the elevator "news" had a blurb that 20 states are suing Trump Administration
for stopping the deportation of pro-Hamas students
for stopping the deportation of pro-Hamas students
***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****
177,276 Views |
2136 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by Aggie Jurist
If it called out PP directly, they'll claim it is a bill of attainder, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.SwigAg11 said:
How can they possibly sue over a congressional budget? Equal protection claim if the budget bill specifically called out Planned Parenthood?
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Bill of attainder? What is the crime?Rapier108 said:If it called out PP directly, they'll claim it is a bill of attainder, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.SwigAg11 said:
How can they possibly sue over a congressional budget? Equal protection claim if the budget bill specifically called out Planned Parenthood?
Will the judge declare that Planned Parenthood must receive funding even though Congress enacted a law and the POTUS signs it and carries it out? To do so the argument would have to be that PP had a Constitutional RIGHT to receive perpetual funding from the government and no one has the power to change that.
Singling them out is not discriminatory which could possibly be an argument. But you would have to point how the organization was discriminated against. What is the class being protected?
Singling them out is not discriminatory which could possibly be an argument. But you would have to point how the organization was discriminated against. What is the class being protected?
It's an absurd concern. Legislative language doesn't support.
aggiehawg said:Bill of attainder? What is the crime?Rapier108 said:If it called out PP directly, they'll claim it is a bill of attainder, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.SwigAg11 said:
How can they possibly sue over a congressional budget? Equal protection claim if the budget bill specifically called out Planned Parenthood?
The lawsuit is absurd, and they will lose
Remember ACORN?aggiehawg said:Bill of attainder? What is the crime?Rapier108 said:If it called out PP directly, they'll claim it is a bill of attainder, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.SwigAg11 said:
How can they possibly sue over a congressional budget? Equal protection claim if the budget bill specifically called out Planned Parenthood?
They got their funding cut and a federal judge ruled it was a bill of attainder since it was specifically targeting them.
The funding was still cut in the end, but PP is the holy grail for the left so they will find some leftist judge to try to force Congress to give them $$$.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
And where is ACORN today? That judge was wrong and was corrected.Rapier108 said:Remember ACORN?aggiehawg said:Bill of attainder? What is the crime?Rapier108 said:If it called out PP directly, they'll claim it is a bill of attainder, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.SwigAg11 said:
How can they possibly sue over a congressional budget? Equal protection claim if the budget bill specifically called out Planned Parenthood?
They got their funding cut and a federal judge ruled it was a bill of attainder since it was specifically targeting them.
The funding was still cut in the end, but PP is the holy grail for the left so they will find some leftist judge to try to force Congress to give them $$$.
Still around under another name.aggiehawg said:And where is ACORN today? That judge was wrong and was corrected.Rapier108 said:Remember ACORN?aggiehawg said:Bill of attainder? What is the crime?Rapier108 said:If it called out PP directly, they'll claim it is a bill of attainder, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.SwigAg11 said:
How can they possibly sue over a congressional budget? Equal protection claim if the budget bill specifically called out Planned Parenthood?
They got their funding cut and a federal judge ruled it was a bill of attainder since it was specifically targeting them.
The funding was still cut in the end, but PP is the holy grail for the left so they will find some leftist judge to try to force Congress to give them $$$.
I never said they would win in the end. I said they're going to find some leftist judge to rule in their favor.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Rapier108 said:Still around under another name.aggiehawg said:And where is ACORN today? That judge was wrong and was corrected.Rapier108 said:Remember ACORN?aggiehawg said:Bill of attainder? What is the crime?Rapier108 said:If it called out PP directly, they'll claim it is a bill of attainder, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.SwigAg11 said:
How can they possibly sue over a congressional budget? Equal protection claim if the budget bill specifically called out Planned Parenthood?
They got their funding cut and a federal judge ruled it was a bill of attainder since it was specifically targeting them.
The funding was still cut in the end, but PP is the holy grail for the left so they will find some leftist judge to try to force Congress to give them $$$.
I never said they would win in the end. I said they're going to find some leftist judge to rule in their favor.
Then it will get appealed and they will lose in the end
Neither legislative nor executive governance can operate under a presupposition they should avoid a situation where an idiotic Obama/Biden judge will issue a ruling that temporarily impairs their actions pending a rightful correction on appeal.
To believe otherwise would be to hold that Trump should take no action that he doesn't think Boasberg et al. Might through a tantrum over.
SCOTUS has spoken, finally. Let the district court judges eat cake.
To believe otherwise would be to hold that Trump should take no action that he doesn't think Boasberg et al. Might through a tantrum over.
SCOTUS has spoken, finally. Let the district court judges eat cake.
