If there was a time for the court to preemptively step in and stay an order, this would be it.
***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****
177,489 Views |
2136 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Aggie Jurist
Fine. Have Pam Bondi issue a nationwide warrant for the arrest of illegal aliens. And why limit it to just CBP agents. Let's start issuing Letters of Marque and get some privateers in on the action.Im Gipper said:
Just when you thought these judges couldn't get any dumber,Federal judge orders Border Patrol *not* to arrest illegal aliens without a warrant—even though federal law specifically authorizes them to do so
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 30, 2025
My fellow Americans, we have a problem
It couldn’t be more serious
pic.twitter.com/V57MTUdDeH https://t.co/t4744jFyj3
Quote:
Have Pam Bondi issue a nationwide warrant for the arrest of illegal aliens
That's not how this works.
I'm Gipper
How these judges are acting is not how this works either. So why let them corner the market on outlandish antics. If they are just going to make it up as they go, we should start doing the same.Im Gipper said:Quote:
Have Pam Bondi issue a nationwide warrant for the arrest of illegal aliens
That's not how this works.
Well, if we were just suggesting ridiculous things that will never happen, Trump should do the warrants himself! Why outsource to Bondi? She can't even get the Epstein docs off her desk.
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
Well the judges seem to want to put a TRO on anything Trump does, so I was thinking if Bondi did it, it might keep her off Fox News long enough to get a few other things done too.Im Gipper said:
Well, if we were just suggesting ridiculous things that will never happen, Trump should do the warrants himself! Why outsource to Bondi? She can't even get the Epstein docs off her desk.
There are a growing number of Federal Judges that should be impeached & disbarred.Ellis Wyatt said:
Time to disbar this *****.
So far only 2 have been arrested for breaking the law. Many should have recused themselves for conflict of interest.
I don't know if this has already been posted here, but heard it recently and it really makes district court judges the gatekeepers to anything the Executive does.
For any EO/directive from a federal agency there are 677 judges that have to approve of the directive/EO before it can be implemented.
Seems pretty ridiculous that policy decisions essentially have to get the sign off from 677 different judges to be implemented.
For any EO/directive from a federal agency there are 677 judges that have to approve of the directive/EO before it can be implemented.
Seems pretty ridiculous that policy decisions essentially have to get the sign off from 677 different judges to be implemented.
Vampire canines, 0/10, WNB.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
You walk in and your judge has this haircut, you gonna have a bad time.
Well, they don't actually. They're playing lawfare games, which makes that the current outcome.
The system was not designed to work like this. The leftists are intentionally abusing the system to prevent Trump from doing what America elected him to do. John Roberts can stop this at any time.
The system was not designed to work like this. The leftists are intentionally abusing the system to prevent Trump from doing what America elected him to do. John Roberts can stop this at any time.
Roberts would prefer to see Trump stopped from doing what the voters elected him to do too. Or at least he does if he doesn't want those photos and videos Chuck Schumer has released...Ellis Wyatt said:
Well, they don't actually. They're playing lawfare games, which makes that the current outcome.
The system was not designed to work like this. The leftists are intentionally abusing the system to prevent Trump from doing what America elected him to do. John Roberts can stop this at any time.
So what? The Democrats are abusing the system on a daily basis, so why not go ahead and use their tactics? Force a crisis where the SC has to step in and make a ruling.Im Gipper said:Quote:
Have Pam Bondi issue a nationwide warrant for the arrest of illegal aliens
That's not how this works.
As hyperbole, i get the sentiment. It will be nice if we made liberals play by the same rules. But it's not an actual suggestion
The Supreme Court would not need to force a ruling. It wouldn't make it past an injunction in the district court.
The Attorney General does not issue warrants.
And even if they did, you can't name every illegal immigrant as the person subject to arrest.
There is not a single judge in this country that would allow Bondi to do this. We will never see that happen, because they administration isn't going to do something that silly.
I'm Gipper
The Supreme Court would not need to force a ruling. It wouldn't make it past an injunction in the district court.
The Attorney General does not issue warrants.
And even if they did, you can't name every illegal immigrant as the person subject to arrest.
There is not a single judge in this country that would allow Bondi to do this. We will never see that happen, because they administration isn't going to do something that silly.
I'm Gipper
Which judge is going to handcuff her?Im Gipper said:
As hyperbole, i get the sentiment. It will be nice if we made liberals play by the same rules. But it's not an actual suggestion
The Supreme Court would not need to force a ruling. It wouldn't make it past an injunction in the district court.
The Attorney General does not issue warrants.
And even if they did, you can't name every illegal immigrant as the person subject to arrest.
There is not a single judge in this country that would allow Bondi to do this. We will never see that happen, because they administration isn't going to do something that silly.
