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

197,732 Views | 2289 Replies | Last: 7 hrs ago by flown-the-coop
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22p, 3/20/25
Thread


Reply Quote
1 edit
Get Off My Lawn
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 • 9:54p, 3/20/25
Hopefully the leftist "judges" overplay their hand to such a degree that they force Roberts to finally concedes and shut this stupidity down.
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
9:55p, 3/20/25
Blessings on Trump. Something's gotta give with all these illegal rulings and TROs.
Trump will fix it.
Reply Quote
titan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 10:18p, 3/20/25
Aggie Jurist said:
I think it's time to simply ignore the judges issuing these injunctions - unfortunately, the government attorneys are stuck. They want to keep their licenses.
That's where at. Particulary these two speak it well.

Quote:




Quote:




They better get their act together for as it stands keeping their precious democracy is worthless if it is only to preserve the will of the ruling class of politicians and press and not the voters.

Blunt question: Is the only downside to just ignoring these supposed concerns about the mid-terms or 2028? It doesn't seem most of the public wants the political and press class to keep stealing all their money and future and giving it away overseas to or to themselves; which racket is what these judges are trying to protect.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Reply Quote
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:45a, 3/21/25
At least Trump got something out of these clowns;

This is on the Chuang USAID legal travesty. Too maddening right now for me to summarize.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:51a, 3/21/25
Reply Quote
richardag
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 • 11:37a, 3/21/25
will25u said:
…,,,
Quote:
You're wrong, Hugh.

You're too quick to defend the ruling class. Of course, you're not alone. Defend the Constitution instead.

It's the job of the Chief Justice of the United States, that's his title, to do his job.….,,,
Sooo Chief Justice Robert's explicit job is to defend the Constitution. Seems he admitted his job is to defend Federal Judges. In a sane world there would be at least some consideration for impeaching Chief Justice Roberts, unless he apologizes and are affirms commitment to defend the Constitution over protecting rogue compromised idiot judges.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Reply Quote
richardag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 11:41a, 3/21/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Quote:
I think limiting the scope of district court rulings to the plaintiffs before the court and requiring at least a 3 member panel to review executive order challenges would cut down on a lot of this. Taking away the ability of a sinlge district court judge to issue a blanket TRO or Injunction to be applied nationally (or even internationally) would go a long way towards fixing this stuff.
I'd add a provision to allow for immediate interlocutory appeal as a matter of right before such a TRO/PI could become effective.
IANAL
Sounds good, however, might this be used by leftist progressives as a weapon against conservatives, unless explicitly worded properly?
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Reply Quote
richardag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Get Off My Lawn • 11:47a, 3/21/25
Get Off My Lawn said:
Hopefully the leftist "judges" overplay their hand to such a degree that they force Roberts to finally concedes and shut this stupidity down.
Or resigns, if he is indeed compromised.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
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
12:16p, 3/21/25
Quote:
Grok3 performs an analysis of the political affiliation of law professors in the United States.

Conclusion:

Law professors in the United States are predominantly liberal, with Democratic affiliations outnumbering Republicans by ratios ranging from 6:1 to 30:1, depending on the institution and region. This trend, more pronounced at elite schools and in liberal areas, mirrors broader patterns in academia but diverges significantly from the general population. The lack of political diversity may shape scholarship and campus discourse, prompting questions about the inclusivity of legal education and its implications for the legal profession and society.
This leads to the federal judiciary as a whole being stacked with liberal democrat judges primarily from Ivy League institutions (18%)

More than 30% of Supreme Court justices have graduated from Harvard Law School, and over half have attended Harvard, Yale, or Columbia

Only 7.6% of federal judges have a STEM background.

The federal judiciary has been poison pilled for the last few decades. They have been called into action and we are seeing the effects of this now.

Lawfare rolls on ...
Reply Quote
TAM85
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:55p, 3/21/25
So is the Dems' long play to get the Trump administration to violate an injunction/TRO, hope that they can gain control of congress in the mid-terms and move to impeach Trump using the violation as a basis?
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
In reply to TAM85 • 12:58p, 3/21/25
TAM85 said:
So is the Dems' long play to get the Trump administration to violate an injunction/TRO, hope that they can gain control of congress in the mid-terms and move to impeach Trump?
First goal is to delay until he doesn't control Congress/till things are done that he can't reverse.
Second is for him to do something they can call impeachable.
Third is for him to do something they can later do and blame him for the precedent.

Never mind that Hussein and Biden both ignored court orders previously.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:06p, 3/21/25

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 • 1:10p, 3/21/25
Why does a judge at any level get to decide who can and cannot serve in the military unless Congress has specifically codified the service requirements?
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:10p, 3/21/25
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
1:19p, 3/21/25
Consider the Trump cases as Lawfare 1.0. The weaponized DOJ and compliant district court judges was an MEF landing to secure the beach.

Lawfare 2.0 is the arrival of a heavy infantry division in the form of the federal judiciary with TROs and neverending challenges to executive authority.

Lawfare 1.0 went unchecked, and now Lawfare 2.0 is a constitutional crisis of our own making.

Meanwhile Congress is huddled in the officer's mess of their posh flagship floating safely offshore. They are unsure what to do and praying that they never have to get involved.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:13p, 3/21/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:14p, 3/21/25
Live thread on court hearing.

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 • 2:16p, 3/21/25
Awesome. This ***** will stay on the case, but at least she's been called out for her chronic TDS.
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
2:18p, 3/21/25
Boasberg, Howell, et al are the left's unelected warriors. They're going to fight Trump tooth and nail, using illegal and unethical tactics all the way.
Reply Quote
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:21p, 3/21/25
Quote:
Boasberg out of the gate accuses DOJ of using "intemperate" and "disrespectful" language in responses to the judge.

He is lecturing the DOJ about its opposition to his alleged "verbal" order to turn around the planes.

"Did you think that was hypothetical or did you understand when I said do that immediately, you meant that."
So is Boasberg essentially saying his oral order controls over his written order? Because his written order does not direct flights to be turned around and return.

And the third flight that left after entry of his written order ad already been adjudicated and under court ordered deportation orders. Those illegals were not being deported under the AEA, IOW.
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 aggiehawg • 2:26p, 3/21/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Boasberg out of the gate accuses DOJ of using "intemperate" and "disrespectful" language in responses to the judge.

He is lecturing the DOJ about its opposition to his alleged "verbal" order to turn around the planes.

"Did you think that was hypothetical or did you understand when I said do that immediately, you meant that."
So is Boasberg essentially saying his oral order controls over his written order? Because his written order does not direct flights to be turned around and return.

And the third flight that left after entry of his written order ad already been adjudicated and under court ordered deportation orders. Those illegals were not being deported under the AEA, IOW.
From a lawyer/court perspective, why does this matter? The 5 people who filed for the TRO are still in US.

Judge seems to be going off on a tangent that is not before the court? I thought courts only delt with things actually brought before them, not where others are involved that are not part of court case?
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
In reply to will25u • 2:36p, 3/21/25
Quote:
Judge seems to be going off on a tangent that is not before the court? I thought courts only delt with things actually brought before them, not where others are involved that are not part of court case?

That used to be the case - until this crop of Biden appointees. We have a group who think they are sitting on the bench in some South American court.
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 aggiehawg • 2:36p, 3/21/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Boasberg out of the gate accuses DOJ of using "intemperate" and "disrespectful" language in responses to the judge.

He is lecturing the DOJ about its opposition to his alleged "verbal" order to turn around the planes.

"Did you think that was hypothetical or did you understand when I said do that immediately, you meant that."
So is Boasberg essentially saying his oral order controls over his written order? Because his written order does not direct flights to be turned around and return.
Yes, and he knows he is wrong, legally, but he is trying the case in the Court of Propaganda and public opinion. The MSM will not tell the truth, they'll just echo his bull*****

Quote:
From a lawyer/court perspective, why does this matter? The 5 people who filed for the TRO are still in US.

Judge seems to be going off on a tangent that is not before the court?
For propaganda purposes so they can breathlessly declare that Trump is a dictator.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:14p, 3/21/25
Caught Mary Louise Kelly and the gang at NPR on the way home talking about this case.

Sounded like they were pining to have a deported gang member's baby as the ultimate display of solidarity.

At a minimum if you sent one down to that Salvadorian prison where the deportees were sent they would come back pregnant.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:33p, 3/21/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:40p, 3/21/25
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 will25u • 11:31p, 3/21/25
will25u said:
Bet THAT pissed her off...
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 Aggie Jurist • 11:36p, 3/21/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Quote:
Judge seems to be going off on a tangent that is not before the court? I thought courts only delt with things actually brought before them, not where others are involved that are not part of court case?

That used to be the case - until this crop of Biden appointees. We have a group who think they are sitting on the bench in some South American court.
This is why I like you...
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:04a, 3/22/25
I put this Federalist piece on the main TdA thread but should be here too. Boasberg's dancing to no music, with no clothes on, imho.

Also:

Oh, and yesterday the President terminated most of the workers in the Civil Rights Branch of the Department of Homeland Security.
More pathetic BS from DC Circuit Obama-Biden 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
8:22a, 3/22/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:27p, 3/22/25
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 will25u • 12:41p, 3/22/25
will25u said:
Well, D'uh. Habeas corpus is literally "you have the body." So it is directed to the actual custodian of that person. Judge by definition has to have jurisdiction over the custodian.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:54p, 3/22/25





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
5:06p, 3/22/25
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.