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

178,558 Views | 2144 Replies | Last: 14 hrs ago by will25u
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 Ellis Wyatt • 8:02a, 5/9/25
But he was the stronger horse for the DC job. Pirro may be ok, but he was great.

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
In reply to nortex97 • 8:07a, 5/9/25
There is no question in my mind that Martin is a much more qualified and capable candidate! Pirro is more of a "oh yeah?? Well take this!!"


I'm Gipper
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 nortex97 • 8:27a, 5/9/25
nortex97 said:
But he was the stronger horse for the DC job. Pirro may be ok, but he was great.
For sure, but as always, the swamp is in control.

Tillis is a piece of *****

Republicans refuse to lead.
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
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 8:31a, 5/9/25
Tillis is rightfully the "face" of this Martin non-confirmation, but were are the other members of the Judiciary Committee? Has Cruz, Kennedy, Lee, Hawley been pushing for him?

The silence from the GOP is deafening.

I'm Gipper
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 Im Gipper • 8:48a, 5/9/25
Im Gipper said:
Tillis is rightfully the "face" of this Martin non-confirmation, but were are the other members of the Judiciary Committee? Has Cruz, Kennedy, Lee, Hawley been pushing for him?

The silence from the GOP is deafening.
That's the case with all of this. They should be screaming to the high heavens about all of the judicial tyranny. They should be in front of cameras constantly. They refuse to lead.
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
8:50a, 5/9/25
I am late to the Ed Martin game, but what is the issue with him?
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 flown-the-coop • 9:02a, 5/9/25
He didn't think everyone who went into the capitol, including those ushered in by the cops, or even the FBI CHS source caught on camera getting a fist bump from the capitol police inside, should have gone to prison.

Seriously, that was Tillis' position. He said he would have voted for him if he were in another USA jurisdiction, but couldn't support getting him out of committee over that disagreement. Pure swamp.
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
9:03a, 5/9/25
You can bet that Tillis will become the next republican critic once he is out of office. Bootlicking clown.
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 nortex97 • 11:57a, 5/9/25
nortex97 said:
My question is why/how would this be a 'win'?

Even accepting arguendo that Boasberg would agree to it, she's a blow hard, period with no demonstrable record of getting anything done leading a team of attorneys.

We seem to be reading the headlines without really knowing the underlying script, imho.
She has been a DA before so she HAS led a team of attorneys...
Reply Quote
LMCane
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 • 12:00p, 5/9/25
Im Gipper said:
There is no question in my mind that Martin is a much more qualified and capable candidate! Pirro is more of a "oh yeah?? Well take this!!"

Pirro was elected as a judge of the Westchester County (N.Y.) Court in 1990.

In 1993, she was elected to the position of Westchester County district attorney.

She is the first woman to be elected to either of those positions.

Pirro was re-elected District Attorney in 1997 and 2001.

Pirro briefly sought the Republican nomination for United States Senate to run against Hillary Clinton in 2006, but dropped out to accept the nomination for New York Attorney General; she lost the general election to Democrat Andrew Cuomo.
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
12:11p, 5/9/25
Her parents were Maronite Catholics. I have come across a couple of those in business and they are no bull**** straightshooters. Add in some NY / Westchester upbringing and the Judge suffers no fools.

Should be a fun 120 days. Sorry libs. Or keep it up and ensure she is confirmed.
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 • 3:25p, 5/9/25
Ag with kids said:
nortex97 said:
My question is why/how would this be a 'win'?

Even accepting arguendo that Boasberg would agree to it, she's a blow hard, period with no demonstrable record of getting anything done leading a team of attorneys.

We seem to be reading the headlines without really knowing the underlying script, imho.
She has been a DA before so she HAS led a team of attorneys...
A county DA with a spotty record, track record of insubordination, before becoming a judge, then a failed political candidate, and then TV personality. Hardly a USA in the most important district in the country.
Quote:
Within months of taking office, Pirro undertook a costly renovation to the district attorney's facilities and expanded to an additional floor of the county courthouse. The largest expenses were a new kitchenette and a media room, costing $20,000, to assist Pirro's growing profile; additional expenditures were made to remodel her personal office with mahogany.
…
During her tenure as district attorney, she repeatedly refused to reopen the case of the murder of Angela Correa by Jeffrey Deskovic.In 1990, Deskovic was falsely convicted of killing the then-15-year-old Correa, and spent 16 years in prison before he was exonerated by DNA evidence; the real killer eventually confessed to the crime. Deskovic later won a $41.6 million lawsuit against Daniel Stephens and Westchester County for his wrongful conviction.
Quote:
On May 28, 1986, Pirro announced her withdrawal from the race, saying that her husband could not disclose his legal clients or the couple's business interests (later revealed to have been her husband's partial ownership of a Connecticut garbage hauling company with alleged mafia connections), and that many of his clients did business with the state, which would make it "virtually impossible" for her to serve as Lieutenant Governor.
Not exactly an illustrious knowledge of federal law, or a track record of gleaming success even in that much lower level of criminal prosecution. She won't be working in DC to prosecute domestic violence cases much. This is more akin to A&M hiring a high school football coach as the head man. It's a reach, and frankly if she does submit to a full FBI background check I doubt she would pass it.

