the court and plows ahead, all the court can do is complain, and hope that Congress will impeach the President. If the President is popular with Congress, then the authority of the Supreme Court is simply crushed, and everything the court opines becomes subject to an executive veto, because the court has no power over either the sword or the pen, only of persuasion. In FDR's case, FDR threatened to simply pack the court with new justices, expanding it greatly in size and neutralizing its majority. The majority decided that any further resistance was futile, so they reversed their position and upheld the new deal in the famous (or infamous) "Switch in time that saved nine". The Ninth Circuit egregiously overstepped its authority by issuing a ruling it did not have the power to do. It presumed to step in and take control of immigration policy. The desire, now, of the Ninth Circuit to hear this case "en banc" shows the degree to which SOME of the Ninth Circuit judges realize that the 3-judge panel essentially handed Trump the power to provoke a constitutional crisis that he will win. All he needs to do now is to overrule the Court, stating that the Court has acted unconstitutionally, exceeding its power. Instead of appealing the decision, which would acknowledge in a sense that this was a proper place for the judicial power, he could just overrule the decision outright, stating, as a constitutional principle, that the Court HAS NO POWER over this subject. The Court has no means to enforce its will, and the Executive agencies will back the President. If the Congress does not impeach (and it won't), and instead moves to break up the Ninth Circuit or otherwise curtail the appellate authority of the Courts, the Ninth Circuit will have, by declaring war on the President, reduced the entire power of the judiciary by finally taking on a President who would not back down, and who crushed the courts and limited their power. For my part, I hope that is exactly what Trump does. I hope that the Senate wipes out the filibuster, stripping the Democrats of even the power of delay, and I hope the President crushes the court by disregarding its constitutional order, with the backing of Congress, establishing a joint Executive/Congressional oversight of judicial opinions that will put the Court back down in its place and end the charade that the courts are superior in authority to the other two branches of government. By choosing this battle on immigration, the Ninth Circuit may well have led the judiciary over a cliff from which it cannot return, and the result may well be that the power of judicial review of Presidential and Congressional acts is henceforth subject to Presidential and Congressional veto, which is the way it should have always been. The Left is trying to use the precedents to thwart the will of the people. It is necessary, therefore, to erase the precedents - end the filibuster, and subject the courts to political review.
On another thread you reminded us that charity begins at home. This well-worn instruction is often attributed to the New Testament when in fact this advice comes to us from Sir Thomas Browne, an English theologian, physician and writer in a work he wrote in 1642. It's an admonition lost that jug-eared ex- resident of the White House. The DIRTY SECRET hidden in the immigration/refugee discussion is that NGO's and churches are flooding small towns in the US with refugees who by and large have neither need skill sets nor the necessary socialization to fit into small town life in this country. Populations are being introduced into smaller municipalities that are not equipped to deal with the language problems, social dislocations and diseases common to the countries that these migrant come from. Most of those countries are of course the nations on Trump's list. Tuberculosis, which was virtually stamped out here is once again epidemic in small town Minnesota, mostly introduced through the forced importation of Somalis. Amarillo, Texas is struggling to cope with 22 different languages spoken in their schools. Some migrants have to be taught to use the flush toilet. And in a pattern that closely follows the program imposed on Swedes and Germans, the vast majority of refugees and asylum seekers that are being introduced are Muslim. Despite the desperate situation of Christians in those countries whose congregations are suffering exile and extermination, the proportion of Christians admitted is miniscule. Of nearly 7,000 Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. only 23 were Christians. It's plain that NGO's and churches are allowed to discriminate. If the government on the other hand even begins to suggest that we look at the sectarian mix of these populations, it's a huge "establishment clause" issue. Federal judges will question the right of the executive to undo what private interests have done. Speaking of private interests, if you're a parishioner at a mainline church, your national governing body quite likely has a hand in this. You should ask your pastor, priest or deacon what your church's charitable organizations are up to. If you don't attend church, maybe you should be writing your legislators. This is not France or Sweden or Denmark or Germany or Italy. We have lots of problems that need fixing right here at home before we begin inviting guests here that will have problems fitting in. Read more at www.wnd.com/2016/02/so-it...re-u-s-city-overrun-with- criminal-refugees/#px2Zu0LpLlTUByIL.99 www.breitbart.com/big-gov...3/two-hundred-ninety-six- refugees-diagnosed-active-tuberculosis-minnesota/ www.cnsnews.com/news/arti...h/administrations-syrian- refugee-target-passes-23-mark-03-percent
There are no replies to Comment # 7. End Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest“We do not have judicial supremacy in this country,” Miller had argued at the time.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Replies to Comment # 7.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]