attacking the fundamentals of US constitution, and trying to dismantle the very apparatus that would hold him accountable. He's gunning for a dictatorship over a fake democracy.

Do not stop the pressure on Washington to hold him accountable, and don't let this become 'normal'.

Before he was elected POTUS he used to tweet shit like this all the time. That's what he does.

But he's not a private citizen anymore and he should not be allowed to tweet stuff like this. They should have taken that man's phone away when he became POTUS because he's being totally irresponsible with it.

What we need to do is ignore his tweets and tell Trump that if he wants our attention he has to hold press conferences, like every other President and world leader.

Ignore the tweets, stop reacting to them, and it will finally happen.

Trump is being stupid and childish, but it's not an impeachable offense. It wasn't impeachable when Obama told the Supreme Court they were wrong on Citizens United.

But that's due to Republican control of Congress. There are multitudes of difference between President Trump's temper tantrums and anything President Obama said about Citizens United.

It's part of an orchestrated campaign to hack the reality of the USA.
psyops all the way.

It is within the power of the president to advocate for "breaking up the ninth circuit".

Should Congress pass such legislation, and he signs it, then are you suggesting that too would be "impeachable".

Do you understand that the structure of the court system is not independent of the other two branches?

Granted, his statements are crude and uninformed, but he is certainly able to criticize Congress, the courts, or anything else. That's actually inherent in the separation of powers that the various branches of the government do not have to like one another one bit.

Can you explain how his displeasure with the court system is "incitement to riot"?

FDR wanted to re-structure the Supreme Court. Was that impeachable?

-----
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
-------

The structure and function of all courts inferior to the Supreme Court is entirely a product of the political process.

If some Congresscritter introduces a bill abolishing the Ninth Circuit at Trump's urging, then can you explain to me what is illegal about that?

FDR wanted to add justices that would vote for his New Deal programs. He proposed adding six additional Justices. These situations are the same except FDR was smart enough to not state his political reasons in an open forum.

Here is a good write up of FDR's attempt. The key lines (and something a student of history like Donald Trump should pick up /s):


But Roosevelt kept Congressional leaders, his cabinet (save for Cummings) and the American people in the dark, deceiving even the shrewdest experts.


He justified his request not by contending that the court’s majority was reactionary, but by maintaining that a shortage of judges had resulted in delays to litigants because federal court dockets had become overburdened.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/#jYcVKacVe8Ip0pi7.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Example: Felons can't (aren't legally supposed to, anyway) possess firearms. Or, you cannot assemble to discuss the overthrow of the U.S. government.

As to free speech, you got an excellent response.

It's congress we have to worry about. Trump is a tool, congress is the enabler. Trump us merely a distraction. To me impeachment is a secondary issue to the real threat.

Nothing. Ever. Happens.

This is not the first time I've seen something from him that I felt went too far. This kind of thing is counterproductive, as the right uses it to convince the moderates that the left is kooky. There is too much legitimate stuff to talk about, we should not be diluting that with specious or overstated points.

is more complicated that a mere Presidential decoration. "I" am going to break it up is a ridiculous statement.

Which also directs his followers (voters) to spread more false information. THAT is what he uses twitter for, IMHO. His tirade against Democrats today is his way of creating chaos with a certain demographic.

Not one. Their souls are long sold out. They're going to ride this crazed tiger as long as they can. Laws mean nothing to them.

Another "Germany, c. 1933" warning sign.

Leaking through. Imagine how much they have stopped or destroyed.

The problem is that they are investigating themselves and thete is too much arse to cover. We have to get an independent prosecutor. Maybe, the new Dep AG, but I'm sure Sessions carefully selected her.

Chaffetz leaving feels like a dream...hope he stays gone. He was obviously hiding something all along.

Yes, Trump's comments are crude, stupid, childish, disrespectful, etc.

And yes, anything and everything can be, in theory, grounds for impeachment, up to and including wearing black socks with brown shoes.

But in the real world, if articles of impeachment against Trump are ever considered by Congress, they will not include an article based on his criticisms of the Judiciary and/or proposals to restructure the Judiciary.

One has to wonder whether Reich is familiar with FDR's criticism of the Supreme Court and his court packing plan and, if so, whether he thinks FDR committed an impeachable offense?

While FDR obviously was more articulate than Trump and not childish or overtly disrespectful, the substance of his message was actually pretty close to the substance of Trump's tweets.

"In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body.....The Court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third House of the Congress—a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it-reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there.

We have, therefore, reached the point as a Nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution—not over it. In our Courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

I want—as all Americans want—an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written—that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power—amendment by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts universally recognized.

Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgment of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present."

Apparently not so much anymore.

Very nearly half, 17/25. What percentage of Trump followers would even believe that?

we need to get the House for impeachment and Senate to have a chance to remove. If this was a Democrat (and it would never be), the media would be all over things.

Just sayin'.

===============