Disobeying Supreme Court orders is right out of the Dictator's Handbook
***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****
177,309 Views |
2136 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by Aggie Jurist
Would be funny if Scotus told the ACLU they would probably need to wait for the Fall term to consider their request.will25u said:ACLU asks J. Hendrix for an ex parte TRO. He makes them inform the acting US Atty. He then promptly denies the TRO after briefing. ACLU then leaves J. Hendrix a late night VM urging different relief; he tells them to file a motion. They do—on Good Friday—setting a deadline for…
— Mike Fragoso (@mike_frags) April 19, 2025
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
I generally prefer these judges to fight these policies that they don't believe are constitutional through the courts before enforcing their will on the entire executive branch.
I disagree with the judge here, but he is at least fighting a little more fair here.
A better path would have been to deny the injunction, but allow the lawsuit. Maybe force the government to agree now to backpay on everyone if they lose on the merits.
I disagree with the judge here, but he is at least fighting a little more fair here.
A better path would have been to deny the injunction, but allow the lawsuit. Maybe force the government to agree now to backpay on everyone if they lose on the merits.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
You calling judge Boasberg a dictator? He will hold you in contempt for that!Banks Monkey said:
Disobeying Supreme Court orders is right out of the Dictator's Handbook
Exactly. Not sure why Boasberg, an unelected judge, thinks he is the dictator of the US.Banks Monkey said:
Disobeying Supreme Court orders is right out of the Dictator's Handbook
He should be removed from the bench and disbarred for his tyrannical behavior.
Trump's first administration faced 64 injunctions out of the total 127 nationwide injunctions issued since 1963. There were 32 injunctions issued against the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations collectively since 2001, meaning the first Trump administration was on the receiving end of double the amount of nationwide injunctions than his two predecessors and successor combined, according to the April 2024 edition of the Harvard Law Review.
Trump's return to the Oval Office in January has brought with it more than 120 lawsuits from activists, government employees and others targeting his executive orders and actions. The lawsuits have resulted in nationwide injunctions in some cases, including 15 in February alone, according to Trump's acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris.
Democratic-appointed judges ordered 92.2% of the injunctions against the Trump administration, meaning just five of the 64 injunctions were ordered by Republican-appointed judges.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/number-injunctions-halting-trump-policies-trounces-predecessors-double
Trump's return to the Oval Office in January has brought with it more than 120 lawsuits from activists, government employees and others targeting his executive orders and actions. The lawsuits have resulted in nationwide injunctions in some cases, including 15 in February alone, according to Trump's acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris.
Democratic-appointed judges ordered 92.2% of the injunctions against the Trump administration, meaning just five of the 64 injunctions were ordered by Republican-appointed judges.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/number-injunctions-halting-trump-policies-trounces-predecessors-double
Banks Monkey said:
Disobeying Supreme Court orders is right out of the Dictator's Handbook
Who is doing that?
Biden did
Judge Boasberg for one.HoustonAg9999 said:Banks Monkey said:
Disobeying Supreme Court orders is right out of the Dictator's Handbook
Who is doing that?
I didn't say the Admin was about to do anything illegal -- in fact, I think the Admin has given notice as required, many individuals subject to the notice have filed habeas petitions, and the Administration has stated those individuals will not be deported while their petitions… https://t.co/naePhFnOsH
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 20, 2025
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln
- Abraham Lincoln
That's what we're all hoping, I guess, but if so that doesn't make sense as to why Alito/Thomas dissented. Text from that post:
Democrats:
From another post:Quote:
I think the Admin has done exactly what SCOTUS said it needed to do.
What I think SCOTUS was responding to was the threat stated by the ACLU at 6:30 pm ET that it was preparing to file for TROs in all 94 judicial districts by midnight last night.
That is essentially extortion, and I expect it will not play out well in the end for them.
Let's hope. More good news re: MS-13 in our communities.Quote:
So, late in the evening on Good Friday, with Easter Sunday looming, 7 Justices said "Let's just all take a breath."
The Supreme Court's ruling from 2 weeks ago included the following language:
"AEA detainees must receive notice ... that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief...."
AS IT COMMONLY DOES -- this isn't the first and it won't be the last time -- the SCOTUS did not say what a "reasonable time" would be. That is the exact kind of question is leaves for the lower courts to sort out. The variety of factual scenarios that might play out in multiple courts often leads to a "best practice" developing that then becomes commonly applied, without SCOTUS needing to micro-manage lower court operations to such a granular level.