The DC USA has over 300 attorneys, and an equal number of staff. This isn't the place to 'learn the job' from the top, imho. All that said, I hope she's a joyful surprise to me.
Reply Quote
Larry S Ross
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 • 4:09p, 5/9/25
The senate should have approved Martin. They didn't. It's on them.
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
4:11p, 5/9/25
So Steven Miller is saying that the White House is discussing suspending habeas corpus.

That should get the Libs riled up for the weekend Sunday shows!

While I'm sure that has come up, I guarantee there are not serious discussions about it because they know that's a power of Congress.


(I also guarantee that agaberto aka daimond starts a thread on it)

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:39p, 5/9/25
Even in DC, this gal is gonna face jail time, imho.
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 • 5:15p, 5/9/25
Mostly peaceful loogie.
Reply Quote
KerrAg76
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 • 5:16p, 5/9/25
What a loser beotch with no common sense, stupid leftist
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 nortex97 • 6:42p, 5/9/25
nortex97 said:
Even in DC, this gal is gonna face jail time, imho.


Not if she requests a jury trial. They will give her a medal instead.
Reply Quote
1 edit
BadMoonRisin
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 • 6:54p, 5/9/25
This dumbass still spouting lies about police officers being beaten and killed during J6?

This was DEBOONKED just a few days after the event.

There was only one person murdered during J6 and her family just received a $30M wrongful death settlement from the government.
Reply Quote
2 edits
techno-ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:44p, 5/9/25
Trump will fix it.
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 techno-ag • 8:57p, 5/9/25
John Roberts is a compromised buffoon.
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 Ellis Wyatt • 9:03p, 5/9/25
He was droning on some panel / conference about how someone mistook him for John Boehner and so he had to play along.

I heard John Boehner is considering a defamation suit.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:17p, 5/9/25
Executive can't reorganize Executive branch of government.
How can it be that there is no way to hold judges accountable?

TDS has infected the judiciary.




"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
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 • 6:33a, 5/10/25
That one…is pretty laughably bad, 9th circus has entered the fray. The executive branch can't re-organize the executive branch staff?

Hey, at least this time the clown judge discussed jurisdiction. Sure, she cited…2 minority circuit opinions being smarter/better in his esteemed judgment vs. the majority, and then declared this wouldn't happen/no judicial review unless her holiness does this.

Illston is a 76 year old Clinton judge on senior status for over 10 years. Another Feinstein stain.

This won't hold up.

ETA: already appealed.
Reply Quote
1 edit
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 nortex97 • 10:31a, 5/11/25
nortex97 said:
That one…is pretty laughably bad, 9th circus has entered the fray. The executive branch can't re-organize the executive branch staff?

Hey, at least this time the clown judge discussed jurisdiction. Sure, she cited…2 minority circuit opinions being smarter/better in his esteemed judgment vs. the majority, and then declared this wouldn't happen/no judicial review unless her holiness does this.

Illston is a 76 year old Clinton judge on senior status for over 10 years. Another Feinstein stain.

This won't hold up.

ETA: already appealed.
That's amusing.

I don't like the majority ruling so I'm going to use the dissent and say THAT is what is law.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:43p, 5/12/25
"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
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 • 9:00p, 5/12/25
Quote:
A federal judge on Monday denied an injunction request to prevent the Department of Homeland Security and Internal Revenue Service from partnering to permit U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) to access taxpayer information to locate illegal immigrants subject to deportation.

The order by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich came amid a lawsuit by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos and other immigrant-rights groups against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

"Plaintiffs Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Immigrant Solidarity DuPage, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, and Inclusive Action for the City bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from sharing personal tax information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement purposes. Before the Court is the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 28. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion."

"At its core, this case presents a narrow legal issue: Does the Memorandum of Understanding between the IRS and DHS violate the Internal Revenue Code? It does not," the order continued.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-allows-irs-share-illegal-alien-data-dhs-court-win-trump.amp
Trump will fix it.
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 techno-ag • 4:35a, 5/13/25
That's a big one because an enormous amount of illegal aliens could be tracked based on fraudulent SS numbers.

