The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Danger of Trump Disobeying Court Orders [Updated]
The administration may be moving in that direction. If does so and gets away with it, the consequences are likely to be dire.

The new Trump administration may be heading in the direction of disobeying court orders that go against it. If they do so and get away with it, there are likely to be dire consequences for our constitutional system. An administration not bound by court orders is ultimately not bound by the Constitution and the laws, either.
Evidence indicates that the Trump administration is in violation of court orders in as many as three separate cases. A federal court in Rhode Island has ruled that they violated its previous order barring Trump's funding freeze on federal grants. There are also indications that the administration has violated court orders against policies freezing federal grants from the National Institute of Health and FEMA.
At the same time, top administration officials including VP J.D. Vance have implied that the administration has the power to violate court orders.Vance says that "[j]udges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." Top Trump adviser Stephen Miller asserts there is no "line in the Constitution where it says a lone unelected district judge can assume decision-making control over the entire executive branch." This despite the fact that Miller himself – along with other conservatives – supported similar lawsuits and judicial injunctions issued by "lone" district judges against Biden Administration policies, such as student loan forgiveness.
As yet, it is not completely clear that the administration plans to systematically defy court orders that go against it. Violations that have occurred so far might be a result of incompetence or disorganization. And it is possible to parse Vance's statement in a way that avoids endorsing defiance of judicial rulings. But the combination of multiple violations and statements by high officials apparently condoning such behavior is ominous, to say the least. If Vance and other administration officials don't really mean to endorse defiance of judicial rulings, they could easily say so.
Federal court decisions blocking implementation of illegal administration policies are a fundamental element of our system of judicial review. Article III of the Constitution states that "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." That obviously includes cases challenging the legality of policies adopted by the executive branch. And, just as obviously, courts cannot exercise that authority effectively if the executive (or anyone else) is free to disregard rulings they don't like.
Some defenders of Trump's actions cite Biden's policies on student loan forgiveness as a kind of precedent. Biden did boast that the Supreme Court's (correct) ruling in Biden v. Missouri "didn't stop me" from forgiving student loans. Nonetheless, when the Court ruled that he didn't have the authority to engage in massive loan forgiveness under the 2003 HEROES Act, Biden obeyed the ruling. He did then try to engage in large-scale loan forgiveness under another statute, the Higher Education Act. But when courts predictably ruled Biden couldn't do a massive loan forgiveness plan under the HEA, either, Biden obeyed those rulings, as well.
Biden's actions in the student loan saga were reprehensible and illegal, and I said so at the time. But he did not disobey any court orders, as Trump may now do.
If the president is able to defy or ignore court orders against him, then the executive branch would be effectively free of legal constraints on its actions - including those of the Constitution. It could violate constitutional rights, usurp the authority of Congress (as Trump is trying to do with his wide-ranging assault on the spending power), and more. In that scenario, we would no longer have a constitutionally constrained federal government, except perhaps in name only.
We aren't there yet. But to prevent it, courts, key political actors - preferably in both parties, and the public must make clear that executive defiance of judicial rulings is unacceptable and intolerable. Trump can be forced to back down from this extremely dangerous precipice. Whether enough of us have the will to make him do so remains to be seen.
UPDATE: Trump has now said he will obey court orders. It's good he said that. But, given the pattern of events described above, and Trump's extensive history of lying, we should not just take him at his word. Rather, it's important to deter defiance by continuing to bring as much political pressure to bear as possible.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The have to ignore the court orders in order to be injured so they have standing to sue.
The federal courts have only themselves to blame for provoking a constitutional crisis with their lawless orders.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Per Article II, § 3 of the constitution, the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
As my former governor was fond of saying of recalcitrant legislators, if Donald Trump didn't want to work, he shouldn't have hired out.
Really?
What law did Trump break by removing web pages from Executive branch administered websites?
Maybe read the pleadings / court order and find out the answer for yourself?
You serious?
