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

179,906 Views | 2162 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by BusterAg
Aggie Jurist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:55a, 3/19/25
I think it's time to simply ignore the judges issuing these injunctions - unfortunately, the government attorneys are stuck. They want to keep their licenses.
LGB
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 Ellis Wyatt • 10:12a, 3/19/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
"Judge" Ana Reyes just blocked the military transgender ban.

This is a judicial coup.

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:01p, 3/19/25
Good read. Thread.

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
2:02p, 3/19/25

Reply Quote
1 edit
richardag
User Profile 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, 3/19/25
nortex97 said:
……,,,,,,
This is yet another mockery of an 'impartial' judge.
Seems like this is conflict of interest for this judge.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:49p, 3/19/25
Reply Quote
techno-ag
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 • 2:52p, 3/19/25
will25u said:
The defense is just now being raised because he's pushing it.
Trump will fix it.
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
2:57p, 3/19/25


Quote:
You're wrong, Hugh.

You're too quick to defend the ruling class. Of course, you're not alone. Defend the Constitution instead.

It's the job of the Chief Justice of the United States, that's his title, to do his job. To uphold his oath to the Constitution. Radical district court judges intentionally cherry-picked by Democrat and leftwing petitioners (they know the politics of most of these judges as we do) are systematically attacking the constitutional power of the executive branch with nationwide orders, radical political and policy rulings, and picking to pieces the authority granted a president. Silence is exactly the wrong response. Indeed, they're to be condemned.

Separation of powers is the heart of our system. Look at the Constitution's structure. Read the Federalist Papers. Read Locke and Montesquieu. And more. You might want to educate yourself about a judiciary run amok in Israel today. Not enough people spoke out when they could. And the elected parts of their government acquiesced. Judicial autocracy there is now said to be a democracy. In fact, you might want to check out George Orwell's writings while you're at it.

Roberts failed to curb this a few weeks ago. He could've stopped it before it got out of control. He did the opposite. He gave it his rubber stamp. His comment on the elected branches considering impeachment was way out of bounds (impeachment won't work by the way; eliminating or defunding certain courts would be better). He should still act to end this rather than lecture elected representatives. He can still actually do something about it. Judges aren't supposed to pontificate about matters not before them. If he's going to pontificate then do so in a format where he can be questioned or challenged.

That said, it's our civic duty as citizens, for whom this republic exists, to denounce all forms of tyranny by any branch usurping the Constitution. That's our primary power. Free speech. To alert our fellow citizens to the threat. To make our views known. Moreover, the elected branches are not only expected to push back but have a duty to do so. It is not the role of we, the people, or our representatives to watch in dumbfounded silence as unelected judges usurp our authority and a foundational principle of our Constitution at the behest of partisan litigants. This is a republic, after all. Our allegiance is not to the ruling class and those who abuse their power. And we don't need to wait for a higher court to rule to make our revulsion known. We're not mere observers of this government, we are the reason for this government and participants in it. The litigants and their judges do not stand above us. Nor are they immune from our condemnation, especially given their motives and conduct.

There's not a single framer or ratifier who would recognize the legitimacy of what these congressionally created lower courts are doing. Not one. And they'd likely be condemning it loudly as constitutionalists are around the country. I've no doubt Chief Justice Rehnquist would be acting quite differently than Roberts. The four associate justices led by Sam Alito made clear they were ready to act and were stunned by the Court's majority, led by Roberts. On what side does any rational person think Rehnquist would've fallen? The best Roberts could do was issue essentially a one-sentence order denying the president's appeal, supporting one of the rogue lower court judges who demanded the president fund foreign adventures, without any explanation to the president or the public an outrageous snub against the public considering the magnitude of what's taking place under Roberts's watch and before our eyes. He doesn't believe he even owes us an explanation. Perhaps he'll correct course but damage is being done to the Constitution and the judiciary's credibility now, which will be harder to fix as time goes on. And if he finally does act, it won't be due to your thin defense of him, Hugh, but because of those who spoke up and patriotically challenged this growing tyranny.

You're dead wrong, Hugh. The job of the Chief Justice of the United States is to uphold the Constitution, not defend every judge and employee of the judiciary, any more than it's the job of the president to defend every employee of the executive branch or Congress to defend any employee of the legislative branch. Wake up, my friend.
Reply Quote
1 edit
We fixed the keg
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 • 3:11p, 3/19/25
Great response by Levin, thanks for posting.
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
3:20p, 3/19/25
Levin is a constitutional scholar. These activist judges are not, nor do they care about anything other than their personal politics and activism. These are the judges democrats appoint. Republicans appoint judges they expect will adhere to our Constitution.

