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

205,899 Views | 2365 Replies | Last: 7 hrs ago by will25u
Hubert J. Farnsworth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:01a, 4/25/25
If only the Republicans in Congress would get off of their worthless asses and start helping the Trump administration. Damn it, I hate these judges.
Reply Quote
Ag87H2O
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:33a, 4/25/25
The fact that Robert's is allowing this travesty to continue is infuriating. This is exactly the type of situation where the court should be stepping in and giving clear direction based on the Constitution. What a massive failure and disappointment he has been.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:38a, 4/25/25

That was (D)ifferent. So was this:


Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
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 • 9:53a, 4/25/25
Further indication Trump 2.0 spent much of the last 4 years studying the gameplan of the libs over the past 20 years and are using it against them. As mentioned, the congressional Rs need to fall in line just like the libs always did behind Schumer and Pelosi.

Indiana Gov Braun was talking last night about the Rs needing to get fully behind the Trump agenda and these early actions and indicated he was confident they would be, including governors being more outspoken in favor of Trump.

Its time to quit nitpicking at process and comms regarding Trump and simply get behind the movement.
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 • 10:52a, 4/25/25
will25u said:



That one can be safely ignored by Trump. Full speed ahead.
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
10:55a, 4/25/25
"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
11:03a, 4/25/25

"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
4:26p, 4/25/25
Anything Trump says or does gets insta-TRO'd

"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
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 will25u • 4:29p, 4/25/25
will25u said:
Anything Trump says or does gets insta-TRO'd

D.C. judge

Partisan Democrat.
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 • 4:32p, 4/25/25
will25u said:
Anything Trump says or does gets insta-TRO'd

At least it's a PI so it's immediately appealable.
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 Ag with kids • 5:40p, 4/25/25
Really, I am skeptical this one is a big deal.

It's a step on the road to getting this stuff behind us, imho.
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
6:05p, 4/25/25


Also consider that each supreme court justice comprises 0.111 of the power within an entire branch of government and are appointed for life with 5 of 9 demonstrating jell-o for brains.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Swollen Thumb
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 • 6:07p, 4/25/25
All the ladies at the top of the list. Color me shocked !!
Reply Quote
Ag87H2O
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 • 6:11p, 4/25/25
That list looks exactly as I would expect. Even in the right order.

Brevity is the soul of wit.
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
7:44p, 4/25/25
Michelle Hussein Obama is a nasty, entitled *****.
Reply Quote
Deerdude
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 • 7:48p, 4/25/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
Michelle Hussein Obama is a nasty, entitled *****.


Mike
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 Stat Monitor Repairman • 9:07p, 4/25/25
Stat Monitor Repairman said:


Also consider that each supreme court justice comprises 0.111 of the power within an entire branch of government and are appointed for life with 5 of 9 demonstrating jell-o for brains.
The 5 women on the bench sure do talk a lot...
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 Ag with kids • 7:43a, 4/26/25
Women talking more than men is not a myth, it's a simple (and scientific) reality, and can be traced as well to brain structural differences (among other things).

One species, two genders, something some judges don't comprehend.

Anyway, time for the Administration to next unleash the false claims act (legal insurrection) against higher education to end illegal discrimination:
Quote:
To its credit, the Trump administration is employing a wide array of sanctions on such recalcitrant schools. Billions in federal funding are being frozen or withdrawn, revocation of schools' tax exempt status is being considered, and even their eligibility to enroll foreign students may be yanked.

Yet the Trump administration has yet to use one of the most potent weapons in its arsenal one that, if deployed, could represent an existential economic threat to all but the wealthiest universities that insist on continuing their discriminatory practices.
This weapon is the federal False Claims Act, and it is time to unleash it on woke academia.
The False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3730; the "FCA") was passed over 150 years ago to address a seemingly intractable problem: widespread fraud by defense contractors during the Civil War. Under the FCA, a person who knowingly submits a false claim to the government is liable for three times the government's damages plus additional penalties. For example, a hospital that knowingly obtains $10 million from the federal government on bogus Medicare invoices would be liable to the government for over $30 million.

But while the government can bring such claims itself, the FCA has another important component: the ability for whistleblowers (i.e., people with inside information of the fraud) to bring FCA suits in the government's name, and receive a reward of up to 30% the funds recovered. Such private prosecutions are known as qui tam actions, and the vast majority of the billions recovered annually under the FCA arise from them.

For example, suppose you are an employee of the hospital in the foregoing hypothetical, and you discover that it is fraudulently billing Medicare for MRI's that never occurred. You find a lawyer who specializes in FCA qui tam cases, who then prepares and files the qui tam action in federal court under seal, and serves the Department of Justice a copy of the complaint and a comprehensive memorandum explaining the claim and the evidence that the whistleblower has. The Department of Justice can then choose to intervene in the case and thereafter prosecute it, or it can decline to do so and allow you to do so. Either way, if the FCA qui tam suit is successful, the whistleblower receives a reward of up to 30% of the funds recovered (typically, 15-20% where the government takes over the case).