I mean, I think the odds of him doing that are about the same as the odds of Donald Trump winning the Heisman Trophy, but yes, I was seriously suggesting that if one wants to know what the legal theory being employed is, one should read the case documents instead of just repeatedly asking faux rhetorical questions.
that ain't the way it works dawg, the courts can override bullshit like this. If Trump ignores that then he is ignoring the Constitution, to redress it he has to go through Congress, as any judicial decision trumps a Trump executive order. That's basic Civics 101, but I wouldn't expect the low IQ fascist MAGA mindset to be able to handle such a simple concept, so carry on.
This may not be the dumbest possible take, but it’s certainly a strong contender.
No, these rabid judges ARE provoking a Constitutional crisis and it will not end well.
Reality is that there aren't 18 Republican Senators willing to vote to remove him, and impeachment at this point is an empty threat.
And this is a judicial coup attempt, nothing less, and the Judiciary will suffer as a result. Pro Forma political impeachments are a real possibility.
Crimea Riva's take was certainly stronger than that...
"The have to ignore the court orders in order to be injured so they have standing to sue."
I don't think that "standing to sue" means what you seem to think it means.
What is the process for a sort of class action type of impeachment of federal judges?
Damn it, there was an election. A free fair and open election.
How in hell does any judge get to say, well, he won, but he can't do what he was elected to do, which is run the federal executive branch, because I and I alone say so?
That the problem with checks and balances set up in the Constitution. What were those founders thinking?
"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."
I'm sure they would have agreed this includes states suing the President.
You will note that it doesn't say exclusive original jurisdiction.
It also doesn't mention Martians
I do not remember seeing injunctions or even judicial review in the Constitution.
More fundamentally, what are the limits of a judge's injunction power? For example could a judge include in his injunction that the administration may not appeal his order? I'm pretty sure that is not allowed. So there is a line. Where is it drawn?
So does that mean the President's administration can be crippled by dozens of baseless lawsuits without consequence?
Absurd...
Here are the two easy fixes for you.
1. Get 2/3 of each house of Congress to propose an amendment to the constitution and get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
2. Get 2/3 of state legislatures to request a Constitutional Convention and have Congress call the convention. Then have 3/4 of the states ratify the amendments.
Or do it pro forma.
Hahaha. What do you think “pro forma” means?
"What is the process for a sort of class action type of impeachment of federal judges?"
A coup?
Hypo: it's 2029, and newly elected President Ocasio-Cortez issues an executive order that the military start searching houses and confiscating guns. The NRA runs to the nearest courthouse saying this is a violation of the Second Amendment, and the judge issues an injunction forbidding seizures.
Still on board with "How in hell does any judge get to say, well, (s)he won, but (s)he can't do what (s)he was elected to do, which is run the federal executive branch, because I and I alone say so?"?
The military is unlikely to obey an unlawful order.
Though I dont recall many, if any, democrats complaining when biden ignored the constitution or other statutes
That's missing the point.
The great danger here is thinking 'I like this result, so the means must be OK'. That's why you always want to invert the question to a result you don't like, and ask if the means are still acceptable to you.
There is a notion of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
It is by design that the Supreme Court should stand as a balance against presidential overreach. That any partisan district court judge can gum up the works seems more of a judicial failure mode than a properly functioning system. This also seems to be a fairly recent judicial "innovation". Can you find any cases before Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer in 1952 where a district judge shutdown presidential powers ?
One thing is for sure, if we have decided this mode is legitimate it makes district judges massively political. Get ready for the circus that is supreme court nominations to make it's way into the judiciary in general. I fail to see how it is beneficial to allow the opposing teams judges into the judiciary at any level.
"That any partisan district court judge can gum up the works seems more of a judicial failure mode than a properly functioning system."
I kinda buy that, but what's the solution? I don't think you can start every suit involving the executive branch at the SC, because they don't want to hear the wrongful termination suit from a janitor at the Omaha federal building.
So perhaps one approach would be that questions of wide scope and import get an expedited trip up the appeals ladder. But isn't that kind of what we have now?
Yeah - the left has been unhappy about national injunctions for ages.
This here is badly timed, and special-pleading rationalized defiance is not the right way to deal with reforming the practice, though.
"the left has been unhappy about national injunctions for ages"
I dunno ... my memory banks say both sides are pretty happy with them when they like the results, and hate them when they don't.