This would be nice, hope to read the tea leaves some based on oral arguments, though I don't think a 'fast' decision will be released this month.
Quote:
And the era of nationwide injunctions could come to an end later this week when the Supreme Court hears a case on birthright citizenship. The case probably won't decide whether birthright citizenship is legal under the 14th Amendment. What the case is really about is the nationwide injunctions different courts have used to block Trump's executive order on the topic.
Quote:
...based on the Trump administration's request for emergency intervention and the limited filings at this point, the justices are likely to decide an important procedural issue, rather than directly decide who's entitled to citizenship...

The method invoked against the Trump administration is known as a "nationwide injunction," when a single US district court judge blocks enforcement of a government action not merely in the judge's district but throughout the country. Administration lawyers have urged the justices to narrow the injunctions to cover only those parties to the cases.
Vox's coverage of this notes that nationwide injunctions have opponents on both sides of the aisle.

Quote:
The question of whether a single federal trial judge may issue an order that binds the entire country is fraught and has been hotly disputed for years. During the later days of the first Trump administration, Republican Justice Neil Gorsuch published an uncharacteristically persuasive concurring opinion arguing that these nationwide orders must be reined in.

Gorsuch argued that injunctions court orders that either require a party to take a particular action or forbid them from doing so are "meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit." When one judge can go much further, halting an entire federal policy nationwide, that creates an asymmetry. "There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges," Gorsuch wrote. In a world with nationwide injunctions, plaintiffs can shop around for the one judge in America who is most likely to be sympathetic to their cause, and potentially secure a court order that no other judge would hand down...

...nationwide injunctions so frustrated the Biden administration that, on her way out the door, Biden's solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, filed a brief asking the justices to limit these broad orders. That brief was filed in December 2024, after Trump had won the election, so Prelogar knew that Trump was likely to benefit if the justices took her up on her invitation.
We'll see. Oh btw, Sotomayor should, in a sane world far, far away, recuse herself from all cases involving Trump after calling on lawyers/judges to join the cause vs. Trump.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:01a, 5/13/25
"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
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 nortex97 • 10:06a, 5/13/25
nortex97 said:
That's a big one because an enormous amount of illegal aliens could be tracked based on fraudulent SS numbers.

This would be nice, hope to read the tea leaves some based on oral arguments, though I don't think a 'fast' decision will be released this month.
Quote:
And the era of nationwide injunctions could come to an end later this week when the Supreme Court hears a case on birthright citizenship. The case probably won't decide whether birthright citizenship is legal under the 14th Amendment. What the case is really about is the nationwide injunctions different courts have used to block Trump's executive order on the topic.
Quote:
...based on the Trump administration's request for emergency intervention and the limited filings at this point, the justices are likely to decide an important procedural issue, rather than directly decide who's entitled to citizenship...

The method invoked against the Trump administration is known as a "nationwide injunction," when a single US district court judge blocks enforcement of a government action not merely in the judge's district but throughout the country. Administration lawyers have urged the justices to narrow the injunctions to cover only those parties to the cases.
Vox's coverage of this notes that nationwide injunctions have opponents on both sides of the aisle.

Quote:
The question of whether a single federal trial judge may issue an order that binds the entire country is fraught and has been hotly disputed for years. During the later days of the first Trump administration, Republican Justice Neil Gorsuch published an uncharacteristically persuasive concurring opinion arguing that these nationwide orders must be reined in.

Gorsuch argued that injunctions court orders that either require a party to take a particular action or forbid them from doing so are "meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit." When one judge can go much further, halting an entire federal policy nationwide, that creates an asymmetry. "There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges," Gorsuch wrote. In a world with nationwide injunctions, plaintiffs can shop around for the one judge in America who is most likely to be sympathetic to their cause, and potentially secure a court order that no other judge would hand down...

...nationwide injunctions so frustrated the Biden administration that, on her way out the door, Biden's solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, filed a brief asking the justices to limit these broad orders. That brief was filed in December 2024, after Trump had won the election, so Prelogar knew that Trump was likely to benefit if the justices took her up on her invitation.
We'll see. Oh btw, Sotomayor should, in a sane world far, far away, recuse herself from all cases involving Trump after calling on lawyers/judges to join the cause vs. Trump.

From your keyboard to God's ears.
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
10:50a, 5/13/25
This essentially gets rid of "ignorance is no defense". And makes the government prove that you knew you were breaking the law if some obscure statute or whatever is something they can get you with.

"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
10:58a, 5/13/25
Thread.




"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
11:14a, 5/13/25
This is just insanity on SCOTUS' part. The Court did not even question whether they even had jurisdiction...yet.

<sigh>
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:58p, 5/13/25
Think she meant Article 2.

"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
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:05p, 5/13/25

"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
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.