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

176,210 Views | 2129 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by nortex97
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 • 9:00p, 2/26/25
They don't care about a need. They're leftist activists. They won't let Trump do anything without a challenge.
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 will25u • 9:03p, 2/26/25
Should this be viewed as essentially a warning to lower courts to stop operating outside the Constitution?
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
9:03p, 2/26/25
Thank God Roberts found his balls here. Hopefully, he puts a stop to this nonsense.
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 FireAg • 9:08p, 2/26/25
FireAg said:
Should this be viewed as essentially a warning to lower courts to stop operating outside the Constitution?


IANAL, but I see it as Roberts finally having enough of the lower court in this case trying to bully a coequal branch of government and stopping it before Trump just says F it and doesn't do what the court ordered.
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 • 9:10p, 2/26/25
And it matters that they were trying to force payments to be made. Something that's way out of their purview.
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 will25u • 9:12p, 2/26/25
I hope so…my fear has been Trump doing exactly that and then…here come the impeachments…
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 FireAg • 9:14p, 2/26/25
Not while republicans run the house.

Trump already said they couldn't turn the money back on by the deadline tonight. Other legals think the judge would then sanction the government and the plaintiffs would then be owed even more money.
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 will25u • 9:26p, 2/26/25
No but the midterms are no guarantee for the good guys yet…and the Ds are looking for anything to hang Trump with another impeachment…for no other reason than it keeps him from executing his agenda…

I've always viewed Trump's last go of this as totally focused on how much he can do in two years…
Reply Quote
1 edit
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:31p, 2/26/25
It's best if SCOTUS stops all this bull*****
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:40a, 2/27/25


Soon, LOL.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53a, 2/27/25
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 • 8:58a, 2/27/25
Playing games with SCOTUS seems like a bad plan for an attorney. I realize there are a couple of stupid justices, but most of them are not.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:05a, 2/27/25
Quote:
Dellinger, fired Special Counsel, filed response letter to SCOTUS, after lower court extended the 3-day stay. He tells justices, don't intervene, the Application will be Moot in 3 days & then the appeals process can take place
LOL. While technically true that the TRO may expire by its current terms, the judge has already extended it before.

The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade was no longer pregnant either but SCOTUS chose not to find the case moot.
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 • 9:21a, 2/27/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Dellinger, fired Special Counsel, filed response letter to SCOTUS, after lower court extended the 3-day stay. He tells justices, don't intervene, the Application will be Moot in 3 days & then the appeals process can take place
LOL. While technically true that the TRO may expire by its current terms, the judge has already extended it before.

The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade was no longer pregnant either but SCOTUS chose not to find the case moot.


I don't know that a TRO is like a pregnancy insofar as a "capable of repetition, yet evading review" analysis, especially since the instant order anticipates an appealable order by Saturday.

Now, I think Dellinger loses on the merits, but Supreme Court interference at this stage seems highly irregular
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 jacketman03 • 9:42a, 2/27/25
Quote:
Now, I think Dellinger loses on the merits, but Supreme Court interference at this stage seems highly irregular
Just remember the old quote about SCOTUS.

We are not final because we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final.
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 jacketman03 • 10:06a, 2/27/25
Dellinger is rehiring people in defiance of the President. Their "interference" is necessary.
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 • 10:11a, 2/27/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Now, I think Dellinger loses on the merits, but Supreme Court interference at this stage seems highly irregular
Just remember the old quote about SCOTUS.

We are not final because we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final.
My only concern about SCOTUS interference at this point is the precedent it would set on appealability of TROs.

I'm just glad I'm not having to make the decision, because I don't see any particularly good ways out, but I'm a simple unfrozen caveman family and criminal lawyer.
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 jacketman03 • 10:15a, 2/27/25
Meant no offense. Lighten up Francis.

Predicting this Court and in particular, CJ Roberts is more often than not a fool's errand, so to speak.
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 • 10:32a, 2/27/25
aggiehawg said:
Meant no offense. Lighten up Francis.

Predicting this Court and in particular, CJ Roberts is more often than not a fool's errand, so to speak.
You are absolutely correct on predicting this Court. Time to spin the Wheel O' Decisions and find out where it falls!
Reply Quote
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:23p, 2/27/25

Looks like Clement's amicus brief won't be necessary now.
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 jacketman03 • 12:25p, 2/27/25
jacketman03 said:
aggiehawg said:
Meant no offense. Lighten up Francis.

Predicting this Court and in particular, CJ Roberts is more often than not a fool's errand, so to speak.
You are absolutely correct on predicting this Court. Time to spin the Wheel O' Decisions and find out where it falls!
Indeed. Even Gorsuch surprises me now and then. And I can never get a feel on ACB.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:37p, 2/27/25
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 • 5:42p, 2/27/25
will25u said:
Again, no. Courts do not run the Executive branch.
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 • 5:44p, 2/27/25
will25u said:
Type, type, type, type, hit send all. Agency heads send out emails
Reply Quote
txags92
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 • 5:52p, 2/27/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
will25u said:
Again, no. Courts do not run the Executive branch.
Exactly. If the agency whose employees are being terminated objects, they can go to the head of the executive branch to question the OPM's jurisdiction and power to force the terminations. The head of the executive branch can decide which group he wants to have power over staffing the other agencies/departments There is no role for a judge to be making these kinds of decisions. If the legislature doesn't like it, they can withhold funding to the executive branch until the reach agreement on what needs to be funded. This is civics 101 level stuff.
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
6:28p, 2/27/25
Roberts really needs to get his children under control.
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 txags92 • 6:35p, 2/27/25
Quote:
Exactly. If the agency whose employees are being terminated objects, they can go to the head of the executive branch to question the OPM's jurisdiction and power to force the terminations. The head of the executive branch can decide which group he wants to have power over staffing the other agencies/departments There is no role for a judge to be making these kinds of decisions. If the legislature doesn't like it, they can withhold funding to the executive branch until the reach agreement on what needs to be funded. This is civics 101 level stuff.
Apparently not. Federal judges never learned that concept, in DC.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:50p, 2/27/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:01p, 2/27/25


Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:03p, 2/27/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:06p, 2/27/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:54a, 2/28/25
Thread about this case and others that Trump admin is facing. The NGO suing has gotten over $5 million over the last 5 years.



Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:11p, 2/28/25
Thread.


Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:29p, 2/28/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:05p, 2/28/25

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.