Maybe it's all the Blackman posts rationalizing the practice (along with single judge districts back in the day) but I do not see paeons for the practice right now like I did from the GOP under Biden.
I mean, it goes back decades. E.g. when the Sierra Club gets an injunction against USFS timber sales or something, you don't have folks on the left gnashing their teeth about 'why should one district judge get to shut down timber sales nationwide'. It's the R's saying that. They like the result so mum's the word. Switch the topic to an injunction halting a new ATF restriction and the positions pivot 180.
Before my time, but sounds about right.
(neither here nor there but even in my pretty liberal energy policy class about 10 years ago the 1970s/80s environmental lawsuits seem to have a legacy of all sorts of problems in law and policy.)
And don't think I'm saying 'ban them they're always bad.'
Part of the reason for them sticking around is that it's a thorny problem. There are problems only that remedy can address, but also costs so such a lurching change.
The answer is probably specific criteria where it's an available remedy.
I think Absaroka is exactly right. Sure, some law professors may talk about nationwide injunctions from district judges as an abstract problem, but outside of that niche, the complaints are 99.9% based on whether one is a supporter of the party controlling the White House.
No one here heard you get upset when all the past presidents abused EOs and courts regularly struck down said EOs
But, but, Trump just said that he always obeys court orders, so that can't be right! He would never lie.
So true. Politicians never lie or obfuscate. Not Joe Biden and certainly not Donald Trump.
I sure that Republicans will accept a future Democratic President ignoring the court an implementing gun control measures like universal background checks.
Sure. They can then try and collect them. I bet that won't be fun. We've seen what happens when you allow the government to disarm you.
Biden ignored the Supreme Court on the CDC eviction ban case and on the student loan case.
False. You've been told it's false. And yet you keep saying it.
Uh huh. And a federal court grossly exceeding its constitutional authority is really of no import, right? If a federal court is able to disregard Art. II and the limits of Art. III federal judicial power, then federal courts would be effectively free of legal constraints on their actions - including those of the Constitution. They could violate constitutional rights, usurp the authority of Congress and the Executive (as they do when substituting their own policy preferences in contravention of the policies of the President), and more.
You don't get it. It's Trump. Ilya has special rules for him.
Somin says he is a Libertarian, but when Trump tries to limit wasteful government spending, Somin complains.
Trump isn't trying to limit wasteful government spending. (In fact, he wants to increase it, on immigration nonsense.) But even if he were, doing it unlawfully would not be a libertarian victory.
I don't know about Ilya, but you definitely have special rules for Trump.
Conveniently, our system already includes a process for dealing with a judge making a legal mistake. Hint: it’s not just ignoring the order!
Actually, in this case, it might need to be.
Judges have zero right to dictate how the Executive runs ITS branch. The Executive is not subservient to them.
Trump should ignore these TRO's. They have no legal backing behind them as is and are a gross violation of the separation of powers.
What is the need here? Or do you mean if and when the Supreme Court rules?
I believe Justice John Marshall and a legion of other former (and current justices) would disagree with you.
Just a question: what background does President Trump have that would qualify him to interpret the Constitution?
Another question: who would you have as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution? If it is Article II (or Article I), Bruen would have been wrongly decided, as would have been a host of Supreme Court decisions finding that laws are unconstitutional. Worse. . . the meaning of the Constitution would change every time a new president was elected (or more often).
These TRO's are laughable. Trump should tell the judges to go fuck themselves and let SCOTUS know that he has the power to just, you know, ignore them. All executives do.
What law did Trump break by removing web pages from Executive branch websites?
Maybe read the pleadings / order and find out for yourself?
"Judges have zero right to dictate how the Executive runs ITS branch."
If the president orders the FBI to send Damikesc to Gitmo, the courts have no business intervening?
The Executive is subservient to Congress. Judges have every right to dictate to the Executive that it must follow the laws passed by Congress.
The Executive is also subservient to the Constitution. Judges have every right to dictate to the Executive that it must follow the Constitution.
A friendly quibble. I get that loosely phrased discussion of government, "rights," ought to be understood as referring more justifiably to government powers. But I think it would be especially helpful for some of the vaguer commenters here if those who know the difference were more punctilious about the distinction.
