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

200,336 Views | 2317 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by nortex97
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:07p, 3/6/25

Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:23p, 3/6/25
Quote:
Additionally, at least theoretically, empowering a President with absolute control over how the
Executive branch operates, including the power to "clean house" of federal employees, would
promote efficient implementation of presidential policies and campaign promises that are
responsive to the national electorate.

On the other hand, the advantages of impartial, expert-
driven decision-making and congressional checks on executive authority favor some agency
independence from political changes in presidential administrations, with the concomitant
benefits of stability, reliability, and moderation in government actions. No matter where these
pros and cons may lead, the crucial question here is, what does the U.S. Constitution allow?

To start, the Framers made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to
be kingthe President includedand not just in name only. See U.S. C ONST. art. I, 9, cl. 8
("No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States."). Indeed, the very structure of the
Constitution was designed to ensure no one branch of government had absolute power ...

Quote:
A President who touts an image of himself as a "king" or a "dictator,"5 perhaps as his
vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S.
Constitution. In our constitutional order, the President is tasked to be a conscientious custodian
of the law, albeit an energetic one, to take care of effectuating his enumerated duties, including
the laws enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by the Judiciary. ("[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .").

At issue in this case, is thePresident's insistence that he has authority to fire whomever he wants within the Executive branch, overriding any congressionally mandated law in his way. Some of defendants'
supporting amici also draw analogies to the British monarchy; Tennessee has described the tradition of the British king's "'prerogative power to remove' executive officers 'at will,'" which "carried into the United States."

In a democracy created to repudiate that very regime, that analogy has little purchase. Principal Officers of the United States. Luckily, the Framers, anticipating such a power grab, vested in Article III, not Article
II, the power to interpret the law, including resolving conflicts about congressional checks on
presidential authority. The President's interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power
or, more aptly, his aspirationis flat wrong.

The President does not have the authority to terminate members of the National Labor
Relations Board at will, and his attempt to fire plaintiff from her position on the Board was a
blatant violation of the law. Defendants concede that removal of plaintiff as a Board Member
violates the terms of the applicable statute, and because this statute is a valid exercise of congressional power, the President's excuse for his illegal act cannot be sustained.
So let's be clear: Beryl Howell runs the Executive Branch and will determine who can and cannot be fired. Beryl Howell had no problem when Biden's unelected handlers did whatever they chose, but she believes Donald Trump sees himself as the king, so she alone gets to choose who works for the federal government.

Personally, I don't recall voting for Beryl Howell, but she clearly sees herself as the head of our government.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 4:27p, 3/6/25
FireAg said:
So does this mean the 6,000 USAID leaches are still fired too?
If not, they WILL BE.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 4:29p, 3/6/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
Quote:
Additionally, at least theoretically, empowering a President with absolute control over how the
Executive branch operates, including the power to "clean house" of federal employees, would
promote efficient implementation of presidential policies and campaign promises that are
responsive to the national electorate.

On the other hand, the advantages of impartial, expert-
driven decision-making and congressional checks on executive authority favor some agency
independence from political changes in presidential administrations, with the concomitant
benefits of stability, reliability, and moderation in government actions. No matter where these
pros and cons may lead, the crucial question here is, what does the U.S. Constitution allow?

To start, the Framers made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to
be kingthe President includedand not just in name only. See U.S. C ONST. art. I, 9, cl. 8
("No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States."). Indeed, the very structure of the
Constitution was designed to ensure no one branch of government had absolute power ...

Quote:
A President who touts an image of himself as a "king" or a "dictator,"5 perhaps as his
vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S.
Constitution. In our constitutional order, the President is tasked to be a conscientious custodian
of the law, albeit an energetic one, to take care of effectuating his enumerated duties, including
the laws enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by the Judiciary. ("[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .").

At issue in this case, is thePresident's insistence that he has authority to fire whomever he wants within the Executive branch, overriding any congressionally mandated law in his way. Some of defendants'
supporting amici also draw analogies to the British monarchy; Tennessee has described the tradition of the British king's "'prerogative power to remove' executive officers 'at will,'" which "carried into the United States."

In a democracy created to repudiate that very regime, that analogy has little purchase. Principal Officers of the United States. Luckily, the Framers, anticipating such a power grab, vested in Article III, not Article
II, the power to interpret the law, including resolving conflicts about congressional checks on
presidential authority. The President's interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power
or, more aptly, his aspirationis flat wrong.

The President does not have the authority to terminate members of the National Labor
Relations Board at will, and his attempt to fire plaintiff from her position on the Board was a
blatant violation of the law. Defendants concede that removal of plaintiff as a Board Member
violates the terms of the applicable statute, and because this statute is a valid exercise of congressional power, the President's excuse for his illegal act cannot be sustained.
So let's be clear: Beryl Howell runs the Executive Branch and will determine who can and cannot be fired. Beryl Howell had no problem when Biden's unelected handlers did whatever they chose, but she believes Donald Trump sees himself as the king, so she alone gets to choose who works for the federal government.

Personally, I don't recall voting for Beryl Howell, but she clearly sees herself as the head of our government.
Sounds like she fancies herself a Queen.
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 4:43p, 3/6/25
Quote:
Quote:
So let's be clear: Beryl Howell runs the Executive Branch and will determine who can and cannot be fired. Beryl Howell had no problem when Biden's unelected handlers did whatever they chose, but she believes Donald Trump sees himself as the king, so she alone gets to choose who works for the federal government.

Personally, I don't recall voting for Beryl Howell, but she clearly sees herself as the head of our government.
Sounds like she fancies herself a Queen.
She's consumed with TDS, and I am sure determined to ruin someone's life. She has practice.

