US does have 'Obama judges': Trump responds to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts'

[Dill]

(11-22-2018, 11:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So then you are saying the court acted appropriately. If the executive's actions are not in line with the legislature's laws, then the judiciary should be saying the executive cannot act in that way without the legislature changing the law. Public opinion or not, that is how it is supposed to work. So Trump is arguing for bias, he just wants bias in his favor instead of in favor of the law.

That's why I don't use the term "bias."  It has become a short cut, or better yet a short circuit, in political analysis. Everyone is biased and it's everywhere and explains any position one doesn't like.  Plus it seems mostly used by people whose views appear most partisan/biased/one-sided.

Your first two points speak to another interesting issue. Judicial checks on law should not be responding to polls. They should, rather, be aligning law with the Constitution, and enforced by people whose position no longer depends on the favor of either party.

Trump's complaint about judicial checks, taken collectively, amount to a complaint that he cannot simply dictate policy.  He is complaining about the checks and balances which submit presidential action to rule of law--a problem Kim, Putin and MBS don't have to put up with.