Lol. The President is subservient to Congress? How? Pretty sure the executive is a co-equal branch of Congress by design. Moreover, Congress has arguably made itself subservient to the President by its massive delegations of power over the past 80 years. This is a pretty ridiculous take, even by your usual standards.
That said, totally agree that the President must follow laws passed by Congress. The problem is that the vast majority of such laws delegate an enormous amount of discretion to the President. There is no "unless Trump is President" clause in those laws. If Congress wants more oversight and control, it can actually pass useful legislation for once and stop ceding its power to the President.
It's quite amusing when those who rant about supposed dictatorial/authoritarian conduct are completely oblivious to judicial tyranny. The courts are playing politics not practicing law.
That's because they think homosexual Jewish judges like Paul Engelmayer are the epitome of scholarship and honesty.
That's so comically stupid a response that I wouldn't be surprised if you were a democrat troll playing some idiotic game. Whatever, you're muted.
I’m interested enough to postpone putting you on ignore until there’s an answer—why on earth do you think Judge Engelmayer is gay?
Asking a MAGA cultist for facts supporting an ipse dixit assertion is a mug's game.
That's true, but this is a racist troll, not a MAGA cultist. ("Racist" and "MAGA" are of course not mutually exclusive, but "cultist" and "troll" are. He's not a true believer in Trump; he just wants to get a rise out of people. (Of course, the problem you identify — asking for facts being worthless — remains the same for both.))
Thankfully the district court nationwide injunction is entering its final days.
I agree.
If this shit continues, then other remedies may be required.
I think you ought to hold off on these obvious calls to take out Trump; it might earn you a visit from the Secret Service.
The bot is programmed to think that Article II is the only section of the constitution, and that it says, "The power is vested in the president to do whatever he wants."
Sounds like our SCOTUS.
Brilliantly insightful take, as always. God, you're boring.
Of course the leftists at Volokh have absolutely no issues with federal courts who issue such unhinged orders as 'The executive must fund everything it has ever funded at the same levels, no exceptions' and 'no agency may take down any websites'. These orders were clearly designed not to be obeyed, and it appears it may be part of a larger seditious conspiracy as the leftist legacy media (but I repeat myself) were given talking points ahead of time about how Trump is setting up a constitutional crisis... at a time when the administration was still demonstrably doing what it could to obey with unhinged, impossible orders.
To be explicit, there is a constitutional crisis: one intentionally created by out-of-control federal courts acting in conjunction with politicians who have explicitly, publicly stated that "Trump will not be President" - an agenda they have not abandoned.
Leftists at Volokh.
Clearly
larger seditious conspiracy
--------
Bravo, incredible work.
I believe the preferred term is, "vast leftwing conspiracy".
Um, the executive doesn't fund things. The legislature does. The executive's only role is to mail out the checks.
Correct when Congress appropriates funds to specific things. Congress vary rarely passes such legislation. Its default for the past 80 years has been to delegate a ton of spending discretion to the President or to some Secretary. That's hardly just mailing out the checks. If you have a problem with the President using the authority Congress has delegated, whine to Congress to actually do its job for once.
If they're not bound by courts, neither am I.
It is that simple. Our country is an agreement, not an asset. If you break the agreement, why would I stick to it?
Feel free not to. I could not conceivably care less.
Just remember --- order will be maintained. It can be done with minimal force or with EXTREME force. Your call.
Oh, they won't mind that. They believe might makes right, and that they've got the might to do it.
The left started breaking it in the 1930s, but really went hog wild with the Warren court in the 60s.
Yup. Funny how all these progressives are fine with 80 years of administrative state discretion when it enacts policies they like. Lefties built a system that completely perverts the intended Constitutional order - now they get to see what happens when conservatives use the full power of that system.
Snorkle — Outside Boston, there is a town with a public high school which lies directly beneath the final approach to one of Logan Airport's busiest arrival runways. On some days, incoming flights brought everything in the school to a stop for about ten seconds out of every minute, because no one could hear. The airplanes passed closer to the school then they would ever get to the control tower at Logan.
A neighbor of mine got grumpy about that. He pointed out accurately that technically, what the FAA had done when it set that up was against the law. He told the FAA, "No law for you means no law for me." They arrested him of course.