At some point, Trump will get frustrated enough to tell SCOTUS and the rest of the judiciary to kiss his giant white arse (with orange trim) - though I suspect this will not happen until at least the BBB is passed but likely about 2 minutes after Rs reach historic majorities in the midterms.
These judges have pushed things so far sideways that even the dumbest Americans know they are defecating on the US Constitution.
Separate BUT EQUAL does not give a single judge authority to allow or not allow the Executive to ask. This has been covered repeatedly, no?
Well leftist federal judges certainly don't seem to have a problem usurping executive branch responsibilities and duties. They don't care about the constitionality of what they are doing. As long as they can stall and delay for months or years in the courts they are happy to exceed their authority. Worst that can happen is it gets overturned down the road.Im Gipper said:
As hyperbole, i get the sentiment. It will be nice if we made liberals play by the same rules. But it's not an actual suggestion
The Supreme Court would not need to force a ruling. It wouldn't make it past an injunction in the district court.
The Attorney General does not issue warrants.
And even if they did, you can't name every illegal immigrant as the person subject to arrest.
There is not a single judge in this country that would allow Bondi to do this. We will never see that happen, because they administration isn't going to do something that silly.
Maybe the shoe should be on the other foot for a change. If not Bondi then fine. Find a federal judge in a favorable court to issue a nationwide warrant for illegals and go to town. Again, force a crisis where the SC has to step in and make a decision.
Yes, liberal judges are going to ignore the constitution and law, making rules based on what they want the law to be. That's what makes them liberal.
You aren't going to find conservative judges willing to just ignore clear law, because well, THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE! That's not what conservatives do.
I'm all for Trump trying to get a judge to issue some "nationwide warrant". But he's not going to need to. But he's going to get is this ridiculous ruling overturned in short order
I'm Gipper
You aren't going to find conservative judges willing to just ignore clear law, because well, THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE! That's not what conservatives do.
I'm all for Trump trying to get a judge to issue some "nationwide warrant". But he's not going to need to. But he's going to get is this ridiculous ruling overturned in short order
I'm Gipper
BREAKING: Mohsen Mahdawi has been released from federal custody. Judge reportedly compared the recent period of migrants and immigrants being detained to the era of McCarthyism and the infamous "Red Scare".@DropSiteNews pic.twitter.com/vBb6ABMekU
— Meghnad Bose (@MeghnadBose93) April 30, 2025
“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
Agree. It was meant mostly as humor and as a WTF. If the judge is going to make up the need for an imaginary warrant that isn't required by the law, we should give her the imaginary warrants she is asking for. Did her order specify that the warrant has to come from a judge? Let's start parsing her words to find the loopholes like she is trying to do with clearly written laws. There was a time when district judges did not issue nationwide injunctions applying to people not appearing in their court as plaintiffs until a class action had been certified. If we are just going to start throwing the old rules of how things are done out the window, we shouldn't let one side have all the fun.Im Gipper said:
As hyperbole, i get the sentiment. It will be nice if we made liberals play by the same rules. But it's not an actual suggestion
The Supreme Court would not need to force a ruling. It wouldn't make it past an injunction in the district court.
The Attorney General does not issue warrants.
And even if they did, you can't name every illegal immigrant as the person subject to arrest.
There is not a single judge in this country that would allow Bondi to do this. We will never see that happen, because they administration isn't going to do something that silly.
Again, mostly said with humor in mind, not serious suggestions, but at what point do we actually see other courts start slapping these judges down with feeling for these ridiculous rulings? These judges aren't just making themselves look silly, they are turning the entire federal judiciary into a punchline. And if there is one group of people who are very worried about their image and perception by the public, it is federal judges.
Judges cannot legislate. This ***** is way out of her depth.
People like this in the video clip are who the term "useful idiots" was describing.Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:BREAKING: Mohsen Mahdawi has been released from federal custody. Judge reportedly compared the recent period of migrants and immigrants being detained to the era of McCarthyism and the infamous "Red Scare".@DropSiteNews pic.twitter.com/vBb6ABMekU
— Meghnad Bose (@MeghnadBose93) April 30, 2025
txags92 said:Agree. It was meant mostly as humor and as a WTF. If the judge is going to make up the need for an imaginary warrant that isn't required by the law, we should give her the imaginary warrants she is asking for. Did her order specify that the warrant has to come from a judge? Let's start parsing her words to find the loopholes like she is trying to do with clearly written laws. There was a time when district judges did not issue nationwide injunctions applying to people not appearing in their court as plaintiffs until a class action had been certified. If we are just going to start throwing the old rules of how things are done out the window, we shouldn't let one side have all the fun.Im Gipper said:
As hyperbole, i get the sentiment. It will be nice if we made liberals play by the same rules. But it's not an actual suggestion
The Supreme Court would not need to force a ruling. It wouldn't make it past an injunction in the district court.
