In your opinion, which phrase best describes the current dispute between the Executive and Judicial Branches?

A normal back-and-forth between government branches (17%) – "Checks & Balances. That said, it has been well proven that there are numerous judges in place that have a political bias & aren't necessarily concerned w/ upholding the law in a true "checks & balances" situation. Rather, follow the Soros money & it's pretty easy to identify why the judge made the decision he did. If Biden was ever awake enough to do such a thing, the same judge would have no issues with such actions. Anymore, the true controversy isn't Trumps actions, but the ease to which judges can be bought."

• "The structure of our government as a constitutional republic allows for dialogue, however heated it may seem, between the branches as a means for maintaining the balance of power between them. One can never get more powerful than the others, thanks to the Constitution; they will always keep each other in check. Another thought; very few solid relationships never experience disagreement."

A worrying development, but no signs of crisis yet (28%) – "Most of the things that Trump has done since entering office have been worrisome. He doesn't seem to realize that the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch all have their own powers and responsibilities. Our checks and balances system ensures no branch is more powerful than the others. It's even more worrisome how some members of Congress can't think for themselves."

• "Trump is doing the peoples' business, securing the border and ridding the country of illegal aliens who have committed other crimes, as well. In this case, the judge is exhibiting radical left-wing behavior, which a higher court should correct."

"To me it kinda feels like both parties are really stretching the limits of their power in questionable ways, and to be sure, their job IS to balance each other out, and that doesn't always happen nicely. I'd much prefer everyone just act in the right way from the start, but it doesn't mean it's a constitutional crisis just because one or the other party is trying to break or stretch the limits of the law. They're not the first to do it, and if the government as a whole implements its checks and balances as it should, there won't be a crisis."

A constitutional crisis (47%) – "The actions themselves may or may not represent a constitutional crisis - that would depend quite a lot on when the decision makers actually received information, etc. The fact that the planes were not directed to turn back is hugely concerning. However, beyond that, the fact that the administration is claiming the judge in question didn't have the legal basis to issue the order? It's a demonstration of what's to come, which is a complete disregard of the judicial system, should we continue down this path. That - one branch completely ignoring the edicts of another - is the textbook definition of a constitutional crisis."

• "Although Trump may be correct in deporting these alleged gang members, it must go through appropriate channels. The fact that he disobeyed a court order is another sign of Trump trying to gain unbalanced power in the executive branch."

"Judges have issued well over 100 injunctions against this president. Compare that with the number of injunctions judges have issued against Democratic presidents. It seems to me that the judges are clearly overstepping their bounds in order to keep this president from fully utilizing his powers authorized in Article 2 of the Constitution."

• "With all of the notable features of the early Trump administration come the sheer number of executive orders that are of questionable legality. Examples being ending birth right citizenship; impounding funds appropriate by Congress; dismantling agencies created by Congress; firing inspectors general and agency heads, etc. etc.. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Trump administration is seeking to overwhelm and intimidate the judiciary, whose task is to determine the legality and constitutionality of government actions."

"This is something of a crisis as many, mostly leftist political, judicial branch judges legislate from the bench which is illegal and also try to install roadblocks to anything which is against their political leanings. There needs to be a more efficient way to get rid of these political judges than having to go through a foot dragging corrupt political Congress. What they are doing is blatantly against the law and Constitution, and is exactly what they should be working against as judicial policy should be Constitutionally and legally, rather than politically, based."

Unsure/other (8%) – "Judges are not apolitical - as humans, they are carrying a bias. But that isn't a reason by itself to remove them if they can apply the law blindly. Yet the actions by some judges to legislate from the bench and twist the legal interpretation to fit a political agenda must stop. Like a cancer, they must be cut from the system or the system will die. That's critical. We need to see the Supreme Court take action to review the entire judicial system and return it to order and aligned from top to bottom to our constitution."