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

176,344 Views | 2129 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by nortex97
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 • 11:49a, 4/9/25
Quote:
This is such an easy 1st Amendment issue. I really don't understand why everyone is having trouble understanding it.
I am fine with the opinion it is a first amendment issue, even though the government hasn't prevented them from publishing their opinions. The only question is then why is there a line drawn at all with regards to access? Why is in not ok in this situation, but kosher in this? Regardless, we are here because both side of this were childish, AP wanting to stick it to the President and the President wanting to stick it to the AP.

Congrats to the AP, they won. What did they win? 4 years of sitting in a room and being ignored. Reality is nobody really wins in this and hopefully other adversarial media will instead find ways to more effectively challenge the administration.
Reply Quote
ThunderCougarFalconBird
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 • 11:50a, 4/9/25
HTownAg98 said:
the problem here is now the lawfare crowd has a serious venue problem. They filed in the correct district but appeals go to the 5th circuit - who won't be friendly.
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
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 11:55a, 4/9/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
It is very clear that these judges have no intention of letting Trump do what he was elected to do.


We've entered the era of 'Mommy jurisprudence'

What is mommy jurisprudence?

It's a new legal term that wont appear in any internet search because it's been coined for the first time on this board, at this hour. History shall reflect that.
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 We fixed the keg • 11:58a, 4/9/25
We fixed the keg said:
Quote:
This is such an easy 1st Amendment issue. I really don't understand why everyone is having trouble understanding it.
I am fine with the opinion it is a first amendment issue, even though the government hasn't prevented them from publishing their opinions. The only question is then why is there a line drawn at all with regards to access? Why is in not ok in this situation, but kosher in this? Regardless, we are here because both side of this were childish, AP wanting to stick it to the President and the President wanting to stick it to the AP.

Congrats to the AP, they won. What did they win? 4 years of sitting in a room and being ignored. Reality is nobody really wins in this and hopefully other adversarial media will instead find ways to more effectively challenge the administration.
The AP will be called on. They kept calling on Acosta even with all the attitude, assault, bad gotcha questions.

It is a first amendment issue because the administration ADMITTED(self incriminated) they are keeping the AP out of the West Wing and AF1 because they do not call the Gulf of America the Gulf of America.

The government is retaliating on a private entity because they don't like that the AP won't call it the Gulf of America.

Compelled speech is not FREE speech.
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 Stat Monitor Repairman • 12:00p, 4/9/25
Quote:
What is mommy jurisprudence?

It's a new legal term that wont appear in any internet search because it's been coined for the first time on this board, at this hour. History shall reflect that.

Lawtubers have used "Judge Mommy" in particular trials over the past few years.
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
In reply to aggiehawg • 12:14p, 4/9/25
In any event, as inventor of this new legal term; hereby declaring mommy jurisprudence to open source from this day forward for the betterment of mankind.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:19p, 4/9/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HTownAg98 • 12:21p, 4/9/25
HTownAg98 said:
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:25p, 4/9/25


DOJ sent over the SCOTUS per curiam blocking Alsup's order for reinstatement to the 4th Circuit, either late yesterday or this morning. IOW, the 4th was given their marching orders in a very similar case to grant a stay.

So we are starting to see a ripple effect.
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 • 12:26p, 4/9/25
Delay. Delay. Delay.
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 Ellis Wyatt • 12:29p, 4/9/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
Delay. Delay. Delay.
The delay roadblocks are coming down. The precedents set now will keep the roadblocks at bay, at least for these types of cases.

Paying out Funds to NGOs/canceling Contracts
Immigration Issues
Firing Executive Branch employees
Reply Quote
2 edits
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 • 12:59p, 4/9/25
Shipwrecked crew also had a post overnight that basically the appeals Processes/are working heavily in Trump's favor now.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:09p, 4/9/25
Also it is really good that all of this is front loaded in his presidency. It has been a few months of delay, but soon it will be ALL GAS, NO BRAKES. (sips suck btw.)
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:14p, 4/9/25
Quote:
Even where the appeals process has not sided with Trump, it is still only on procedural matters and not on the substance of what he is doing.

These are almost all Obama and Biden appointees so their political motives are transparent.

It is all more of an irritant than real barriers to what Trump is doing.
The rest of that post. Just as I predicted several weeks ago.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:24p, 4/9/25


Quote:
Another huge win for Trump Admin in its efforts to reduce the bureacracy in its fight against the Admin State.

A Maryland Judge had issued a Prelim. Injunction against the Admin on behalf of 19 blue states who claimed they were damaged by the reductions -- state residents lose their jobs/income and can't buy stuff or pay state taxes. Claimed there was a notice requirement to states in the "Reduction In Force" statute that was not given.

Fourth Circuit says Plaintiff states likely lack standing to assert these claims and just issued stay pending outcome of Trump Admin. Appeal. The Order granting the stay noted other developments in the past few days:

1. SCOTUS granting stay in case filed in ND Calif where the 9th Circuit had denied a stay. Because substantially similar claims -- with similar standing problems -- were found in the Calif case that SCOTUS blocked, there is a good chance will happen here.

2. Court noted comment about lack of a bond and that the Trump Admin would not be able to get back money it pays in wages if employees were reinstated only to later have their terminations upheld. It quoted language to that effect in the SCOTUS decision last week issuing a stay on the order that the Admin. pay Education Grant funds to states who intended to use it for DEI hiring that the Trump Admin. opposes. Same absence of a bond there and no commitment to pay money back by the states if the Trump Admin. won that case.

So, the victories at the appellate level and in SCOTUS are starting to build upon themselves.
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 • 1:39p, 4/9/25
Quote:
Compelled speech is not FREE speech.

Not disagreeing with this, nor the fact the admin absolutely admitted what they were doing....my issue is the way the judges order read. To me it reads as you can't keep them of the East wing, but you can here and here and here.

At the end of the day, this specific battle was not worth picking. Let the AP, and Reuters for that matter, continue to pretend to be neutral while showing their true colors. Then just choose when to slap them back or ignore them. Definitely bigger fish to fry (not to be taken as an eff the 1st amendment stance).
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 • 1:44p, 4/9/25
A perfect example of a fight more important than the one picked with AP. It is good to see a pattern of upper courts slapping this lawfare back. Very happy to see it, but we still have a way to go.
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 We fixed the keg • 1:56p, 4/9/25
We fixed the keg said:
Quote:
Compelled speech is not FREE speech.

Not disagreeing with this, nor the fact the admin absolutely admitted what they were doing....my issue is the way the judges order read. To me it reads as you can't keep them of the East wing, but you can here and here and here.

At the end of the day, this specific battle was not worth picking. Let the AP, and Reuters for that matter, continue to pretend to be neutral while showing their true colors. Then just choose when to slap them back or ignore them. Definitely bigger fish to fry (not to be taken as an eff the 1st amendment stance).
The order just says they have to have the POSSIBILITY to be in those rooms. Doesn't mean the Press Secretary or whoever selects people to be there HAS to select them.

It doesn't change anything per se. Just that the AP can't be excluded from the possibility of being picked.

Also, if they really wanted this to stick, they shouldn't have admitted this is why they were doing it either on purpose or otherwise.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:21p, 4/9/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:59p, 4/9/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:22p, 4/9/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:32p, 4/9/25
Stay issued I believe.

Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:07p, 4/9/25

LOL.

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 nortex97 • 9:28p, 4/9/25
Trump's winning more than he's losing, praise God.
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
10:26p, 4/9/25
I'm thinking 4th circuit will take the off ramp with the SCOTUS ruling. I hope.


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 • 3:54a, 4/10/25
Yep, blue states really have no chance. Boasberg as well.

Jurisdiction, and burden of proof matter. Habeas cases are always tough to win.


In a way these judges are just pathetic in their pandering for camera's/coverage, sort of a 2025 version of Tony Fauci a la 2020.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:52a, 4/10/25
Another win! Soon it will be full speed ahead on these three buckets of injections.

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:04a, 4/10/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:26p, 4/10/25
Again this is solid for those scoring at home, as I think I have said habeas isn't in any way a big win for the globalist leftists. It's a speed bump at best for Homan/Rubio etc. Especially since they can't venue shop for an Obama-Biden judge every time.
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 • 12:36p, 4/10/25
Quote:
Again this is solid for those scoring at home, as I think I have said habeas isn't in any way a big win for the globalist leftists. It's a speed bump at best for Homan/Rubio etc. Especially since they can't venue shop for an Obama-Biden judge every time.
I am relieved that the adults have finally returned to the room and these idiot federal district court judges are being admonished for using their offices for political purposes. Should have happened sooner, in my view but those judges used procedural rules, issuing normally non-appealable TROs and just extending them instead of issuing a final order that could be immediately appealed.

And this habeas issue is very settled law.
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 nortex97 • 12:40p, 4/10/25
nortex97 said:


The best part of this is:

Quote:
Who has the burden in a habeas action?

The petitioner.

So due process via habeas after being designated under the AEA is going to involve NOT the Admin proving they are TdA, but the petitioner proving they aren't TdA.
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 Ag with kids • 12:47p, 4/10/25
Quote:
The best part of this is:

Quote:
Quote:
Who has the burden in a habeas action?

The petitioner.

So due process via habeas after being designated under the AEA is going to involve NOT the Admin proving they are TdA, but the petitioner proving they aren't TdA.
Yeppers. Judicial review is the due process here but limited to whether they are over 14 and meet the other criteria in the proclamation under the AEA.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:25p, 4/10/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:37p, 4/10/25
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 • 4:53p, 4/10/25
will25u said:


Trump will fix it.
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.