The Attorney General does not issue warrants.
And even if they did, you can't name every illegal immigrant as the person subject to arrest.
There is not a single judge in this country that would allow Bondi to do this. We will never see that happen, because they administration isn't going to do something that silly.
Again, mostly said with humor in mind, not serious suggestions, but at what point do we actually see other courts start slapping these judges down with feeling for these ridiculous rulings? These judges aren't just making themselves look silly, they are turning the entire federal judiciary into a punchline. And if there is one group of people who are very worried about their image and perception by the public, it is federal judges.
Another ruling safely ignored. Warrants are not needed for arrests.
Trump will fix it.
Next time you get pulled over just tell the cop you want your lawyer, 48 hours notice, and any other due process that can be afforded to you before he issues a ticket.techno-ag said:txags92 said:Agree. It was meant mostly as humor and as a WTF. If the judge is going to make up the need for an imaginary warrant that isn't required by the law, we should give her the imaginary warrants she is asking for. Did her order specify that the warrant has to come from a judge? Let's start parsing her words to find the loopholes like she is trying to do with clearly written laws. There was a time when district judges did not issue nationwide injunctions applying to people not appearing in their court as plaintiffs until a class action had been certified. If we are just going to start throwing the old rules of how things are done out the window, we shouldn't let one side have all the fun.Im Gipper said:
As hyperbole, i get the sentiment. It will be nice if we made liberals play by the same rules. But it's not an actual suggestion
The Supreme Court would not need to force a ruling. It wouldn't make it past an injunction in the district court.
The Attorney General does not issue warrants.
And even if they did, you can't name every illegal immigrant as the person subject to arrest.
There is not a single judge in this country that would allow Bondi to do this. We will never see that happen, because they administration isn't going to do something that silly.
Again, mostly said with humor in mind, not serious suggestions, but at what point do we actually see other courts start slapping these judges down with feeling for these ridiculous rulings? These judges aren't just making themselves look silly, they are turning the entire federal judiciary into a punchline. And if there is one group of people who are very worried about their image and perception by the public, it is federal judges.
Another ruling safely ignored. Warrants are not needed for arrests.
And go ahead and set a place on fire and stand there with your gas can and remaining matches and tell the police they cannot arrest you without 48 hours notice to you and your attorney and an appearance before a judge.
And finally we must have a process where any parent of minor cannot be arrested as that splits up the family and that is un-American and against your rights as a parent.
Because that is what the libs and these judges are arguing. It is a today horse**** *******ization of the judicial system.
And it needs to be burnt to the ****ing ground.
From the other thread, longest staff comment ever?
"The actual decision, which does nothing the tweet and headline suggest.
This order stemmed from an operation that took place on January 7, before Trump took office. Plaintiffs allege the BP was stopping random cars and detaining without reasonable suspicion and were arresting without probable cause. They were pulling people into detention centers and giving them voluntary option to self-deport without explaining the (limited) rights they have. That's what the judge says was unlawful.
Go to page 21, start at Section VII. This section describes the process by which BP can arrest illegals without a warrant. The officers here (apparently) didn't follow that process or didn't document what they were supposed to document.
No where in the order does it say BP can't arrest an illegal immigrant without a warrant. They just have to follow the proper process under existing statute and common law precedent.
I'm Gipper
"The actual decision, which does nothing the tweet and headline suggest.
This order stemmed from an operation that took place on January 7, before Trump took office. Plaintiffs allege the BP was stopping random cars and detaining without reasonable suspicion and were arresting without probable cause. They were pulling people into detention centers and giving them voluntary option to self-deport without explaining the (limited) rights they have. That's what the judge says was unlawful.
Go to page 21, start at Section VII. This section describes the process by which BP can arrest illegals without a warrant. The officers here (apparently) didn't follow that process or didn't document what they were supposed to document.
No where in the order does it say BP can't arrest an illegal immigrant without a warrant. They just have to follow the proper process under existing statute and common law precedent.
I'm Gipper
So 13 days before Trump took office.
Really makes you think
Really makes you think
1) Apparently, the order just says that you can't detain people without probable cause, and then arrest them based on answers to questions you asked them after they were illegally detained. Some BP agents nearing the border were stopping brown colored people and arresting them with no probable cause. That is not really OK. If that is a correct interpretation of what the judge said, I happen to agree with her.Im Gipper said:
Well, if we were just suggesting ridiculous things that will never happen, Trump should do the warrants himself! Why outsource to Bondi? She can't even get the Epstein docs off her desk.