But with it looking like hell was about to break loose on Good Friday that would spin multiple courts into having to act over a religious holiday weekend, the Court said "Let's wait and see how things look on Monday."
The Fifth Circuit has now acted. So in Texas, where most of the deportation proceedings seem to be taking place, the process is working.
SCOTUS can vacate its order whenever it deems it appropriate to do so, and with a Circuit Court now on record, it may choose to do so next week and let the regular process play itself out.
An MS-13 member was sentenced to 12 years in prison for kidnapping and brutally assaulting a federal witness who testified against the gang.
— Todd Blanche (@DAGToddBlanche) April 18, 2025
This was a direct attack on the rule of law and justice was served. https://t.co/T3DRrSNwPy
Democrats:
The people screaming about due process won’t give you any when they have power pic.twitter.com/433QcehRUR
— Napoleon Bonaparte Appreciator (@NapoleonBonabot) April 19, 2025
NEW: Justice Alito's dissent in SCOTUS' mindboggling 1am Saturday ruling to halt deportations in Alien Enemies Act lawsuit in northern Texas absolutely nukes his colleagues for such a hasty, unprecedented act pic.twitter.com/09bvOGz2BR
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 20, 2025
It took the Supreme Court 70-days from the issuance of the OSHA vaccine mandate to strike it down.
Recall how the Court let folks simmer over the Christmas break wondering if they'd have a job when they got back.
So for them to turn this case at 1am the Saturday before easter tells you all you need to know about where we headed.
Recall how the Court let folks simmer over the Christmas break wondering if they'd have a job when they got back.
So for them to turn this case at 1am the Saturday before easter tells you all you need to know about where we headed.
Yes, and employers were forced to waste millions, preparing for an invalid OSHA rule that was killed at the last possible second.
SCOTUS appears to want to cause a constitutional crisis rather than prevent it.
They again seem out of touch with the population. I wore a MAGA hat to the US Capitol and to Arlington Cemetery (my hat was held in my hand the entirety of my time in Arlington out of respect for those resting there).
At the Capitol, I met with no issues other than maybe the occasional stare. Outside, I was called an F-in moron by a guy jogging by and then had a lady shake her head at the name caller - a lady who looked like a Pelosi clone but this one with a functioning brain.
At Arlington, I had one of the honor guys (hat with a Mohawk of fur) come up and tell me to proudly put that hat on. Even tried to get it from my hand and put it on. This at the Tomb of the Unknown, during the changing of the guard. I refused and he gave me an encouraging pat on the back.
On the way out, I cracked a joke at the Black US Park Police officer who laughed at me, came over and put her arm around me and said "We are all MAGA around here!".
The tide has changed. SCOTUS would better our Country by realizing they are unelected jurists with a specific role and that skirting outside that role has drastic and disastrous consequences for our future.
It may indeed be time for that national divorce.
They again seem out of touch with the population. I wore a MAGA hat to the US Capitol and to Arlington Cemetery (my hat was held in my hand the entirety of my time in Arlington out of respect for those resting there).
At the Capitol, I met with no issues other than maybe the occasional stare. Outside, I was called an F-in moron by a guy jogging by and then had a lady shake her head at the name caller - a lady who looked like a Pelosi clone but this one with a functioning brain.
At Arlington, I had one of the honor guys (hat with a Mohawk of fur) come up and tell me to proudly put that hat on. Even tried to get it from my hand and put it on. This at the Tomb of the Unknown, during the changing of the guard. I refused and he gave me an encouraging pat on the back.
On the way out, I cracked a joke at the Black US Park Police officer who laughed at me, came over and put her arm around me and said "We are all MAGA around here!".
The tide has changed. SCOTUS would better our Country by realizing they are unelected jurists with a specific role and that skirting outside that role has drastic and disastrous consequences for our future.
It may indeed be time for that national divorce.
Sen. Kennedy on the side of 'don't just go say you'll ignore a court.'
Goes on to point out he doesn't think Trump admin will. Will see if Sen Van Hollen and the commie judges et al. Can muster up any actual sympathy for the family of this constituent, killed by Biden migrants/illegal aliens.
Probably already posted, but AP lost against Trump.
“Don’t ever, ever take the position that you’re not going to follow the order of a federal court. All our judiciary has, equal Branch of government has legitimacy, it doesn’t have an army."
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) April 20, 2025
"Don’t ever say you’re not going to follow the order of the court.”
Sen. John Kennedy… pic.twitter.com/qC4BSPl5Aa
The problem is that our system has a crisis of legitimacy.
— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) April 19, 2025
ex-President Applesauce illegally and deliberately imported somewhere between 10mm and 20mm illegal aliens into the USA and illegally provided them with tax dollars you and I earned on the sweat of our brows.
All of…
Goes on to point out he doesn't think Trump admin will. Will see if Sen Van Hollen and the commie judges et al. Can muster up any actual sympathy for the family of this constituent, killed by Biden migrants/illegal aliens.
Two "Maryland men" have been arrested over the murder of a 23-year-old mother whose body was found on April 17 buried outside the Cedarville State Forest in Prince George’s County. (The same county where Kilmar Abrego Garcia lived.)
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) April 21, 2025
Illegal migrant Keycy Robinson Alexi Barrera… pic.twitter.com/fT2KwxUN7A
Probably already posted, but AP lost against Trump.
🚨 Trump administration files an update with a court of appeals, highlighting, lower courts outrageous. Attempt to micromanage the executive branch..1: pic.twitter.com/OtP4zEM64H
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 21, 2025
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln
- Abraham Lincoln
The Harvard lawsuit is in. Filed in Boston.
https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Funding-Freeze-Order-Complaint.pdf
https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Funding-Freeze-Order-Complaint.pdf
Too many of our court systems including the SC are operated by marxists. Satan is proud.
Marvin J. Schiller
ACLU obviously feels emboldened lately.
🔥🔥🔥WHOA...I just now am seeing Judge Hendrix's scathing order chastising the ACLU for its effort to engage in ex parte communications with the Court. 1/
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025
3/ Court begins by saying ex parte communications are a no-no, with some limits... pic.twitter.com/RRtU6vsdKr
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025
5/ Here's transcript. Note how ACLU spins what government said about removals: It spoke ONLY of not removing two petitioners & Court in denying TRO noted that two petitioners couldn't seek relief on behalf of others, where petitioners didn't need relief. https://t.co/PRSVO7jqD6 pic.twitter.com/XpErrpBpzS
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln
- Abraham Lincoln
OUCH!!!will25u said:
ACLU obviously feels emboldened lately.🔥🔥🔥WHOA...I just now am seeing Judge Hendrix's scathing order chastising the ACLU for its effort to engage in ex parte communications with the Court. 1/
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025
That was a judicial *****slap.
The United States has three branches of government:
1. The guy who does whatever he wants
2. The people too scared to stop him
3. The courts he openly ignores
1. The guy who does whatever he wants
2. The people too scared to stop him
3. The courts he openly ignores
Banks Monkey said:
The United States has three branches of government:
1. The guy who does whatever he wants
2. The people too scared to stop him
3. The courts he openly ignores
Thank you for the Act Blue talking point.
United States has three branches of government:
1. The guy who does whatever he wants
2. The people too scared to stop him
3. The courts he openly ignores
That has to be one of the all-time most ridiculous posts on this site. Funny though - it almost perfectly describes the prior administration - though you have to substitute the cabal of handlers for "the guy" since "the guy" was a vegetable.
1. The guy who does whatever he wants
2. The people too scared to stop him
3. The courts he openly ignores
That has to be one of the all-time most ridiculous posts on this site. Funny though - it almost perfectly describes the prior administration - though you have to substitute the cabal of handlers for "the guy" since "the guy" was a vegetable.
The DC gulag judges finally getting smacked for ignoring what was clear law the entire time, by SCOTUS regarding the 'Enron' Sarbanes Oxley catch all provision they had used to really max out sentences for fedsurrection victims:
Quote:
On my initial reading of the decision, I was drawn to passages in the Opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts on the issues that had always resonated with me:All of this was exactly in line with what I had hoped to see in the Court's opinion before it came out. As I read it, my reaction was, "This is a Home Run." The Government will be precluded from attempting to apply this 20-year obstruction statute based on the events of the day on January 6. For defendants who engaged in no act of violence towards law enforcement, this should be their path to much better outcomes.Quote:
The parties agree that to plug this loophole, Congress enacted Section 1512(c)the provision at issue hereas part of the broader Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away in the second part of the third subsection of Section 1512 a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place. The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in (c)(1).
The broader context of Section 1512 in the criminal code confirms that (c)(2) is limited by the scope of (c)(1). Federal obstruction law consists of numerous provisions that target specific criminal acts and settings. See 18 U. S. C. ch. 73. Much of that particularized legislation would be unnecessary if (c)(2) criminalized essentially all obstructive conduct, as the Government contends.
...
