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

183,324 Views | 2185 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by nortex97
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:27p, 2/25/25
"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
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:32p, 2/25/25
"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
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 • 4:38p, 2/25/25
will25u said:
A federal district court judge doesn't know the difference between a Temporary Restraining Order and a Mandatory Injunction.

Isn't that peachy keen?
Reply Quote
akm91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:43p, 2/25/25
Activist judges indeed.
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
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 akm91 • 4:48p, 2/25/25
akm91 said:
Activist judges indeed.
Activist and Very, Very STUPID! First year law student would know the difference.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:28p, 2/25/25
"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
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 • 5:36p, 2/25/25
LOL. I am impressed with how well and the vast extent, Trump's legal people are prepared for this.

I have known a few trial attorneys who could see that many moves ahead and bait certain responses they desired from opposing counsel and then WHAM! Didn't see that coming, did you, counsel?
Reply Quote
FireAg
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 • 5:40p, 2/25/25
aggiehawg said:
LOL. I am impressed with how well and the vast extent, Trump's legal people are prepared for this.

I have known a few trial attorneys who could see that many moves ahead and bait certain responses they desired from opposing counsel and then WHAM! Didn't see that coming, did you, counsel?

They've had 4 years to plan…
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 FireAg • 5:53p, 2/25/25
FireAg said:
aggiehawg said:
LOL. I am impressed with how well and the vast extent, Trump's legal people are prepared for this.

I have known a few trial attorneys who could see that many moves ahead and bait certain responses they desired from opposing counsel and then WHAM! Didn't see that coming, did you, counsel?

They've had 4 years to plan…
Still impressive to me.

Given how there was a very well funded effort to attack and disbar ANY attorney who represented Trump, keeping this scale on the downlow until after the election, is impressive.

To further illustrate this point, in the very early going of these cases, it appeared to me and other attorneys that some easy defenses were left out of those responses. That is contrary to our instincts to make sure every base is covered to preserve the record for appeal. Fear of waiving something by failing to mention it.

But it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that this legal strategy was "shaping the battleground" in the legal sense. The bigger issue they want to litigate is being honed into the direct issue raised, for very narrow but game changing rulings by SCOTUS.

Absolute genius in legal strategy. (And about time the GOP figured that s*** out.)
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:58p, 2/25/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:04p, 2/25/25
Reply Quote
Prosperdick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:33p, 2/25/25
Just ignore the order and let them try to enforce it. We're $36 trillion in debt!
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28p, 2/25/25

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
6:46a, 2/26/25
John Roberts, come fix your branch
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:44a, 2/26/25
Still live tweeting the proceedings. Judge seems skeptical so far.

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:05a, 2/26/25
Here is running list of all of the cases pending against the Trump Administration, which I believe is updated everyday, if not a few times a day. I just heard about this one so here is the LINK
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 2/26/25
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
10:21a, 2/26/25
So Judge Ali is a liar. Got 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
1:15p, 2/26/25



Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:20p, 2/26/25
TLDR;
Quote:
Just a small business in DC suburb that raked in about $45 million from US taxpayers to achieve a "more peaceful democratic world."



Quote:
Observation about the Global Health Council v.
Trump case:

This is the one
@ProfMJCleveland
has been covering involving recipients of funding from USAID demanding that the flow of money to them be resumed after there was a pause in payments triggered by a Pres. Trump Executive Order.

This case was "engineered" through judge-shopping to get to Judge Amir Ali, brand new to the District Court in DC. Without very little thought and even less care, he fashioned a "TRO" to restore billions of dollars in funding while he case is pending. The two sides have since sparred back and forth over whether the Trump Admin. is in compliance with the TRO given that the flow of money remained off -- which the Admin claims was permissible under the terms of his original TRO, whether he realized it or not at the time.

In going back to Judge Ali to claim non-compliance and seeking an order to enforce the TRO, the plaintiffs attached several declarations from entities that have contracts or grants with USAID for their operations. Here are some quotes from a couple of those declarations:

"Approximately 96 percent of Democracy International's approximately $41.7 million in revenues in 2024 came from prime cooperative agreements and contracts from USAID and an additional approximately 2 percent came indirectly from USAID through subawards and subcontracts, for a total of approximately 98 percent directly or indirectly from USAID."

"Since the Court's TRO was issued on February 13, 2025, HIAS has not received payments on its approximately $6.4 million in outstanding requests for reimbursement from the United States Government (U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor). Since the stop work orders and directly due to the lack of funding by the U.S. government, HIAS has been forced to issue 344 notices of layoffs worldwide."

"DAI has not received any payments on its $115 million in outstanding invoices to USAID. Over $70 million of that amount is more than 30 days past due."

There is a mechanism by which entities doing business with the federal government can pursue remedies when they believe the Govt is in breach of its obligations -- running into federal court to get a TRO is not that remedy. All such suits generally go to the Court of Federal Claims.

The fact that your organization might go out of business while you await adjudication of your claims for payment from the Govt is not the fault of the Govt -- it is the fault of the person/entity that created a business model entirely dependent on the flow of money from the Govt.

I suspect the plaintiffs in the Global Health case -- and Judge Ali -- are about to learn that lesson.
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, 2/26/25


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
2:12p, 2/26/25
Just underscoring again that the D.C. Circuit needs to be disbanded. The rule of law is meaningless there.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:14p, 2/26/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:17p, 2/26/25



Reply Quote
2 edits
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:23p, 2/26/25
Good question...

Reply Quote
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:53p, 2/26/25

Seems Eric Adams has had a change of heart and now wants his case dismissed with prejudice, using some very convenient reasoning.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:39p, 2/26/25
Reply Quote
Tailgate88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:43p, 2/26/25
As frustrating as this is, hopefully the end result is SCOTUS eliminating these nutso filings by leftist federal district judges.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:52p, 2/26/25
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 Tailgate88 • 3:52p, 2/26/25
Tailgate88 said:
As frustrating as this is, hopefully the end result is SCOTUS eliminating these nutso filings by leftist federal district judges.
That's the pan, at least. I have said before that I am impressed with how Trump's attorneys are self editing and not throwing everything in for some shiny object that could be used as an off-ramp for SCOTUS to dodge and weave. Gives them less options, keeps the question presented to them in concise and precise issue.

Does the Constitution say "A" or not?
Reply Quote
jacketman03
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 • 4:25p, 2/26/25
aggiehawg said:
Tailgate88 said:
As frustrating as this is, hopefully the end result is SCOTUS eliminating these nutso filings by leftist federal district judges.
That's the pan, at least. I have said before that I am impressed with how Trump's attorneys are self editing and not throwing everything in for some shiny object that could be used as an off-ramp for SCOTUS to dodge and weave. Gives them less options, keeps the question presented to them in concise and precise issue.

Does the Constitution say "A" or not?
I think the Supreme Court will probably end up overturning the TRO cum PI in this case, but then I'm curious about the knock-on effects of that ruling on New Mexico et al v. Musk. It seems to me that if Dellinger is a principal officer, then it's pretty hard to argue that Musk isn't, as the arguments DOJ is making in this case as to why Dellinger is a principal officer could easily be used to show that Musk is, 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
6:33p, 2/26/25


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
8:26p, 2/26/25


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
8:49p, 2/26/25
Supreme Court(Roberts) steps in.


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
8:56p, 2/26/25


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.