"Beyond the attack on judicial independence is a broader question of Mr. Trump’s commitment to the separation of powers and to the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown and an architect of the first major challenge to President Obama’s health care law, said he had grave doubts on both fronts.
“You would like a president with some idea about constitutional limits on presidential powers, on congressional powers, on federal powers,” Professor Barnett said, “and I doubt he has any awareness of such limits.”...
Many of Mr. Trump’s statements about legal issues were extemporaneous and resist conventional legal analysis. Some seemed to betray ignorance of fundamental legal concepts, as when he said in a debate that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas had criticized Mr. Trump’s sister, a federal appeals court judge, “for signing a certain bill,” adding for good measure that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., while still an appeals court judge, had also “signed that bill.”
It's so strange because it's so hard to even start critiquing Trump because he is so absurd and so impossibly wrong.
It's like the other day when a friend wanted to go to the park but was feeling lazy, so she joked that we should flood the city and just float there. If all possible responses, another friend pointed out "That would cause billions of dollars in damages!". So she responded, "We can line all the streets with layers of sandbags!". Then there was a pause, and her friend asked "So... How is this easier than walking?"
Like, in order to critique it you have to take the joke seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment