***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

196,853 Views | 2283 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by Ag with kids
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:40a, 8/22/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Hawg, the problem is SCOTUS has previously relied on the lower court judges to actually care about the reputation of the federal judiciary writ large. The activists foisted on us by Obama, Biden, and Durbin don't give a flip about reputation - they are about the religion of the left. There is no method for SCOTUS to deliver accountability.

That is indeed a major flaw in the current system. Only path to get rid of very bad judges is to impeach and remove them through the House and Senate. Those bodies are too divided to undertake that.

I suppose SCOTUS could direct that judges ignoring their precedents be removed from a case, or all cases involving the Trump administration?

These judges have shown they are corrupt to the core. If they lack any since of morality and justice in their dispositioning of our laws, their primary role, then I suspect they make other poor moral judgments in life.

Bondi should launch a strike force for ensuring judicial integrity. Two prongs... make the judges disclose much much much more information on the professional and personal dealings then prosecute any and all violations of law, including forgetting to use proper punctuation. Then publish judicial scorecards and out these ****ers for their biased.

Burn it all down.
Reply Quote
5
Prosperdick
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:54p, 8/22/25
AG
At this point I'd almost recommend hiring PI's to dig up whatever dirt they can find on them (I'm sure there is a TON) and blackmail them into recusing...hell, it's been in the Dem playbook for years, why not try it.
Reply Quote
5
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 1:00p, 8/22/25
AG
flown-the-coop said:
aggiehawg said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Hawg, the problem is SCOTUS has previously relied on the lower court judges to actually care about the reputation of the federal judiciary writ large. The activists foisted on us by Obama, Biden, and Durbin don't give a flip about reputation - they are about the religion of the left. There is no method for SCOTUS to deliver accountability.

That is indeed a major flaw in the current system. Only path to get rid of very bad judges is to impeach and remove them through the House and Senate. Those bodies are too divided to undertake that.

I suppose SCOTUS could direct that judges ignoring their precedents be removed from a case, or all cases involving the Trump administration?

These judges have shown they are corrupt to the core. If they lack any since of morality and justice in their dispositioning of our laws, their primary role, then I suspect they make other poor moral judgments in life.

Bondi should launch a strike force for ensuring judicial integrity. Two prongs... make the judges disclose much much much more information on the professional and personal dealings then prosecute any and all violations of law, including forgetting to use proper punctuation. Then publish judicial scorecards and out these ****ers for their biased.

Burn it all down.

Honest question and I don't know the answer. Could SCOTUS hold lower courts in contempt for repeatedly refusing to apply recent SCOTUS precedents to their rulings?
Reply Quote
3
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 2:26p, 8/22/25
AG
txags92 said:
flown-the-coop said:
aggiehawg said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Hawg, the problem is SCOTUS has previously relied on the lower court judges to actually care about the reputation of the federal judiciary writ large. The activists foisted on us by Obama, Biden, and Durbin don't give a flip about reputation - they are about the religion of the left. There is no method for SCOTUS to deliver accountability.

That is indeed a major flaw in the current system. Only path to get rid of very bad judges is to impeach and remove them through the House and Senate. Those bodies are too divided to undertake that.

I suppose SCOTUS could direct that judges ignoring their precedents be removed from a case, or all cases involving the Trump administration?

These judges have shown they are corrupt to the core. If they lack any since of morality and justice in their dispositioning of our laws, their primary role, then I suspect they make other poor moral judgments in life.

Bondi should launch a strike force for ensuring judicial integrity. Two prongs... make the judges disclose much much much more information on the professional and personal dealings then prosecute any and all violations of law, including forgetting to use proper punctuation. Then publish judicial scorecards and out these ****ers for their biased.

Burn it all down.

Honest question and I don't know the answer. Could SCOTUS hold lower courts in contempt for repeatedly refusing to apply recent SCOTUS precedents to their rulings?

Since that is more on the procedural side of things, I am not as familiar. Someone like Hawg may know.

But conceptually I think there is something to work out when the courts no longer care about the law and care about their own power and how they can wield that power for political favoritism.

The courts infamously lack an true enforcement mechanism. If the courts no longer feel obligated to follow the law or higher courts, then the result is for the executive to simply ignore them. I think we are actually getting closer to that.

At some point Trump to Roberts will be "get your house in order now or we can just ignore you guys". Of course, Roberts really holds no special powers outside of setting meeting agendas (which other justices can add to) and ceremonial roles like impeachment trial.

What Roberts is doing at the expense of his fellow justices is permanently weakening the judicial branch to the point that it went from the branch of deference and civility amongst the 3 to the more politicized and feckless than congress.
Reply Quote
4
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:26p, 8/22/25
AG

'Lengthy and pointless' are good terms for KBJ's dissents.
Reply Quote
7
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 2:29p, 8/22/25
AG
nortex97 said:

'Lengthy and pointless' are good terms for KBJ's dissents.

FIFY
Reply Quote
4
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 7:02p, 8/22/25
AG
flown-the-coop said:
txags92 said:
flown-the-coop said:
aggiehawg said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Hawg, the problem is SCOTUS has previously relied on the lower court judges to actually care about the reputation of the federal judiciary writ large. The activists foisted on us by Obama, Biden, and Durbin don't give a flip about reputation - they are about the religion of the left. There is no method for SCOTUS to deliver accountability.

That is indeed a major flaw in the current system. Only path to get rid of very bad judges is to impeach and remove them through the House and Senate. Those bodies are too divided to undertake that.

I suppose SCOTUS could direct that judges ignoring their precedents be removed from a case, or all cases involving the Trump administration?

These judges have shown they are corrupt to the core. If they lack any since of morality and justice in their dispositioning of our laws, their primary role, then I suspect they make other poor moral judgments in life.

Bondi should launch a strike force for ensuring judicial integrity. Two prongs... make the judges disclose much much much more information on the professional and personal dealings then prosecute any and all violations of law, including forgetting to use proper punctuation. Then publish judicial scorecards and out these ****ers for their biased.

Burn it all down.

Honest question and I don't know the answer. Could SCOTUS hold lower courts in contempt for repeatedly refusing to apply recent SCOTUS precedents to their rulings?

Since that is more on the procedural side of things, I am not as familiar. Someone like Hawg may know.

But conceptually I think there is something to work out when the courts no longer care about the law and care about their own power and how they can wield that power for political favoritism.

The courts infamously lack an true enforcement mechanism. If the courts no longer feel obligated to follow the law or higher courts, then the result is for the executive to simply ignore them. I think we are actually getting closer to that.

At some point Trump to Roberts will be "get your house in order now or we can just ignore you guys". Of course, Roberts really holds no special powers outside of setting meeting agendas (which other justices can add to) and ceremonial roles like impeachment trial.

What Roberts is doing at the expense of his fellow justices is permanently weakening the judicial branch to the point that it went from the branch of deference and civility amongst the 3 to the more politicized and feckless than congress.

I think Jackson is the one weakening the court by putting out these silly and feckless opinions.
Pro College Station Convention Center
Reply Quote
3
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 9:43p, 8/22/25
AG
Roberts needs a law abiding drone strike. That is all.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 11:53p, 8/22/25
AG
nortex97 said:

'Lengthy and pointless' are good terms for KBJ's dissents.

Maybe her goal is to delay the decision...
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.