Freezing funds / pausing long enough to determine if their are or to reduce the fraudulent payments is not really disobeying court orders. Quite a bit of corruption and fraud has already been found with USAID and FEMA.
Exactly $0 worth of fraud has been found with USAID and FEMA.
Ooooh! Now try the other word he used - "corruption."
Why would anyone take a dishonest commie like Ilya seriously? There was no reason for the dead of night ex-parte "emergency order" to protect the leftist gravy train. Payments to known fraudsters, terrorists and for no reason whatsoever but of course the funding to those that hate America must flow according to Ilya.
Does anyone take Somin seriously? It is rare that anyone here agrees with him on anything. I am hoping Trump deports him back to Russia.
I take Somin very very seriously. I can assume a court will do the opposite of everything he advocates. That's useful.
Not following court orders would be a five-alarm fire sort of situation though it need not be as blatant as Trump himself saying he won't for it to be worrying. Vance's winks and nods alone are troubling even if Prof. Steve Vladeck reassured himself it could be interpreted (who will do the interpreting? not him) otherwise.
We also have to worry about the administration personnel who will be inclined to press the envelope and at times overstep it.
The pressure to draw a hard line here, akin to the "waterboarding is torture" is essential, yes, since this is such a blatant requirement. And, let's be honest, courts are ignored.
For instance, after teach-led prayer in public schools was held to be unconstitutional, the practice continued. Police continue to breach civil liberties they clearly know exist. etc. Courts can't catch them all and when they do, they often still get away with it.
Chris Geidner discusses some of the games that can be played to in effect avoid following court orders.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/donald-trump-elon-musk-democracy?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2
I feel like Trump is trying to break his own impeachment record.
And I'm pretty sure set the record for earliest (in term) impeachment.
It's tough since his party controls congress, but he's definitely giving it a shot.
Why? Because Prof. Somin has imagined lots of things that he might do in the future?
You should read some current presidential approval polls.
If you think they're gonna impeach a popular president doing popular things, you're nuts.
I'd support requiring Trump to obey all court orders if Clinton, Obama and Biden judges were prohibited from hearing any cases involving his administration.
Less here than meets the eye. Meaning there was prior to the last few weeks much less left of American constitutionalism than most contributors to this blog have written about.
To see the point, ask yourself what ethical, normative, or even Constitutional enforcement constrained Biden or Trump prior to last January 20? Much farther back, there remained respect for sworn oaths, however uneven, and a few political figures still practice politics within those constraints. Congratulations to Liz Cheney and Rusty Bowers.
But for most of their compatriots, almost all the time, the effectual standard for more than a decade has been impeachment, and only impeachment. With most of America's politicians today, oaths count for nothing. Fear of God has gone out of it; enforcement never happens. The judicial system, rotting from the top, has become a conspicuous encouragement to corruption, instead of a bulwark against it.
Unfortunately for America, there was always far more to trample down in the vast constitutional territory this side of impeachment—between impeachment and practical chaos—than there has been in the still-unexplored territory on the hellish downside of impeachable presidential conduct. It was that vast near-side region of everyday constitutionalism that respect for oaths of office previously protected. Most of what had been valuable—and a great deal of what had been required—to enable the citizenry to keep their republic was there. Contempt for norms, honor, and oaths of office have exposed it all.
Most of American Constitutionalism is already gone, and has been for years. Decades, actually, among an easily named cohort of the worst. I think it would be wiser to fix that than to leave it alone, if a chance to do the fixing ever comes round again.
I was having trouble figuring out what your point was so I had my AI writing assist on Kindle take a crack at it:
"The text could be improved by providing a more balanced and objective perspective on the state of American constitutionalism. Rather than focusing solely on the perceived shortcomings, the text could acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of the system, and offer constructive suggestions for improvement. Additionally, the language could be toned down to avoid an overly pessimistic or accusatory tone, and instead foster a more thoughtful and nuanced discussion on this complex issue."
I still don't get it.
Kazinski, great rejoinder. I have seen no better demonstration of AI uselessness.