Shipwreck notes
By a 6-3 vote the Supreme Court held in Casa v. Trump that there is no legal foundation for granting preliminary equitable relief in the form of "universal" restraining orders and injunctions of the type that have been regularly sought and imposed in the lawfare being waged by left-wing interest groups against the Trump Administration's changes to how the Executive Branch operates.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Barrett, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
The basis of the holding is that because the authority of federal courts only arises out of the constitution or statutes passed by Congress, there must be a basis in one of those two sources for the "equity" power of a court to command a party do do something or not do something while the case is pending but before a judgment is entered. The concept of "equity" is based on "fairness." What is the fair thing to do about the injuries the plaintiff claims to be suffering if those injuries will continue over the months and years that might pass before the case is concluded? Is it "fair" to order the defendant to stop whatever conduct is at issue if there is a possibility that the defendant might ultimately prevail?
The Court found the source of federal courts' equity power in a statute passed by Congress shortly after the ratification of the Constitution. It created the framework for what later became the lower federal court system the Constitution only created the Supreme Court.
By a 6-3 vote the Supreme Court held in Casa v. Trump that there is no legal foundation for granting preliminary equitable relief in the form of "universal" restraining orders and injunctions of the type that have been regularly sought and imposed in the lawfare being waged by left-wing interest groups against the Trump Administration's changes to how the Executive Branch operates.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Barrett, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
The basis of the holding is that because the authority of federal courts only arises out of the constitution or statutes passed by Congress, there must be a basis in one of those two sources for the "equity" power of a court to command a party do do something or not do something while the case is pending but before a judgment is entered. The concept of "equity" is based on "fairness." What is the fair thing to do about the injuries the plaintiff claims to be suffering if those injuries will continue over the months and years that might pass before the case is concluded? Is it "fair" to order the defendant to stop whatever conduct is at issue if there is a possibility that the defendant might ultimately prevail?
The Court found the source of federal courts' equity power in a statute passed by Congress shortly after the ratification of the Constitution. It created the framework for what later became the lower federal court system the Constitution only created the Supreme Court.
“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
Welcome to two weeks ago!
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
I'm not going to lie, you can post it again in another week and I will probably still love reading the ruling.
aggiehawg said:And where is ACORN today? That judge was wrong and was corrected.Rapier108 said:Remember ACORN?aggiehawg said:Bill of attainder? What is the crime?Rapier108 said:If it called out PP directly, they'll claim it is a bill of attainder, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.SwigAg11 said:
How can they possibly sue over a congressional budget? Equal protection claim if the budget bill specifically called out Planned Parenthood?
They got their funding cut and a federal judge ruled it was a bill of attainder since it was specifically targeting them.
The funding was still cut in the end, but PP is the holy grail for the left so they will find some leftist judge to try to force Congress to give them $$$.
Acorn was reconstituted under USAID, BLM, and Antifa.
As Rapier108 predicted.
Judge looks exactly like El Gallo Blanco expects.
I'm Gipper
BREAKING: A federal judge just blocked the "big beautiful bill's" provision to defund Planned Parenthood. https://t.co/0UQIX7aw8w pic.twitter.com/WTT6N4xADW
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) July 7, 2025
Judge looks exactly like El Gallo Blanco expects.
I'm Gipper
Planned Parenthood sued HHS challenging Big Beautiful Bill's defunding of "non-profit" abortion provides like Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood also seeks a TRO. Will abuse of TROs continue? 1/
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 7, 2025
3/ And there's a rationale reason for that distinction so no Equal Protection violation. I'd still wager the court will grant the TRO.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 7, 2025
5/5 So don't tell Americans that we aren't paying for abortions when we clearly are!
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 7, 2025
Just so we're clear here, this comes in the context of a bill passed by Congress and signed by a president to remove funding from an organization funded by a bill passed by Congress and signed by the president.
— Jeff Blehar is *BOX OFFICE POISON* (@EsotericCD) July 7, 2025
There is no legal justification. A lower judiciary run rampant. https://t.co/zO0Ugowt9H
DO IT!
The House should immediately move to impeach Judge Talwani. She usurped the power of Congress today. She told Congress they could not reverse by legislation a spending program that Congress had previously established.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 8, 2025
The complaint is phrased as if the Trump Administration is…
Quote:
The House should immediately move to impeach Judge Talwani. She usurped the power of Congress today. She told Congress they could not reverse by legislation a spending program that Congress had previously established.
The complaint is phrased as if the Trump Administration is to blame, and this is simply pushback against POTUS overreach.
But this is a Congressional statute.
Her TRO directing that she dictate disbursements from the Treasury, not Congress, has no legal rationale offered -- none.
It is simply a naked power grab by her.
Impeachment by the Judiciary Committee should be fast and simple. Then send it over to the Senate.