The D.C. circuit needs to be disbanded.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:51p, 3/6/25
Reply Quote
txags92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:58p, 3/6/25
will25u said:
When you are talking about billions of dollars at stake that the government may never get back if they are forced to spend it for things that will likely turn out to be fraudulent in many cases, those are some significant damages the plaintiffs would have to cover, and the bonds themselves will therefore not be insignificant. How is the AG from Hawaii or Connecticut going to feel when he has to go back to the rest of the state government and tell them that they owe Trumps government a billion dollars because they and their other AG buddies forced him to pay for a bunch of USAID NGOs that turn out to only exist on paper and have no actual operational staff.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 5:09p, 3/6/25
About freakin' time someone remembered the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because these federal judges have been pretending they no longer exist.
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:17p, 3/6/25
Mark Levin is talking about John Roberts and Barrett's spinelessness and fecklessness that has led to this.
Reply Quote
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:03p, 3/6/25
LoL at this

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Logos Stick • 6:28p, 3/6/25
Logos Stick said:
LoL at this



This is what I posted above, but I am sure it is up to the judge how much the bond is.

Isn't it supposed to be the full amount that they are seeking as the bond, and if they were to lose, the defender would get it?
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:35p, 3/6/25
Appeal incoming.

Reply Quote
1 edit
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:47p, 3/6/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:02p, 3/6/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:39a, 3/7/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 3/7/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48a, 3/7/25
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:24p, 3/7/25
Let's come back to this for a moment.



Humphrey's Executor case doesn't stand for the proposition that the POTUS cannot fire someone and can be compelled by a court to delegate authority to a specific person. Because by the time the case got to SCOTUS, Humphrey was dead. Those are the facts of the case. Yes the Court found Humphrey had been wrongfully terminated, and then damages were later awarded to his estate. Just like a regular damages case heard by the Court of Claims.

So not sure Judge Howell's reliance upon it passes the smell test.

ETA: Branca is losing his mind over this.
Reply Quote
1 edit
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:29p, 3/7/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:38p, 3/7/25

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:44p, 3/7/25
Well, d'uh. These are Court of Claims cases for damages, not for injunctive relief. And when given the chance to start to try to prove some damages, they can't apparently.

How moronic all of this is.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:30p, 3/7/25
Reply Quote
txags92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:49p, 3/7/25
will25u said:
Trump ought to issue an EO directing all agencies to change the terms of their contracts going forward to send all claims cases to Judge Ali instead of Federal Claims courts. If he is going to adjudicate these, he might as well adjudicate all the others too.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:58p, 3/7/25
Clement speaks!



I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:22a, 3/8/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:00p, 3/8/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:27a, 3/9/25
Nice thread documenting to the biden-obama judges that they aren't in charge of prosecutorial decisions (and that the harassment of Flynn by a federal judge for years was entirely wrong).


Link to the brief at the end…
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:19p, 3/9/25
aggiehawg said:
About freakin' time someone remembered the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because these federal judges have been pretending they no longer exist.
Who gets to edit these, and how are they edited?

I know that different courts have supplemental rules specific to that court, but, as to the Federal Rules themselves, how are they updated? I am totally ignorant on this topic.

Are they 100% mandatory for every court in every case?

I know that the last thing you want to do in a lawsuit is break his/her rules that he/she is a stickler on, but how much discretion is there by judges?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 4:28p, 3/9/25
BusterAg said:
aggiehawg said:
About freakin' time someone remembered the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because these federal judges have been pretending they no longer exist.
Who gets to edit these, and how are they edited?

I know that different courts have supplemental rules specific to that court, but, as to the Federal Rules themselves, how are they updated? I am totally ignorant on this topic.

Are they 100% mandatory for every court in every case?

I know that the last thing you want to do in a lawsuit is break his/her rules that he/she is a stickler on, but how much discretion is there by judges?
The federal rules of criminal and civil procedures are codified in federal statutes. A federal district can supplement them with local rules but the local rules cannot rescind the statutory ones.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:42p, 3/9/25
aggiehawg said:
BusterAg said:
aggiehawg said:
About freakin' time someone remembered the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because these federal judges have been pretending they no longer exist.
Who gets to edit these, and how are they edited?

I know that different courts have supplemental rules specific to that court, but, as to the Federal Rules themselves, how are they updated? I am totally ignorant on this topic.

Are they 100% mandatory for every court in every case?

I know that the last thing you want to do in a lawsuit is break his/her rules that he/she is a stickler on, but how much discretion is there by judges?
The federal rules of criminal and civil procedures are codified in federal statutes. A federal district can supplement them with local rules but the local rules cannot rescind the statutory ones.
Beautiful. So, congress can update them with a new law signed by the president.

I understood the local rules stuff thanks to the patent courts in TXED and CAND, and knew the fed ones were basically in stone, but didn't know the actual procedure for changing them.

So POTUS is well within his right to demand surety bonds for injunctions. District courts likely to get slapped around by appeals courts for denying that request.

Right?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 4:51p, 3/9/25
Quote:
So POTUS is well within his right to demand surety bonds for injunctions. District courts likely to get slapped around by appeals courts for denying that request.

Right?
They should. My reading of this situation is the bond is required before the order goes into effect. But these caes are so procedurally screwed up at this point with multiple tangents, who knows?



Margot agrees with me on how insane this crap is.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:42p, 3/9/25

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:50p, 3/9/25
Branca is losing his mind again.

Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 7:54p, 3/9/25
Congress does not write the rules of procedure.

The Supreme Court does!

The Congress could pass a law, taking that power away from the Court, but I would not count on it!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 8:00p, 3/9/25
Im Gipper said:
Congress does not write the rules of procedure.

The Supreme Court does!
Really?

US Code Title 18? Criminal Procedure?

US Code Title 28? Civil Procedure?
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.