So in the hypothetical set forth above, if the government immediately intervened and ultimately collected $30 million, the whistleblowing employee would collect a reward of $4.5 to $6 million (which typically would be split with his attorney, if the attorney handled the case on a contingency fee basis). These financial inducements along with provisions in the FCA (31 U.S.C. 3730(h)) imposing draconian additional penalties on employers who retaliate against FCA whistleblowers make the FCA a powerful weapon against defrauding the federal government.
Incentivize the whistle blowers!
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 Ag with kids • 11:04a, 4/26/25
Ag with kids said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:


Also consider that each supreme court justice comprises 0.111 of the power within an entire branch of government and are appointed for life with 5 of 9 demonstrating jell-o for brains.
The 5 women on the bench sure do talk a lot...


Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:30p, 4/27/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 5:24a, 4/28/25
He's also signing an EO today directing DHS identify cities that are not cooperating with ICE/DHS.

This will lead to significant litigation.

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
5:55a, 4/28/25
We were all taught that federal courts were courts of limited jurisdiction - and traditionally those courts protected that limited jurisdiction jealously. Frankly, our system rather counts on the federal courts to act with an eye toward not asserting jurisdiction and rejecting litigants who are unable to prove their right to seek relief in those courts.

What we've witnessed over the last 8 + years is people lacking judicial temperament being placed on the lifetime federal bench, doing what humans have done over our entire history - taking power until someone stops them. That 'someone' used to be the Courts of Appeal and ultimately the USSC. Now that balance is being destroyed - thanks in large part to Dick Durbin and feckless John Roberts.

The damage being done to the legitimacy of our federal court system may ultimately be irreparable. Without a significant correction, certainly the public's trust in the relative impartiality of the federal courts will not quickly return. What's worse (to me) is the loss of confidence in the federal courts for those who actually practice in them (and their clients).

It's ironic - seemingly the only thing holding the legitimacy of the courts together is Trump's steadfast refusal to disobey these increasingly outlandish orders - instead holding to the appellate process to correct these misdeeds. Something will have to give soon.
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 Aggie Jurist • 11:28a, 4/28/25
Aggie Jurist said:
We were all taught that federal courts were courts of limited jurisdiction - and traditionally those courts protected that limited jurisdiction jealously. Frankly, our system rather counts on the federal courts to act with an eye toward not asserting jurisdiction and rejecting litigants who are unable to prove their right to seek relief in those courts.

What we've witnessed over the last 8 + years is people lacking judicial temperament being placed on the lifetime federal bench, doing what humans have done over our entire history - taking power until someone stops them. That 'someone' used to be the Courts of Appeal and ultimately the USSC. Now that balance is being destroyed - thanks in large part to Dick Durbin and feckless John Roberts.

The damage being done to the legitimacy of our federal court system may ultimately be irreparable. Without a significant correction, certainly the public's trust in the relative impartiality of the federal courts will not quickly return. What's worse (to me) is the loss of confidence in the federal courts for those who actually practice in them (and their clients).

It's ironic - seemingly the only thing holding the legitimacy of the courts together is Trump's steadfast refusal to disobey these increasingly outlandish orders - instead holding to the appellate process to correct these misdeeds. Something will have to give soon.
It has been astonishing to me to watch the same court systems that were exceptionally quick to throw out election cases for lack of standing or lack of jurisdiction turn around and grant nationwide standing to classes that have not been certified and to exert power over the executive branch that is far outside of their jurisdiction.

There was a time when I believed that our justice system was blind to politics and everybody got a fair shake. But the last 8 years or so have thoroughly disabused me of that notion.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
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 • 11:53a, 4/28/25
For essentially none of the election cases to be heard… even heard in the aftermath, is utterly disgusting and demoralizing.

Then it's followed up by the most insane lawfare at all
Levels against Trump and anyone who supported him, then the SCOTUS leak, now the nationwide TROs.

Add on no Epstein files, P Duffy memory holed, and judges harboring and abetting known terrorists and other criminals.

And we could sprinkle in the two tiers that of BLM protestors v Jan 6 protestors and why would anyone capable of critical thought respect or trust our legal system?
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 flown-the-coop • 3:11p, 4/28/25
flown-the-coop said:
For essentially none of the election cases to be heard… even heard in the aftermath, is utterly disgusting and demoralizing.

Then it's followed up by the most insane lawfare at all
Levels against Trump and anyone who supported him, then the SCOTUS leak, now the nationwide TROs.

Add on no Epstein files, P Duffy memory holed, and judges harboring and abetting known terrorists and other criminals.

And we could sprinkle in the two tiers that of BLM protestors v Jan 6 protestors and why would anyone capable of critical thought respect or trust our legal system?
The district courts have made us a banana republic.
Trump will fix it.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 3:38p, 4/28/25
SCOTUS has long since abandoned any sense of justice, fairness and the US Constitution making the problems down hill from them forever worse.

Hell, the Hennepin DA just issued UK style guidance that prosecutors must consider the "whole of an individual" to address any racial and other disparities the ACCUSED has experienced.

They should not just be voted out, they must be dealt with.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:45p, 4/28/25
SCOTUS still has AEA blocked.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:01p, 4/28/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:54p, 4/29/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:16p, 4/29/25
More squishy courts.


Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:11p, 4/30/25
Just when you thought these judges couldn't get any dumber,


I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 1:18p, 4/30/25
Im Gipper said:
Just when you thought these judges couldn't get any dumber,

This is when you tell the judge to GFY. The law is written in stone and not open to any ambiguity
“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
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
1:18p, 4/30/25
Time to disbar this *****.
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
1:22p, 4/30/25


You walk in and your judge has this haircut, you gonna have a bad time.
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
1:24p, 4/30/25
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.