“You didn’t write what was true. You implied that he had been rebuffed by the court. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
I shared their actual opinions after you lied about how many justices upheld Trump’s ban.
I know this, because I can go back and see what I wrote (edited to add screenshots):
And you know that writing 9–0 isn’t accurate. You actually say this:
“All they need is for 2 of the remaining 6 to agree with the other 99% rejection and it is 100% but even if it ends up that close relatives of people could travel then he would still have proved his point. 9–0 decisions are incredibly rare.”
You know 9–0 is wrong. Yet you get angry at me for documenting what the number is today. You didn’t write that you predicted the other judges would agree: you said the opinion is 9–0. As in, right now, not after the next hearing.
And then you lie again:
“You accuse all these things but there is no evidence. The evidence there is no evidence is that there are no court cases.”
The case you lied about is still pending, AND YOU KNOW THIS.
This is a list of cases pending as Trump took office:
During the presidential campaign alone, he threatened to sue sexual assault accusers, The New York Times for publishing…www.cnn.com
But actually, the biggest piece of evidence I have that Trump is angling toward despotism is his pardon of Arpaio. And I’m not alone: a lot of conservatives are also unnerved because that pardon was so weirdly timed:
“A full pardon, on the other hand, extinguishes the wrong. It puts Trump in the position of endorsing Arpaio’s misconduct — a law officer’s arrogant defiance of lawful court orders, which themselves were issued as a result of judicial findings that Arpaio discriminated against Latinos in conducting unlawful arrests. That would be politically fraught for any president. It is especially fraught for Trump in the wake of the botched response to the violence in Charlottesville and his history of intemperate remarks regarding Mexico and Gonzalo Curiel, the American federal judge of Hispanic descent who presided over the Trump University lawsuit. Pardoning the polarizing Arpaio was sure to delight Trump’s core supporters, but it was equally certain to anger much of the country.”
As our Monday editorial explains, there are several problems with President Trump's highly objectionable pardon of…www.nationalreview.com
But if you don’t understand how fundamental the process of judicial review is for our system, you won’t grasp why pardoning Arpaio was so ill-advised. Even if you think Arpaio was completely innocent, pardoning him before he was even convicted is a statement that the President does not respect the courts or due process:
“For now, the more obvious point will suffice: The rationale that favored allowing the trial to go forward would equally have called for allowing the appellate process to go forward. The point was to allow the system to work, and Arpaio to be vindicated (if there were grounds for vindication) without extraordinary presidential interference.”
I wish someone was actually tracking all the lawsuits pending against the administration. But until such a site exists, I will rely on the widespread coverage of the fact that Trump is being sued more than any of his predecessors because his actions are bumping up against other laws.
Lawsuits are piling up against President Trump and his administration. The government was in court this week to fight…thehill.com
That’s flirting with anarchy. The president isn’t supposed to just be making shit up. You seem to consider this a feature.