The God-King defiantly tweeted in ALL-CAPS. Coz that matters…. (More)

“Your honor, I strenuously object!”

There’s a wonderful scene in the film A Few Good Men where Demi Moore’s character Joanne objects to the testimony of an expert witness. The judge overrules the objection, but Moore’s character is unbowed. “Your honor, I strenuously object!”

In the following scene, her colleague mocks her error:

Lt. Weinberg: [sarcastically to Joanne with Danny present, in an empty courtroom after the trial has been adjourned for the day] “I strenuously object?” Is that how it works? Hm? “Objection.” “Overruled.” “Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object.” “Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.”

And that’s pretty much what I felt when I saw the God-King’s response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Umm, you already were in court, as Hillary Clinton remarked with just three characters:

Had Clinton been as economical with words last year, she might be in the White House now. Just sayin’.

But she was right. Trump is 0-for-3 against our courts, and the Ninth Circuit pointedly rejected his claimed of dictatorial authority:

The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. […] Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. [Original emphasis; citations omitted]

The court cites a long list of similar cases where federal courts have overturned executive orders, and outlines the standard of review for such cases, and concludes:

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.
Finally, in evaluating the need for a stay, we must consider the public interest generally. […] Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay.

For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. [Citations omitted]

Oh, and the Ninth Circuit decision was unanimous.

The Oval Office is not a throne room, and the God-King will have to get used to hearing the word “No.”


Photo Credit: Wesley VanDinter (Getty Images)


Good day and good nuts