Reply Quote
Aggie Jurist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:37p, 3/19/25
Quote:
Levin is a constitutional scholar. These activist judges are not, nor do they care about anything other than their personal politics and activism. These are the judges democrats appoint. Republicans appoint judges they expect will adhere to our Constitution.

and Senator Kennedy did a nice job during the Judiciary hearings exposing their complete lack of Constitutional knowledge (and basic understanding of the FRCP).
LGB
Reply Quote
FireAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:57p, 3/19/25
It's getting closer to time where the people are going to be forced to take back our country ourselves, and start removing these judges by force…
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 FireAg • 7:42p, 3/19/25
FireAg said:
It's getting closer to time where the people are going to be forced to take back our country ourselves, and start removing these judges by force…


Tough guy internet talk blue diamond.

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
11:46p, 3/19/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:11a, 3/20/25
I can't believe I am typing this, but Beryl Howell refused to issue a TRO restraining the DOGE takeover of the "US Institute for Peace." (!). Take the win when you get it, I suppose.

Quote:
Howell declined to bar DOGE from accessing USIP's facilities and systems, acting in USIP's name or declare void the apparent removal of its board.

She also declined to forbid further trespass against the independent institute, after it said in court filings DOGE conducted a "literal trespass and takeover by force."

"I am very offended by how DOGE has operated at the institute and treated American citizens trying to do a job that they were statutorily tasked to do at the institute," Howell said. "But that concern about how this has gone down is not one that can sway me in my consideration of the factors for a [temporary restraining order], which is an emergency relief that is extraordinary."

USIP stressed its status differs from other agencies infiltrated by DOGE, as it is an independent nonprofit corporation. The institute was established to help resolve and prevent violent conflicts.

It sued DOGE and other Trump administration officials Wednesday morning, claiming they sought to unlawfully dismantle the institute and block it from completing the peace promotion work tasked to it by Congress.
I don't think I can recall her ever making a ruling that didn't…go against Trump in a case.
FYI, this is the lead State Department narco-network organization.

DEI, regime change, Democrat party crap.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:19a, 3/20/25

Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 7:40a, 3/20/25
Hack judge clearly without jurisdiction ignores that utterly and demands rightfully terminated grants be immediately funded. Hack is really an understatement.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:24a, 3/20/25
I guess they are telling the district court to get their house in order so we can work the appeal?


Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:25a, 3/20/25
Seems like SCOTUS is about to get busy with appeals of all these district court overreaches.


Reply Quote
LMCane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:38a, 3/20/25
NEW YORK illegal alien voting case now decided FOR THE REPUBLICANS and against the leftists

New York Court will not allow illegal aliens to vote in elections in New York City.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:28p, 3/20/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:32p, 3/20/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:37p, 3/20/25
Instapundit has a great piece out about…options. (Glenn Reynolds, he's pretty famous, is a law professor at Tennessee.) More at the link:
Quote:
Right now lots of people are calling for the impeachment of lower-court judges who flout the law, of which there seem to be many. (And no, the law is not to be found in citations to Taylor Swift or Hamilton.) But I think impeachment is a mistake.

Impeachment is hard, there's no way the Republicans will get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for removal, and history suggests from Bill Clinton through two different attempts on Donald Trump that failed impeachment efforts leave their targets stronger, not weaker. (There was once even a pretty widespread movement to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren over the liberal Warren Court opinions; one of its leaders, Rep. Gerald R. Ford, later became President, but Warren was unscathed, to put it mildly.)
Impeachment is a symbolic and probably self-destructive gesture. Those are for Democrats, not for Republicans who want to Make America Great Again.

But here are some things that could be done, lower profile but more effective.

First, expand the courts. No, no, not "court packing," nothing like that. The National Judicial Council just recommended adding 66 District Judges and two Court of Appeals judges to remedy the "crisis of undermanned federal courts." Republicans should do at least that, though I would add at least two new Court of Appeals judges to each circuit. And I might increase the number of district judges appointed to the District for the District of Columbia, and perhaps the Southern District of New York, beyond the Council's recommendations on the ground that those districts seem to be getting busier.

This wouldn't be court-packing, since it's simply following the recommendations of a non-partisan commission. (And in truth, it's been widely agreed for many years that the federal courts are understaffed).
Now for the Supreme Court. Again, no partisan court-packing. Instead, in a spirit of bipartisanship, the GOP should enact the Democrats' bill from 2021, which would have expanded the Supreme Court from 9 to 13. Although perhaps, in a spirit of generosity, they might increase the number to 15.

Okay, this is good clean fun, and letting it be known that these changes are on the table would probably be an inducement to better behavior and in particular an inducement to the Supreme Court to begin supervising lower courts more vigorously. And you could do this with simple majorities of the House and Senate.

With simple majorities you could, as I've previously suggested, bring back the requirement for three-judge district courts when the legality of federal statutes is challenged, and expand that requirement to include challenges to executive orders.