2) If you really wanted to play games, in a hypothetical where the above in not true, you would just send 10,000 warrant requests directly to this judge for illegal immigrants that reside in her district. Make her district the focus on illegal immigration crackdowns for a couple of weeks, get every desk jockey that works for BP to focus 100% on her district, and bury her court with the full power of the BP bureaucracy. When she denies the warrants for no good reason, appeal all of the denials.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
This is when the SCOTUS needs to step in and fix this judicial problem.Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:This is when you tell the judge to GFY. The law is written in stone and not open to any ambiguityIm Gipper said:
Just when you thought these judges couldn't get any dumber,Federal judge orders Border Patrol *not* to arrest illegal aliens without a warrant—even though federal law specifically authorizes them to do so
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 30, 2025
My fellow Americans, we have a problem
It couldn’t be more serious
pic.twitter.com/V57MTUdDeH https://t.co/t4744jFyj3
To let everyone know where their lane is...
People need to stop blindly believing everything a politician tweets. Mike Lee either didn't read the order or he's intentionally lying.Im Gipper said:
Just when you thought these judges couldn't get any dumber,Federal judge orders Border Patrol *not* to arrest illegal aliens without a warrant—even though federal law specifically authorizes them to do so
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 30, 2025
My fellow Americans, we have a problem
It couldn’t be more serious
pic.twitter.com/V57MTUdDeH https://t.co/t4744jFyj3
BP agents were instructed to follow already established law as to what the legal standard is for a stop, detention, and arrest. That's it. They can still arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant if it falls within the confines of the law. What they cannot do is what they are alleged to have done in this district on January 7 (before Trump even took office), which is randomly stop cars and people, detain while demanding papers, and arrest.
flown-the-coop said:Vampire canines, 0/10, WNB.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
You walk in and your judge has this haircut, you gonna have a bad time.
Not sure where they got that glamour shot but we need some transparency here by rule
“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
Started a conversation though
Both Ukraine and US breathlessly await the approval of every federal district court judge: “U.S., Ukraine Sign Minerals Deal in Major Breakthrough for Peace Talks”
— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) May 1, 2025
I laughed.
But the court battles in/around DC (including judge Lamberth), keep in mind what absolute vile scum is involved on the Democrat benches.
I’ll never forget sitting behind Rachel’s seven children at her sentencing. Rachel stood before that judge, reading a heartfelt letter of remorse, begging for mercy. That despicable judge picked up a piece of paper and said Rachel’s letter was incredible. He acknowledged her as a… https://t.co/NhKHx8jBhc pic.twitter.com/60pVKPZmZK
— Real Cynthia Hughes (@realpfp) May 1, 2025
And the Biden-CCP crew quite tearfully think they are permanently entitled to their perches in the judiciary/DoJ:
Toxic femininity was rejected at the ballot box. Even, or perhaps especially the MAHA and MAGA moms have had enough of this fake crying act by wicked deceivers who destroy lives. https://t.co/BSonjzMvFy
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 1, 2025
I screwed the pooch on this one! And I've told people just what you did here previously! Should listen to my own advice!Quote:
People need to stop blindly believing everything a politician tweets. Mike Lee either didn't read the order or he's intentionally lying.
I'm Gipper
I'd rather listen to this Thurston:Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:flown-the-coop said:Vampire canines, 0/10, WNB.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
You walk in and your judge has this haircut, you gonna have a bad time.
Not sure where they got that glamour shot but we need some transparency here by rule
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Federal district court enters first merits ruling on Alien Enemies Act habeas case. On question of class certification: Court punts on whether class cert. under Rule 23 is available & considers if All Writs Act provides analog, i.e. another way to do a class. 1/
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 1, 2025
3/ Note: This remains limited to the jurisdiction of the d.ct. though, so ACLU still seems to need to file "class actions" in all 94 districts...well it would need to if SCOTUS hadn't entered a stay in a non-case with non-plaintiffs already!
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 1, 2025
5/ Here is merit's opinion on habeas: Comments to follow. Big picture: This will expedite resolution of these issues as final decision on merits will get to Fifth Circuit & then SCOTUS. https://t.co/ugpOy0Wxua
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 1, 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
I am confused as to how the Writs Act can be used for class certification?
So if that holds, we will see class actions used widely since a judge can just rubber stamp it and not go through the whole process?
"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
Featured Stories
See All
Snippets from Day 6 of Texas A&M's fall practices
by Olin Buchanan
18:21
38m ago
734
5:05
5h ago
2.7k
25 Players in 25 Days: #13 DJ Hicks
by Olin Buchanan
21:45
2h ago
2.2k
3:53
1h ago
1.3k
Sights & Sounds: Practice 6 of Texas A&M's 2025 Fall Camp
by Cade Bickham