Fox Hosts Want Trump to Refuse to Follow Court Orders

Fox Hosts Want Trump to Refuse to Follow Court Orders November 24, 2018

Donald Trump isn’t the only one who thinks he has unlimited authority and can simply ignore the courts when he doesn’t like the way they rule. At least three Fox News hosts, Lou Dobbs, Gregg Jarrett and Laura Ingraham, think the same thing. Of course, they’d both go ballistic if any Democrat ever suggested such a thing.

Copyright: Jonathan Roland

Jarrett and Dobbs were set off by the Trump-appointed judge who ruled that they had to give Jim Acosta his press credentials back, following prior precedent:

LOU DOBBS (HOST): Let’s be honest here, I want to ask you both this — why — isn’t there a time where you have to just tell a district court judge to go to hell? Because — I mean the idea that you have to follow the dicta of a district court judge and create rules and can’t run the White House in the way that it has been run, since time immemorial? Harmeet?…

DOBBS: You shouldn’t have to tell a district court judge to get back on your — get back on your baileywick either. What do you think?

GREGG JARRETT (GUEST): You’re absolutely right. When you are — there is no freedom to be obnoxious and rude. There is no freedom of the press to question the president. It’s a privilege to be there at the White House, and there are rules and norms that have always been followed. And now you’ve got a judge who has decided to expand due process beyond any resemblance of —

DOBBS: He’s telling a president of the United States how to conduct business.

JARRETT: And I agree with you. I would tell the judge “Go to hell, we’re going to practice the way we want, let the Supreme Court decide it if necessary.”

Constitution? We don’t need no pesky Constitution. They do, of course, have every right to appeal the lower court decision to the Supreme Court. They have the right to ask the Supreme Court to stay the lower court order pending the outcome of that appeal. What they do not have any legal right to do is just decide which rulings to follow and which ones not to follow. This is quite clear from the Federalist Papers, so any “originalist” who claims otherwise is an idiot and a hypocrite and their claims to support the Constitution are simply lies.

Laura Ingraham took the same position in regard to the judge who overturned Trump’s executive order on amnesty.

LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): These courts are out of control. They’re acting in an anti-democratic fashion, completely beyond their their constitutional authority. The idea that the chief executive officer of this country cannot act at a time where people are definitively, without a doubt in anyone’s mind, who’s honest, completely defying the law. And, if they’re not defying the law, they’re gaming the law on fraudulent basis facilitated by United States non-governmental organizations that get 501(c)(3) status, like this Pueblos Sin Fronteras.

Maybe — maybe it’s time to just defy these court orders and say, “Make me. Make me. We think your order is illegitimate.” How is that court going to enforce the order against the president? At some point, we either stand up to these runaway judges and really create a constitutional issue here, in other words, the legitimacy of these nationwide injunctions. A single judge should not have this much power, and, of course, this one happens to be an Obama appointee, but Trump’s had trouble with judges as well that he appointed.

You know why a district court judge has that power? Because the Constitution — you know, the one you claim to love and venerate so much but know nothing about — gives them that power. And again, Trump can appeal the ruling, but he can’t simply ignore it. And the only one here who is defying the law is Trump. Federal law simply could not be any more clear that anyone can apply for asylum regardless of whether they cross at a legal checkpoint or not. They can even sneak into the country, live here for 25 years, get arrested for being here illegally and then apply for asylum. You may not like that, but it is undeniably what the law says. Trump is violating both statutory and Constitutional law, all on the absurd premise that he is defending the rule of law. And you’re either too stupid to realize it or you just don’t care as long as you get what you want.

Imagine the hysterics Laura Ingraham and Lou Dobbs would go through if Obama or Clinton had just ignored a federal court order and said “go to hell.” It would be the coming of the apocalypse. But that’s the difference between them and me. I’d take the exact same position on this question regardless of what party the president belongs to and regardless of whether I agreed with the ruling or not. That’s how our system works, by design. And it’s how it should work.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment