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

183,084 Views | 2184 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by FTAG 2000
blacksox
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 • 9:08p, 4/3/25
MarkTwain said:
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.


I have a great respect for how loaded this "question" is. As it's not actually asking for a response, I'll decline to give one.
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 blacksox • 9:13p, 4/3/25
Except the Judges are starting to get slapped down by Appellate courts and soon SCOTUS.

A lot of these filings are filed under APA which is the option of last resort. But can only be sought when there is no other remedy.

There are seemingly other remedies in a lot of these cases, but judges are ignoring them.

Like in the Trens Gang member case, the plaintiffs mention habeas corpus as a remedy in their filing. The judge told the plaintiffs to lay off on the habeas talk so he could try to keep jurisdiction.

Well, SCOTUS is about to slap that case down.

Biased judges and activist judges are trying to stall stall stall.
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 blacksox • 9:15p, 4/3/25
Anyone can make a BS ruling. It's no mystery that's the tactic you leftists are taking. You spent four years trying to lock the man up on complete bull*****

Try being ethical and making logical arguments. Obstructing via the courts is nothing but lawlessness.

*and as you know, most of the judges you claim to be "nominated by republicans" are actually leftists who were compromise picks while republicans were in office.
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
9:22p, 4/3/25
Judge won't do anything more than a pithy bond, but gotta try, right?

This filing actually has the math to back it up. But the judge won't care.

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26p, 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
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 9:31p, 4/3/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
Anyone can make a BS ruling. It's no mystery that's the tactic you leftists are taking. You spent four years trying to lock the man up on complete bull*****

Try being ethical and making logical arguments. Obstructing via the courts is nothing but lawlessness.

*and as you know, most of the judges you claim to be "nominated by republicans" are actually leftists who were compromise picks while republicans were in office.


I do love the pretzel-mailing to avoid the inevitable conclusion. When courts from all over the country are ruling against you, you're the problem. "Uh, uh they must have been compromise pick republicans" is a pathetic excuse.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:35p, 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
10:00p, 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
10:40p, 4/3/25
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 • 5:43a, 4/4/25
Yep. His full comment there;
Quote:
A lot of water has passed under the bridge over the past 2 weeks.

Boasberg has now traveled quite a distance of ground -- and I did criticize him at the very beginning for inadvisedly certifying a class at the March 15 hearing for no purpose other than to extend the TRO beyond the 5 named defendants.

Now he is asserting jurisdiction he likely does not have -- the Appeals Court did not vindicate him on that issue, Judge Henderson just punted.

He has now taken it personally that he thinks DOJ intentionally evaded his "directions," while failing to acknowledge that he represents a co-equal branch of Govt and not a superior branch of Govt.

When POTUS is his target -- and it is POTUS who is asserting his Nat.Sec. powers to deal with security and foreign governments -- he's on the losing end of that power struggle.

But my guess is that he will walk right up to the edge of making a contempt finding, rip into everyone he thinks was dishonest in dealing with him, but then pull back and find there is just enough unresolved vagaries that he can't pull the trigger.
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 • 7:08a, 4/4/25
will25u said:
Is this the case where team Trump said that they were going to review each of these grants before sending any more money? If so, Trump and team have basically already won this case, no? They can do individual review, and just terminate them one by one?
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 blacksox • 7:10a, 4/4/25
blacksox said:
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.
I doubt that you are a dumber lawyer than these judges, for what it is worth.
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 blacksox • 7:11a, 4/4/25
"Courts from all over the country" that were venue shopped. Sure. Huge indictment of Trump.

Run along now.
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 • 7:15a, 4/4/25
will25u said:
Quote:
He has now taken it personally that he thinks DOJ intentionally evaded his "directions," while failing to acknowledge that he represents a co-equal branch of Govt and not a superior branch of Govt.
Not only did DOJ intentionally evade his directions, they poked a stick in his eye while they did it.

The reason why they evaded his directions is that what the judge really wanted to do is such a blatant abuse of power that he didn't have the guts to put in writing exactly what he wanted. Instead, he put in writing close to what he wanted, and expected the DOJ to do what he wanted, not what he wrote down. The DOJ followed the order as written, not as expected by the judge, and grin****ed the judge while doing it.
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 blacksox • 7:19a, 4/4/25
blacksox said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
Anyone can make a BS ruling. It's no mystery that's the tactic you leftists are taking. You spent four years trying to lock the man up on complete bull*****

Try being ethical and making logical arguments. Obstructing via the courts is nothing but lawlessness.

*and as you know, most of the judges you claim to be "nominated by republicans" are actually leftists who were compromise picks while republicans were in office.


I do love the pretzel-mailing to avoid the inevitable conclusion. When courts from all over the country are ruling against you, you're the problem. "Uh, uh they must have been compromise pick republicans" is a pathetic excuse.
I take it back. I guess I do agree with your earlier post about your prowess as a lawyer.

