mjt328 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 (edited) On 3/19/2025 at 7:46 AM, Roundybout said: Maybe Trump should follow the laws, hm? I think that demanding all judges agree with the president results in a bit of a dictatorship. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution lays out three separate/equal branches of government. The Constitution gives full power of the Executive Branch and the Military to the President. The Constitution's only check on that power is that the Senate must give consent to his appointments. Right now, the President is simply not being allowed to use the powers granted to him to him by the Constitution. District judges are issuing injunctions, saying he doesn't have authority that he clearly does under the supreme law of the land. - They are arguing he cannot control how the departments within the EB operate. - They are arguing he cannot control how the departments within the EB are spending their money. - They are arguing he cannot eliminate departments within the EB... even those originally formed by executive order and not legislation. - They are arguing he cannot even fire people within the EB. - They are arguing members of the EB can act independently and ignore/defy his orders without consequence. Congress is also reluctant to backup anything he does with legislation, because they utilize the EB as a massive money laundering operation. Edited March 24 by mjt328
B-Man Posted March 26 Posted March 26 What these activist judges are doing to Trump is not about who he is -- it is about who they are by Patricia McCarthy Everyone talks about transparency. The Democrats don’t like it. They’re all about secrecy and censorship. The right believes in transparency but caves when challenged. So the American people are often left in the dark about most things governmental and are not aware of the rampant duplicity that undergirds everything remotely political. Obviously, the Democrats’ strategy has been well-planned with the confidence that higher courts, especially the SCOTUS, would not interfere with their lawfare. Chief Justice Roberts has reason to be ashamed of Judge James "Jeb" Boasberg; he appointed him to the FISA court. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/what_these_activist_judges_are_doing_to_trump_is_not_about_who_he_is_it_is_about_who_they_are.html
4th&long Posted Wednesday at 05:25 PM Posted Wednesday at 05:25 PM 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Cry you waste of sperm.
BillsFanNC Posted Wednesday at 07:49 PM Author Posted Wednesday at 07:49 PM Justice is lost, justice is raped, justice is gone Pulling your strings, justice is done Seeking no truth, winning is all Find it so grim, so true, so real 2
B-Man Posted Wednesday at 10:26 PM Posted Wednesday at 10:26 PM A Supreme Court Remedy for Nationwide Injunctions: Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to curb them by clarifying the Rules of Civil Procedure. By Elizabeth Price Foley Federal trial judges blocking presidential acts via nationwide injunctions are creating a serious conflict between the executive and judicial branches. The flood of such injunctions provoked President Trump to take to social media and call for the impeachment of a judge who issued a temporary restraining order. Chief Justice John Roberts responded in a statement to reporters that impeachment is inappropriate and the administration should rely on “the normal appellate review process.” Unsatisfied, Mr. Trump wrote on Thursday: “Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country! . . . If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!” There is something the justices can do to rein in nationwide injunctions: exercise their authority under the Rules Enabling Act of 1934 to amend the federal rule on injunctions. The recent outbreak of nationwide injunctions damages our constitutional system. They were almost unheard of before the 1960s. Only 12 were issued against George W. Bush and 19 against Barack Obama during each of their two terms. Joe Biden faced 28. Mr. Trump faced 86 during his first term, almost all issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Two months into his second term, more than 15 have already been issued. Because nationwide injunctions often appear politically motivated, they create cynicism about the courts and the law. Worse, they enable lower-court judges to thwart the president’s Article II authority even in national security and defense. Lawmakers have introduced bills to halt nationwide injunctions. One recently passed the House Judiciary Committee and will likely pass the full House—then go to the Senate to die in a filibuster. An amendment to Rule 65 couldn’t take effect until Dec. 1. But once proposed—by May 1, as required—it would likely have an immediate, beneficial chilling effect on rogue judges. For the sake of the Constitution, the court should act quickly. https://archive.is/iscwI#selection-5865.0-5869.21 Yes, it should.
BillsFanNC Posted Saturday at 03:33 PM Author Posted Saturday at 03:33 PM What Marxist judge doesn't have a conflict of interest via immediate family grift? Par for the course.
The Frankish Reich Posted Saturday at 05:40 PM Posted Saturday at 05:40 PM On 3/24/2025 at 4:34 PM, B-Man said: Read it all. Translation: of course it's illegal. But it was improperly venued! That's a compelling defense. 2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: What Marxist judge doesn't have a conflict of interest via immediate family grift? Par for the course. Pretty daughter. He should be proud of her. No need for Laura Loomer maxillofacial surgery. Weird though that she has that kind of power over him. Or maybe she just happens to agree with his legal decisions.
Big Blitz Posted Sunday at 03:03 AM Posted Sunday at 03:03 AM 11 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: What Marxist judge doesn't have a conflict of interest via immediate family grift? Par for the course.
Big Blitz Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago So the latest ruling tonight from President District Court Judge isn’t even based in law - he just says it appears racist to want to remove TPS for Venezuelans here …. That’s it’s a terrible burden they’ll have to endure if deported. Remember - they want to do this because they desperately want “Trump to defy the Courts” headlines. 1
Recommended Posts