Force the Senate Democrats to save her.
Force the Chief Justice to preside over her trial.
Obama judge. Cal Berkeley JD. Typical, this won't hold water for long.
ETA: Redstate has a nice/comical piece on this one this am.
ETA: Redstate has a nice/comical piece on this one this am.
Quote:
Speaking as a layman, this seems patently insane to me. We aren't talking about an executive order where the base-level authority to take an action is being contested. This was passed by Congress and is currently the law of the land. How can a judge order the executive branch to violate a law passed by Congress without finding the law itself legally deficient in some way?
But it's not just non-lawyers like me who are scoffing at this. Those with years of professional legal experience are thoroughly confused as to how this judge managed to arrive at her conclusion.
As noted, the judge did not provide any reasoning for why she decided Planned Parenthood deserved relief in this situation. Typically, a TRO would accompany a memorandum and opinion expressing the belief that the plaintiff has a likely chance to succeed on the merits of a specific argument in later proceedings. That means we can only speculate as to what the logic here is, if any even exists, and there's a non-zero chance none does.
Some have suggested this is about viewpoint discrimination, but that seems ludicrous on its face. If politicians can't get elected by voters and pass laws to defund things they disagree with, then essentially nothing contentious can ever be defunded.
Heck, even some people who hate Donald Trump and support Planned Parenthood think this is crazy.
She needs to be disbarred.
Ellis Wyatt said:
She needs to be disbarred.
I didn't think that mattered for federal judges?
BREAKING: The Supreme Court *allows* the Trump administration to implement large-scale layoffs and reorganization plans across the federal government, despite a pending legal challenge. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissents. #SCOTUShttps://t.co/hJKOidvZlx pic.twitter.com/leH4BWWr1a
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) July 8, 2025
I'm Gipper
Great news.
Moar at the thread.
2/https://t.co/6AZDeHnjia Layman's summary to follow.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 8, 2025
Moar at the thread.
KBJ is such a disgrace to the bench when even the wise Latina is having to correct her.
🚨 OMG: Now a LIBERAL Supreme Court justice is trying to teach Justice Ketanji Jackson how this whole "judicial" thing works...
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 8, 2025
Jackson is the ONLY dissent. Sotomayor has to remind Jackson, for some reason, that the case before them is NOT about what Jackson thought it was.
My… https://t.co/XC1BkhrMs3 pic.twitter.com/FFGFz41Ous
Jackson has a 15 page dissent.Im Gipper said:BREAKING: The Supreme Court *allows* the Trump administration to implement large-scale layoffs and reorganization plans across the federal government, despite a pending legal challenge. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissents. #SCOTUShttps://t.co/hJKOidvZlx pic.twitter.com/leH4BWWr1a
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) July 8, 2025
Sotomayor agrees with Jackson that maybe the plans that are developed could be illegal, but BECAUSE THOSE PLANS ARE NOT BEFORE THE COURT, she concurred with the stay.
Kagan didn't even write anything - so my guess is that she's even leaning less toward KBJ than Sotomayor...
Jackson doesn't actually understand that she is supposed to rule on what has been presented in court, not her view of how the ultimate outcome needs to be...
I think even Kagan is getting sick of her *****..
Jackson is a mouth-breathing moron.Ag with kids said:
Jackson has a 15 page dissent.
Liberals are not constrained by facts.
Man...Ellis Wyatt said:Jackson is a mouth-breathing moron.Ag with kids said:
Jackson has a 15 page dissent.
Liberals are not constrained by facts.
You don't have to insult mouth-breathing morons like that.
She must believe the SCOTUS is like a corporate board of directors and the POTUS takes direction from the Supreme Court. What a dimwit
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,303
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So they've pretty much lost Kagan with the lawfare nonsense and now it looks like Sotomayor may be slipping away as well. Wow.
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
So they've pretty much lost Kagan with the lawfare nonsense and now it looks like Sotomayor may be slipping away as well. Wow.
Don't hold your breath on that. For either.
I'm Gipper
akm91 said:
Not much of a judge or legal scholar either.
Somebody insert, "I'm not a Supreme Court Justice".akm91 said:
Justice Jackson is putting more distance between herself and her colleagues.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 9, 2025
In her dissent today she doubles-down on her abrasive and insulting mischaracterizations about what the Court’s majority are allowing.
Today’s dissent was -again - farther than either Justice Sotomayor…
Too stupid to shut up.
So today the Supreme Court stays and injunction that was put in place by a San Francisco judge many weeks ago, preventing the downsizing of various Government agencies on the basis that the Executive Order issued with those instructions was itself unlawful. The Injunction…
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 8, 2025
And she knows that not all re-organizations have been run through congress, but she just doesn't like that this one isn't being submitted for approval. Derka derka something…