,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Barr’s argument falls under the weight of its own frivolity, Meg. He says that a judge who determines Trump has done something unlawful/unconstitutional, should not be allowed to put a (temporary) stop to it nationally, only locally in the jurisdiction in which the judge sits.
2. Let’s take down Barr’s argument together, shall we? The US Constitution applies . . . everywhere in the country. If a federal judge finds that a proposed action (for example, an executive order) violates the US Constitution and issues a temporary injunction prohibiting...
3. the unconstitutional action from being implemented, that ruling absolutely SHOULD have nationwide application. Barr argues that, even after a federal judge has preliminarily found Trump acted unlawfully, someone would have to bring suit in ever court ...
4. in every jurisdiction in the country and get a similar ruling. In other words, Barr wants the executive branch to be able to act UNLAWFULLY until every court in the country can put a stop to it. This is, in a word, absurd. Here’s one of Barr’s arguments: 
5. Barr’s own argument undercuts his position AND highlights the rampant illegality of the Trump administration. First, the fact that there were 20 judicially-issued national injunctions during Obama’s 8 years shows that such injunctions are not a one-sided political phenomenon.
6. Second, the fact that there have already been 40 issued in Trump’s first two+ years PROVES that Trump presides over a lawless-runaway-train of an administration. One more thing: this is how Barr concludes his poorly-reasoned op-ed:
7. Now wait a minute - Barr complains about governmental behavior that “embitters the political life of the nation” and “flouts constitutional principles” and acts “at the cost of public confidence in our institutions”? DOESN’T THAT DESCRIBE THE TRUMP/BARR GOVERNMENT PERFECTLY?
