Trump’s judicial fights reflect the dissent of the Supreme Sacalia Court from 2015

Ten years after judge Antonin Scalia warned in a fiery dissent that Obergefell’s decision c. Hodges of the Supreme Court “was a threat to American democracy”, his scathing criticisms of overtaking is now amplified by the White House.

The posture of President Donald Trump towards the judiciary was largely hostile while the judges repeatedly put the ordinances which derail his program. His accusations according to which they go beyond their authority echoing the arguments presented by Scalia, when he established his disagreement with the decision of the Supreme Court in 2015 that homosexual marriage was a constitutional right.

“Judge Scalia was in fact one of the main engines of this,” the researcher of Constitutional law, who served in the two Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital.

Scalia, a member textualism, argued in an ardent dissent of nine pages that the right to marriage was not a freedom that was stated in the Constitution. Decision 5-4, in fact, removed the freedom of citizens because it removed their ability to choose the leaders who, according to them, could adopt the legislation linked to the marriage they preferred, said Scalia.

The legalized homosexual marriage is 10 years after the decision of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court reshaped the American law and culture

In this file photo of October 18, 2011, the judge of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin Scalia examines the balcony before addressing the justice of the university law of Chicago-Kent in Chicago. (AP photo / Charles Rex Arbogast)

At the time of the decision, the States were divided on marriage. Nearly a dozen had adopted laws at that time to legalize gay marriage, which, in the spirits of Scalia and the other dissidents, was the suitable vehicle for this.

“A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine lawyers not elected does not deserve to be qualified as democracy,” wrote Scalia.

However, Scalia did not stop there, exploding the “pride” of the High Court decision and taking veiled blows to the author of the majority opinion, judge Anthony Kennedy, a named appointed Reagan known for his flowering legal writing.

Scalia is “nothing if not consistent”, observed the professor of legal analysis at Marquette University, Lisa Mazzie, observed at the time. His dissent “contains the kind of often acerbic rhetoric, we came to associate him”.

How judge Clarence Thomas led Scot to kill Dei

The students of the American University Sharon Burk, on the left, and Molly Wagner participate in a rally for the rights of gay couples before the Supreme Court of Washington. (Associated Press)

Shu, who knew Scalia personally, told Fox News Digital that The Late Justice could sometimes go “a little too far”.

“He was incredibly funny, a great sense of humor, a great mentor, a great teacher. But he had very strong beliefs, and for people who criticized his writing and said that sometimes he went a little over board with the dramatic part, okay, I would tend to agree on a few dissidents,” said Shu. “It was certainly not all the time.”

Critics described his dissent of Obergefell as extreme And disrespectful.

Among the most memorable lines of Scalia, “the United States Supreme Court comes from the disciplined legal reasoning in the history of John Marshall and Joseph to the mystical aphorisms of the Cookie de la Fortune.”

The Supreme Court to debate Trump restrictions on the citizenship of the dawn and the application of the national injunctions

James “Jim” Obergefell, appointed complainant in the Obergefell c. Hodges, at the bottom of the center, speaks to the media after the decision of the same-sex marriage outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC, Friday, June 26, 2015. (Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

He said that Kennedy’s opinion contained “hand passages in memory” and was “formulated in a style as pretentious as its content is selfish”.

Although Trump’s White House is not the first to accuse the judges to go beyond and infuse progressive policy in their decisions, Trump and his deputies have projected a single rage towards the judiciary, affirming that the judges encroach on the powers which are offered to him under article II of the Constitution.

“Our justice system does not let me do the work I was elected,” wrote Trump online in May in response to an unfavorable decision of immigration.

In February, he castigated a “highly political militant judge who judged that the executive power had to make payments that Congress approved it to make, despite the move of the Ministry of Efficiency of the Government to stop payments.

In perhaps the greatest judicial blow, the American Court of International Trade canceled in May the central characteristic of Trump’s economic agenda, its price plan. This decision is temporarily pending, but after the decision, Trump questioned the panel of three judges who opposed him. “How is it possible for them to have potentially caused such damage in the United States of America?”

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

Unlike the scalia era, the Supreme Court is now tilted 6-3 to the Conservatives. It was prudent to try to force Trump’s power in the early stages of the dispute.

“Hopefully the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible decision threatening the country, quickly and decisively,” wrote Trump about the tariff decision.