The both-sidesing is precious, not to mention a stand-out field mark of AI stupidity. But of course, I acknowledge AI writing systems feature strengths and weaknesses, and can benefit from constructive suggestions for improvement.
Better? Have I fostered a more thoughtful and nuanced discussion on this complex issue?
The executive seemingly has no check on the judiciary, other than pardons. So when these orders come down that make no sense, it looks very much like political action, from the bench. Maybe it's time to start investigating some of these judges.
Spoken like a true fascist.
The only logical explanation for Somin is a Soviet plant. Don't know why he is still allowed on here. Everything he post is leftist, anti-western, Pravda level propaganda. Please find someone who loves western civilization.
Saying that a functional court system is good is leftist, anti-western propaganda?
Well no, a functional court system is neutral in that it reflects the constitution and the law.
Those who wrote the constitution were liberal, indeed libertarian, but the law as written has diverged significantly since then.
So ignore the courts because they aren’t libertarian enough?
If you think the games the justice system is playing mean it's functional then you're delusional, a moron or a partisan hack, probably all three.
A functional court system doesn't give authority to a district court judge to run the executive branch of government. Nobody voted for these judges. Major judicial reform is needed, now.
The cultists, having accepted that Congress cannot pass Enabling Legislation, are willing to go along with the inferior alternative of merely ignoring the law.
Biden's actions in the student loan saga were reprehensible and illegal
I don't think they were illegal, including trying a second method, but am willing to reasonably disagree with you since you are principled & after all SCOTUS disagrees with me regarding the first attempt.
But it's hard to see what was "reprehensible" about it especially since it is not clear at all he didn't think they were legal.
Well then, being as fair minded as you are then I guess you will give President Trump the benefit of the doubt that he thinks having his confirmed Treasury Secretary having access to all the data in the Treasury Department is legal.
Or that he can fire virtually any executive officer as the Supreme Court has already held, or that any executive office can update their website at will.
Those just don't seem debatable prospects to me.
Is Trump entitled to the same deference?
And in response to a motion from the administration the court agreed, and modified the order so that senate confirmed appointees (which of course includes the Treasury Secretary) could have said access.
Trump is not entitled to "deference" because he has forfeited the benefit of the doubt through his prior words and deeds. But in any case you are confusing the underlying issue with the remedy. If you don't like a court order, the remedy is to try something different, or appeal — not to ignore it.
"Trump is not entitled to "deference" because he has forfeited the benefit of the doubt through his prior words and deeds."
The Constitution has no "partial impeachment" process. If it did, it would the the legislature doing it, not the courts or you.
So, no, Trump is entitled to exercise every single power of his office, merely by virtue of being elected.
Trump is indeed "entitled to exercise every single power of his office, merely by virtue of being elected."
But that is not the issue. The issue is who determines what power his office has. That is determined by the Constitution. And someone (or some group) must be the arbiter of what the Constitution means. I posit that Trump does not have the background to make that determination.
And I would argue that, while "the judiciary" might be the branch of government that makes that call under the Constitution, one random judge is not "the judiciary". And it's a problem when a single judge is bossing around an entire branch of government.
I would suggest that these cases where one judge is trying to dictate policy on a national level need to be punted higher up the org chart. Perhaps be added to the Court's original jurisdiction.
We can't continue having solitary judges just casually dictating nationwide policy and actions of an entire branch of government, it makes a joke of separation of powers.
Brett, did you just come to this realization? Or was this, too, your view up until a month ago?
I tend to agree that nationwide injunctions should be made by something other than solitary district court judges. My thought is that they should be funneled to the Fed. Cir., with only that court (as well as SCOTUS) having the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. But that's just me.
SCOTUS should be the ONLY court to generate a nationwide injunction on anything.
"Trump is not entitled to "deference" because he has forfeited the benefit of the doubt through his prior words and deeds."
Ah, the old "I do not like him, so he is not really President" line of logic. Lovely.
Tell me more about how VITAL it is that we maintain norms and all.
"...since it is not clear at all he didn't think ..."
"Trump has now said he will obey court orders. It's good he said that. But, given the pattern of events described above, and Trump's extensive history of lying, we should not just take him at his word."
*clears throat*
GFY.
Does Trump lie? Should he be taken at his word?