Reading (c)(2) to cover all forms of obstructive conduct would override Congress's careful delineation of which penalties were appropriate for which offenses. Most instances of those prohibited acts would instead fall under subsection (c)(2)'s sweeping reach, which provides a 20-year maximum term of imprisonment. Such a reading of subsection (c)(2) would lump together disparate types of conduct for which Congress had assigned proportionate penalties in (a)(2) and (d)(1).
So, we will see. More at the link. It would be nice to think Bondi's team might actually just move to dismiss those charges.Quote:
But Ryan coming along very well with his learning said, "But they are sending it back to the Appellate Court to consider the language of the indictment in light of the opinion. They are not saying 1512(c)(2) doesn't apply under any circumstances to January 6 cases, just not as it was charged against Fischer. Does the DOJ get another chance with this?"
THAT comment led me to a second, more deliberate reading of the Opinion and further consideration of some of the procedural issues not being considered by most commentators on this subject.
Ryan was correct the Supreme Court's Opinion sends the case back to the same three-judge panel in the Circuit Court of Appeals, telling them to reconsider their prior decision taking into account a narrower interpretation of (c)(2) than had been urged upon it by the Government. That means the Government will have an opportunity to explain why it is that it can fit the square peg of January 6 protest conduct into the round hole of "evidence impairment."
Quote:
There is no question that DOJ has been anticipating this possible outcome for a few months and has already settled on what its likely strategy will be in trying to fashion charging language that might get them a second bite at the apple. For three-and-a-half years, the Biden Justice Department has had only one setting in pursuing these cases full throttle. They are unlikely to alter their approach now. Given that a grand jury in general and DC grand juries in particular will vote to return an indictment in just about any case presented to them by a federal prosecutor, if given the opportunity to rewrite the 1512(c)(2) charge against January 6 defendants, the Biden DOJ is going to take it. As a result, many of the defendants who have been charged with the insufficient Sec. 1512(c)(2) charging language will possibly be facing a re-jiggered version of that same offense in the weeks and months ahead.
That was the last administration...Banks Monkey said:
The United States has three branches of government:
1. The guy who does whatever he wants
2. The people too scared to stop him
3. The courts he openly ignores
Don't bring leftist nonsense here. Trump has ignored no court orders.
Banks Monkey said:
The United States has three branches of government:
1. The guy who does whatever he wants
2. The people too scared to stop him
3. The courts he openly ignores
1. The guy they tried to literally kill and then crush in the election but who instead won by historic margins and now has a mandate to do whatever he wants.
FIFY.
Trump will fix it.
Not even really related to 47 legal battles, but again the Roberts court is just…misled, at best.
The Court accepted this case months ago -- before the election. It has nothing to do with interfering with the ongoing efforts of the Admin. That wasn't the point.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 22, 2025
The point is the case selection by SCOTUS - was this issue so consequential that it had to be one that SCOTUS… https://t.co/Sipi99IEWZ
And that rule doesn't apply to 99.9 percent of litigants in federal courts, or elsewhere such as the USPTO etc. It's just a silly thing for SCOTUS to even ponder.Quote:
The Court decided that when an alien is given 60 days to voluntarily depart, the 60th day falls on a Saturday, and the alien files a motion to reopen his deportation proceedings on the Monday after the 60th day, that filing is timely -- on day 62 -- even though the 60th day was the last day to to file.
All well and good.
But the important question that will be asked by the general public, from a layman's perspective is:
Why is the Supreme Court deciding seemingly inconsequential matters such as whether filing on a Monday following a weekend deadline makes that filing in immigration courts on deportation issue timely -- while matters of enormous significance to the legitimacy of what a new POTUS Administration is trying to accomplish get kicked around in lower courts with no meaningful guidance coming from SCOTUS?
That's just a federal version of the "mailbox rule".
I highly suspect that certain "justices" on SCOTUS are compromised.
I hate tu. It's in my blood.
Lot's of judges are happily/willfully compromised. Boasberg definitely will never admit to a voicemail from Gelernt on a Saturday morning at 7:30 or so.
In light of federal judge's accusations of misconduct by ACLU attorney in Alien Enemies Act lawsuit in Texas, let's see what Judge Boasberg had to say about his contact with same lawyer on March 15 in 1st AEA case:
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 22, 2025
How was Boasberg "alerted" at 7:25am? Did Lee Gelernt, the same… pic.twitter.com/8OUDdpacr4
Would be great if this were grounds to remove Boasberg from the bench.
He is corrupt and should be disbarred. Not remotely impartial and doesn't pretend to be.
He is corrupt and should be disbarred. Not remotely impartial and doesn't pretend to be.
But why does a district judge have national jurisdiction?
I hate tu. It's in my blood.