The analysis on this thread of each of these cases show very clearly that all of these lawyers ruling against Trump are blatantly illegal. You are right that Trump is the problem. He is not furthering the Marxist causes that these judges were appointed by Obama to uphold. To pretend that it is Trump that is disregarding the rule of law here, as opposed to the judges, is to put one's head in the sand.
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 BusterAg • 7:44a, 4/4/25
It's worse than putting one's head in the sand. It's propaganda.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:25a, 4/4/25
Thread.

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
9:31a, 4/4/25
Delay. Delay. Delay.

Justice delayed is justice denied.
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 BusterAg • 10:13a, 4/4/25
BusterAg said:
will25u said:
Quote:
He has now taken it personally that he thinks DOJ intentionally evaded his "directions," while failing to acknowledge that he represents a co-equal branch of Govt and not a superior branch of Govt.
Not only did DOJ intentionally evade his directions, they poked a stick in his eye while they did it.

The reason why they evaded his directions is that what the judge really wanted to do is such a blatant abuse of power that he didn't have the guts to put in writing exactly what he wanted. Instead, he put in writing close to what he wanted, and expected the DOJ to do what he wanted, not what he wrote down. The DOJ followed the order as written, not as expected by the judge, and grin****ed the judge while doing it.
"grin****ed"

I will now be stealing this term.

Thanks!
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, 4/4/25

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
11:09a, 4/4/25
Quote:
When courts from all over the country are ruling against you, you're the problem.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:31a, 4/4/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:39a, 4/4/25

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
12:04p, 4/4/25
With the recent encroachment of the judiciary on executive powers, is standing-political question dead?

Is political question even a thing anymore?

It was during the 2020 election but seems to be way less popular over the past 75-days.

Wild that a concept that dates back to 1803 Marbury and Baker v Carr 1962 is poof ... gone with the wind.

Filed in the same folder that the Nuremberg Code was during Covid.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:34p, 4/4/25

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 Ag with kids • 12:36p, 4/4/25
Ag with kids said:
BusterAg said:
will25u said:
Quote:
He has now taken it personally that he thinks DOJ intentionally evaded his "directions," while failing to acknowledge that he represents a co-equal branch of Govt and not a superior branch of Govt.
Not only did DOJ intentionally evade his directions, they poked a stick in his eye while they did it.

The reason why they evaded his directions is that what the judge really wanted to do is such a blatant abuse of power that he didn't have the guts to put in writing exactly what he wanted. Instead, he put in writing close to what he wanted, and expected the DOJ to do what he wanted, not what he wrote down. The DOJ followed the order as written, not as expected by the judge, and grin****ed the judge while doing it.
"grin****ed"

I will now be stealing this term.

Thanks!
It's an investment banking term for when a person is smiling and shaking your hand and stealing your company from you at the same time.

In politics, I most like this term with just about any interview between JD Vance and a biased reporter.
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
12:38p, 4/4/25
Quote:
blacksox said:
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.

no blacksox - I just think you aren't being intellectually honest. Much like the many lawyers who wanted to say the OSHA 'vaccine' mandate was fine - b/c they seem to like over-regulation and dislike Constitutional order.

It's just like the bevvy of attorneys who thought Roe was properly decided. It wasn't. It was one of the most attenuated decisions every handed down - basically legislation from the bench. It only took 50 years to fix it.

You seem to think that there is a 4th branch under the USSC - there isn't (and you know it). Just be honest about your bias and move 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
In reply to will25u • 2:32p, 4/4/25
Yes.


3C1a. It's not complicated, just ignored by Obama/Biden judges.
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
3:42p, 4/4/25
Quote:
April 4, 2025, 3:31PM CDT

Supreme Court Lets Trump Halt Teacher Grants Cited as DEI




https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-lets-trump-halt-teacher-grants-cited-as-dei
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 • 4:46p, 4/4/25
will25u said:


These judges are breeding contempt for the courts with unethical behavior like this.
Trump will fix it.
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 techno-ag • 4:49p, 4/4/25
It's how you literally destroy democracy.
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 Ellis Wyatt • 5:47p, 4/4/25
Holy crap.
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
5:49p, 4/4/25
uh oh


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 Logos Stick • 5:54p, 4/4/25
Roberts and other liberals dissent. So much for the tradition of the chief justice never siding with the minority in a 5-4 decision.

Reply Quote
Prosperdick
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 • 5:59p, 4/4/25
nortex97 said:
Roberts and other liberals dissent. So much for the tradition of the chief justice never siding with the minority in a 5-4 decision.

Roberts has to throw his blackmailers a bone and what easier way than to cast a meaningless vote.
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.