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

214,742 Views | 2420 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by Deerdude
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:50p, 6/10/25
My shocked face


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 • 12:52p, 6/10/25
Ah, yes. Stephen Breyer who believed we should use international law in interpreting our Constitution. I'm sure his brother is legally grounded.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:03p, 6/10/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:54p, 6/10/25
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
7:23p, 6/10/25
Can we get an update to those memes circa post-election 2020 about Trump losing 87-0 in court cases? Maybe the spreadsheet needs an update.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:33p, 6/10/25
Reply Quote
SwigAg11
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 • 9:24p, 6/10/25
will25u said:
I thought the appeals court had immediately reasserted his authority several days ago? Or is this something else?
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 SwigAg11 • 9:34p, 6/10/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:12p, 6/11/25
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 • 1:16p, 6/11/25
Boasberg's entire premise is absurd and is nothing but an attempt to deny half of America the government they voted for. Boasberg is an arrogant, unethical *******.
Reply Quote
whatthehey78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:21p, 6/11/25
Now, remove the biased Judges. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:35p, 6/11/25
Chalk up another...

Federal Court Rejects DNC Lawsuit, Affirms President Trump's Authority, Siding With ACLJ Filing
Quote:
In DNC v. Trump, the DNC sought to block an Executive order directing federal agencies like the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to align enforcement with presidential policy. The DNC argued that the order should be suspended while the case winds through the courts a process that can take years. This clashes with the Constitution, which states the President, elected by the people, is the sole figure accountable for the Executive branch. Agency leaders are unelected and act with authority only through the President. We believe this makes judicial interference especially problematic and politically charged. Fortunately, the court sided with our arguments.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18p, 6/11/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:59p, 6/12/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:36p, 6/12/25
Reply Quote
txags92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44p, 6/12/25
Ninth circuit just blocked the judge's ruling and scheduled a hearing for June 17th.

https://apnews.com/article/california-immigration-national-guard-newsom-trump-lawsuit-aedf8cdd95ee899c9559d5e54a2e4833
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:46a, 6/13/25
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
In reply to will25u • 8:28a, 6/13/25
will25u said:
State of California lawsuit filed in.... Massachusetts.

No judge shopping there.
Reply Quote
Deerdude
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:45a, 6/13/25
These judges should live and die by the sword. Three strikes and you lose your law license permanently.
Reply Quote
jt2hunt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Deerdude • 8:50a, 6/13/25
Deerdude said:
These judges should live and die by the sword. Three strikes and you lose your law license permanently.



Unfortunately, you have a rogue judiciary just handing out three strikes to get rid of people they oppose that won't work, but I do get your point.
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 jt2hunt • 8:54a, 6/13/25
jt2hunt said:
Deerdude said:
These judges should live and die by the sword. Three strikes and you lose your law license permanently.



Unfortunately, you have a rogue judiciary just handing out three strikes to get rid of people they oppose that won't work, but I do get your point.
Or higher level judges not wanting to overrule lower judges so they don't get removed/disbarred.
Reply Quote
aggie_sprt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:19a, 6/13/25
The executive order on elections was always a stretch to be honest as the states do have a compelling argument regarding their right to oversee elections even if it is only because they want to allow one party to cheat. Need Congress to pass a law with a funding provision that compels the states to do the right thing on elections. Federal elections should all be run to the same set of rules IMHO, especially after what we have seen with regards to the integrity of mail in ballots and vote harvesting operations, not to mention the shocking condition of most state's voter rolls.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:33a, 6/13/25
Reply Quote
Deerdude
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:43a, 6/13/25
I think they can do what they want with local and state elections, there should be a federal election security standard that must be met to have results count in elections with federal implications.
Would be neat to watch Ca electoral votes disappear
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 Deerdude • 12:03p, 6/13/25
What the state of California is doing in opposing ICE enforcement and setting federal law should be enough to allow the election changes to be imposed. They have removed all doubt that they do not believe only Americans should elect presidents.
Reply Quote
1 edit
BusterAg
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_sprt • 1:00p, 6/13/25
aggie_sprt said:
The executive order on elections was always a stretch to be honest as the states do have a compelling argument regarding their right to oversee elections even if it is only because they want to allow one party to cheat. Need Congress to pass a law with a funding provision that compels the states to do the right thing on elections. Federal elections should all be run to the same set of rules IMHO, especially after what we have seen with regards to the integrity of mail in ballots and vote harvesting operations, not to mention the shocking condition of most state's voter rolls.
Congress's law doesn't need a funding provision. They can pass a law and federally prosecute people that don't follow the law. An Executive Order is likely unconstitutional, but not a congressional law:

Article I, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:
Quote:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
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 • 1:01p, 6/13/25
will25u said:
Maybe Kavenaugh can take off his yellow panties long enough to vote for SCOTUS to take up this one?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:56p, 6/13/25
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 • 12:43a, 6/14/25
will25u said:
I think the judge is going to find out that "permanent" isn't actually that, soon...
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
12:54a, 6/14/25
Quote:
[The judge] included a footnote explaining why he didn't find that an earlier SCOTUS order allowing Trump to fire members of other agencies precluded his decision
Judicial equivalent of doing a jerk-off motion to your bosses.

Also tells you she knows good and well they'll be no consequences for this at all.
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 • 1:10a, 6/14/25
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Quote:
[The judge] included a footnote explaining why he didn't find that an earlier SCOTUS order allowing Trump to fire members of other agencies precluded his decision
Judicial equivalent of doing a jerk-off motion to your bosses.

Also tells you she knows good and well they'll be no consequences for this at all.
If the higher courts don't start handing down sanctions, this is going to spiral out of control at some time...
Reply Quote
dvldog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:52p, 6/16/25
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 dvldog • 5:04p, 6/16/25
dvldog said:
I don't remember voting for that loser. Who made him king?
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 txags92 • 6:52p, 6/16/25
txags92 said:
dvldog said:
I don't remember voting for that loser. Who made him king?

No kings!
No kings in black robes!
Pro College Station Convention Center
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
6:23a, 6/17/25
“ 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
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.