Trump Tweets 'So-Called' Judge; Partisans On Both Sides Light Their Hair On Fire

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

At some point, Trump opponents, including political opponents and journalists, should step back and re-examine how they’re going to cover and comment on the President when he does or says something. Trump sycophants will likely never change but as it stands, the moment President Trump signs his name to something, tweets something or makes a statement, the reaction is hair on fire levels. After a mere two weeks in office, watching people go from a match to a raging inferno is already proving to be tedious.

The most recent example came when a federal judge halted President Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven states and putting a moratorium on his refugee program. The President was not happy with the judge’s decision and tweeted (what else?) the following:

The “so-called” set people off, and the scream-fests were off to the races.

First, the sycophants were naturally in total agreement with Trump, arguing the judge “violated the Constitution” and had no business sitting on the bench.

Partisans on the other side were behaving as though Trump declared he was dictator for life and were pearl clutching about the “damage” Trump had done to an independent judiciary. Somebody on CNN called it a “bone-chilling tweet.” Seriously?

The media reaction was typical as well in the new age of Trump. I give Jake Tapper credit for examining what Trump said and not going off the deep end. Unfortunately, his colleagues were in their usual mode of covering President Trump, and it’s similar to this:

The truth, of course, is somewhere in between.

As for the judge’s decision, I am not a lawyer so I am not going to speculate as to whether or not his ruling is valid. I do know the sycophants were displeased when the courts stepped in and put a hold on President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. I’m puzzled as to how the courts were “Oh so right!” when Obama was President, and now a “so-called” judge issue a ruling that is completely wrong because….Donald Trump doesn’t agree with it.

The fact is, what President Trump said is inappropriate. Whether his ruling is valid or not is irrelevant. Trump could have tweeted 50 times how the decision was wrong and how they Justice Department was going to appeal (they did). While it would have rated a mention in the mainstream media and new media, it wouldn’t have blown up the way it did. There is also the possibility, the judge’s ruling is overturned. Instead, Trump couldn’t keep himself from acting impetuously and as a result, the conversation for most of the day centered around two words inside of a tweet.

People also behaved as though this was an “unprecedented” slight at the judiciary. “I’ve never seen anything like that,” said others. “This is the first time a President chose to get personal with those in the courts!”

But is it?

In 2010, during the State of the Union address, President Obama singled out the majority in the Citizens United case and chastised them for their decision in front of a national audience and with the members of the court surrounded by partisan Democrats were happy to applaud. Here is what the President said:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people.

Aside from talking the Supreme Court to task in front of millions, he also lied. Samuel Alito was seen mouthing “not true, ” and he’s right. Citizens United did not reverse a century of law. Direct donations for corporations are still outlawed as are donations made from “foreign entities.” What the President said, simply is not true. A former NJ Supreme Court justice had this to say:

“The court’s legitimacy is derived from the persuasiveness of its opinions and the expectation that those opinions are rendered free of partisan, political influences,” Mr. Verniero said. “The more that individual justices are drawn into public debates, the more the court as an institution will be seen in political terms, which was not the intent of the founders.”

Defenders of President Obama expressed he was just saying the court was “wrong” but he went farther than that.

The best part is, the country survived! And the country will survive President Trump’s tweet!

Stop setting your hair on fire people. It’s not worth it.