Another thing you could do with simple majorities, as Ron DeSantis has noted, is to strip federal courts of jurisdiction to issue Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions in the class of cases that we've been seeing. Or, indeed, to strip them of jurisdiction to hear any complaints regarding the internal administration of the Executive. Or stripping courts of jurisdiction to issue any order in such cases until an appeals bond has actually been posted by the moving party.

Congress could also provide that lawsuits challenging changes to federal programs or agencies be assigned to randomly-selected district courts from around the nation, rather than the District for the District of Columbia. (It could possibly even go further and simply abolish the District for the District of Columbia, and do this with all cases. In 2025, there's no real reason for all such cases to be heard in DC; it's not the horse-and-buggy era anymore. Going further still, they could simply abolish the District of Columbia itself, which is permitted but not required to exist by the Constitution.)

Congress could also require that all proceedings in federal courts be televised. Federal Judges have resisted that, but ultimately it's not their call. Many lawyers involved in the January 6 proceedings have said that if video of what judges were doing there had been made public, there would have been a revolution. At least the prospect of public scrutiny might make judges more cautious, and less imperious.

Going further still (in some sense) Congress should shrink the number of judicial law clerks, or abolish the institution of law clerks completely. The Supreme Court had no law clerks for the first century or so of its existence, and the quality of the opinions from the law-clerk-less era seems, if anything, better than what we've seen since. The opinions were also shorter and had fewer footnotes. (Personally, I'd also like to see a rule that no Supreme Court ruling is effective unless the opinion explaining it is joined by an actual majority of justices none of this business of parsing together plurality and concurring opinions to try to figure out the "real" rule of the case.)

These are all things that could be done with the existing legislative majorities, and that would do more to address existing problems than impeachments, with less of a downside. Please feel free to add any suggestions of your own in the comments.
He's right about all of that.
Reply Quote
Aggie Jurist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 12:50p, 3/20/25
I'm a big ban of Glenn's - I read Instapundit several times a day. I like many of these suggestions, though I think the Clerks serve a worthwhile purpose (having clerked myself).
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 Aggie Jurist • 12:57p, 3/20/25
Aggie Jurist said:
I'm a big ban of Glenn's - I read Instapundit several times a day. I like many of these suggestions, though I think the Clerks serve a worthwhile purpose (having clerked myself).
I think limiting the scope of district court rulings to the plaintiffs before the court and requiring at least a 3 member panel to review executive order challenges would cut down on a lot of this. Taking away the ability of a single district court judge to issue a blanket TRO or Injunction to be applied nationally (or even internationally) would go a long way towards fixing this stuff.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Aggie Jurist
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 • 3:13p, 3/20/25
Quote:
I think limiting the scope of district court rulings to the plaintiffs before the court and requiring at least a 3 member panel to review executive order challenges would cut down on a lot of this. Taking away the ability of a sinlge district court judge to issue a blanket TRO or Injunction to be applied nationally (or even internationally) would go a long way towards fixing this stuff.
I'd add a provision to allow for immediate interlocutory appeal as a matter of right before such a TRO/PI could become effective.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:38p, 3/20/25
Leaking ex parte classified information, and essentially holding a mini trial with the DOJ over this BS.

Seems to me like he keeps digging this constitutional crisis hole.



Also, Earlier today.

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
6:44p, 3/20/25
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 will25u • 6:55p, 3/20/25
will25u said:
Leaking ex parte classified information, and essentially holding a mini trial with the DOJ over this BS.

Seems to me like he keeps digging this constitutional crisis hole.



Also, Earlier today.

Heat exhaustion?

From someone that lived in a hotter and more humid climate his whole life until he illegally came here?

I call bull*****..
Reply Quote
We fixed the keg
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 • 7:39p, 3/20/25
Well that is shady AF.....assuming it is true, damn sure warrants an investigation
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:40p, 3/20/25
Wow... Now telling Rubio/Trump they can't put people in certain positions in the Executive Branch.

Wow.


Reply Quote
titan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to We fixed the keg • 8:06p, 3/20/25


Yes, and the bold is what Johnson needs to do.

Quote:
Roberts failed to curb this a few weeks ago. He could've stopped it before it got out of control. He did the opposite. He gave it his rubber stamp. His comment on the elected branches considering impeachment was way out of bounds (impeachment won't work by the way; eliminating or defunding certain courts would be better). He should still act to end this rather than lecture elected representatives. He can still actually do something about it. Judges aren't supposed to pontificate about matters not before them. If he's going to pontificate then do so in a format where he can be questioned or challenged.
Only the SC is really Constitutional -- get rid off all that subordinate stolen power.



FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:08p, 3/20/25
Reply Quote
titan
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 • 8:18p, 3/20/25
will25u said:
Is there a way for the House to cast Roberts out?
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
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
8:23p, 3/20/25
Roberts sucks.
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.