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

178,273 Views | 2143 Replies | Last: 8 hrs ago by ttha_aggie_09
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:33p, 4/1/25

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 • 10:21p, 4/1/25
What are the potential penalties from varying from the federal rules of procedure? Is there anything in statute?
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:59a, 4/2/25
Biden judge writes 67 page opinion claiming he has jurisdiction for terrorist in prison in Louisiana, whose permanent resident status has been revoked by the State Department.
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 • 7:44a, 4/2/25
BusterAg said:
What are the potential penalties from varying from the federal rules of procedure? Is there anything in statute?
No. Just a tongue lashing from an appellate court.
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 nortex97 • 7:58a, 4/2/25
nortex97 said:
Biden judge writes 67 page opinion claiming he has jurisdiction for terrorist in prison in Louisiana, whose permanent resident status has been revoked by the State Department.
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled he has jurisdiction over Khalil's case because the Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident was detained in New Jersey when his lawyer filed the challenge.

"The case as filed can go forward only here. The other 93 districts, where the Petitioner was nowhere to be found, are out of the question," Farbiarz, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote in his 67-page ruling.
But they filed in NY. Khalil's attorneys invoked the jurisdiction of the New York federal district court, not the NJ federal court. The NY judge, even knowing jurisdiction and venue belonged in Louisiana, improperly transferred the case to NJ because Khalil was there temporarily.

Heaven forbid if Khalil's flight between NJ and Louisiana had any stops on the way. Would jurisdiction be there as well?
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:01a, 4/2/25
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 aggiehawg • 8:02a, 4/2/25
It's asinine, and it's all just because these Dem judges don't want to risk it being heard in the 5th circuit which is necessarily not packed with Obama-Biden judges.

The NY judge also threw a hissy fit about the request to xfer to LA by the gov't when he sent it to NJ, and noted that the poor Hamas attorneys at the time didn't realize he was in NJ already.
Reply Quote
FTAG 2000
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 • 8:04a, 4/2/25
aggiehawg said:
nortex97 said:
Biden judge writes 67 page opinion claiming he has jurisdiction for terrorist in prison in Louisiana, whose permanent resident status has been revoked by the State Department.
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled he has jurisdiction over Khalil's case because the Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident was detained in New Jersey when his lawyer filed the challenge.

"The case as filed can go forward only here. The other 93 districts, where the Petitioner was nowhere to be found, are out of the question," Farbiarz, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote in his 67-page ruling.
But they filed in NY. Khalil's attorneys invoked the jurisdiction of the New York federal district court, not the NJ federal court. The NY judge, even knowing jurisdiction and venue belonged in Louisiana, improperly transferred the case to NJ because Khalil was there temporarily.

Heaven forbid if Khalil's flight between NJ and Louisiana had any stops on the way. Would jurisdiction be there as well?

Some of these judges need to burn.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:05a, 4/2/25
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 8:06a, 4/2/25
will25u said:
Standing??? Any of those plaintiffs illegal aliens wanting to vote?
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 • 8:24a, 4/2/25
Another one that was approved on a strict party-line vote, 48-48. Born in Mexico City, Cal Berkeley, ACLU, Immigrant rights, abortion/infanticide rights attorney.

As communist as they come, she had to be re-nominated after failing the first time.
Quote:
Born in 1977 in Mexico City, Mexico, Martinez-Olguin attended Princeton University and the University of California, Berkeley Law School. After graduating, Martinez-Olguin spent two years clerking for Judge David Briones on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. She then joined the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU), working in the Women's Rights Project based in New York City.

Martinez-Olguin then moved to San Francisco to become a staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work. After three years there, Martinez-Olguin returned to New York to work at the ACLU, this time with the Immigrants' Rights Project.

Martinez-Olguin then spent a year apiece at the Office of Civil Rights with the U.S. Department of Education and as managing director of the Immigrants' Rights Project of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto before joining the National Immigration Law Center, where she works as Supervising Attorney.
She will never, ever issue a dispassionate/unbiased opinion related to immigration enforcement, or anything political.
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
8:26a, 4/2/25
Hussein and Biden very intentionally packed the courts with radical leftists who do not believe in the Constitution.
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 nortex97 • 8:29a, 4/2/25
Sounds to me she would be more suited to a job as an administrative immigration judge, instead of federal court. Also, unclear whether she ever set foot in a courtroom. Not that such is required, but it certainly helps.
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 will25u • 8:43a, 4/2/25
will25u said:
This SHOULD be the straw that breaks the camel's back on legislative election reform, but it likely will not be, because the GOP is spineless.

Forcing a filibuster on voter ID with this on the front page of every alternative media source available, including making the senate vote for it multiple times, SHOULD be on the GOP's forefront of things to do this session. But it likely will not.
Reply Quote
1 edit
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:03a, 4/2/25

Eric Adams case dismissed with prejudice. Knowing Adams, he'll probably **** up and do something else to get himself indicted with new charges.
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 HTownAg98 • 9:25a, 4/2/25
If this case was truly politically motivated, this is a good outcome in my eyes.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:40a, 4/2/25
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:47a, 4/2/25

90 Harvard Law professors?!

Thats way more than 51 senior intelligence officials! They cookin' with gas now!
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:23a, 4/2/25

Benz sheds some light on what we are seeing with the arrest of Le Pen and prosecution of political opponents in the US, France, Italy, Romania, Germany, Brazil and now Ireland.

Says overwhelming resources have been put into compromising the judiciary over the past 30-years and we seeing the fruit of that now. Also talks about Chief Justice Roberts specifically and how he's a part of all this.

Tldr; the inexplicable acts and failure to act by SCOTUS over the past 5-years makes sense when looked at through that framework, and degradation of the judicial system like we seeing worldwide is the beginning of the end.

Also reconciles why and how that the Nuremberg Code was completely ignored during Covid.
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
12:41p, 4/2/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:22p, 4/2/25
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 • 1:34p, 4/2/25
will25u said:
Considering the goal of these judges is to obstruct by any means, they will reject the request and hear it en banc anyway, then rule against him.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:57p, 4/2/25
LOL.


This is about Juge Ho's loquacious, emotional and stupid dismissal with prejudice of the case against NYC mayor Adams, fyi.

Another partisan ACLU inept-Biden judge, who was confirmed along a strict party line vote 49-50.

Never, ever vote for a Democrat.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:40p, 4/2/25
Really don't see how the SCOTUS doesn't think there is something wrong going on.

Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:03a, 4/3/25
Pretty funny (the colleague judge is the one who tried illegally to sneak an illegal alien out the judges chambers to avoid arrest).

McKinney, TX man Robert King arrested for threatening to kill ICE agents.

Reply Quote
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:11a, 4/3/25





There is precedent in place that supports Trump's actions and arguments
“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
Reply Quote
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:47a, 4/3/25
I have a question for the real lawyers on this board. Why is it that the SCOTUS has never really ruled in one way or another on these ridiculous Nationwide Injunctions or in the case of Texas v Pennsylvania where Paxton challenged the 2020 election where Pennsylvania decided to change the election rules without the backing of the state legislature in direct violation of the Constitution which plainly states that the rules of the federal elections are governed by the state legislature. My question is, is it the possibility that the SCOTUS has refused to rule or in the TX v Pennsylvania case refused to even hear the case because they would have exposed the fact that they have no real power to enforce the law if the state or Trump decided to say screw this and challenge their power to enforce? Just curious to why they avoid fully addressing these game changing rulings.
“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
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 Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 6:52a, 4/3/25
The short answer is that it has only become a truly pressing issue during the 2nd Trump term, and Roberts highly prefers 'regular order' in dealing with appeals to SCOTUS.

The longer answer is…Roberts is a complete coward and likely very compromised, not just with Boasberg, but big lawfare writ large.



Eisen, Mary McCord, Boasberg, Sheldon Snook (his clerk/her husband), you name it…he's a snake in the grass at the very least.

Oh btw, his wife also has made 8 figures from/to big law firms recruiting top lawyers to…argue before him. Nothing to see there!
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:45p, 4/3/25
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, 4/3/25



Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:13p, 4/3/25
Reply Quote
1 edit
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 • 1:19p, 4/3/25
Jurisdiction: Wrong court, wrong issues, using the wrong (legal) device. Perfecto, judge Boasberg!
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 Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 8:14p, 4/3/25
MarkTwain said:





There is precedent in place that supports Trump's actions and arguments
Trump should ignore it, citing the precedent.
Trump will fix 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
8:26p, 4/3/25


Reply Quote
blacksox
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:02p, 4/3/25
I tell you what, you guys have told me I'm pretty much the dumbest lawyer to ever pass the bar, and I accept that. But it's pretty wild that dozens of judges, appointed by both parties over a couple of decade, are heavily ruling against Trump! How improbable!

If one didn't know better you'd think all the illegal **** Trump does is really the problem.
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.