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

202,410 Views | 2338 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by flown-the-coop
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:40a, 8/22/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Hawg, the problem is SCOTUS has previously relied on the lower court judges to actually care about the reputation of the federal judiciary writ large. The activists foisted on us by Obama, Biden, and Durbin don't give a flip about reputation - they are about the religion of the left. There is no method for SCOTUS to deliver accountability.

That is indeed a major flaw in the current system. Only path to get rid of very bad judges is to impeach and remove them through the House and Senate. Those bodies are too divided to undertake that.

I suppose SCOTUS could direct that judges ignoring their precedents be removed from a case, or all cases involving the Trump administration?

These judges have shown they are corrupt to the core. If they lack any since of morality and justice in their dispositioning of our laws, their primary role, then I suspect they make other poor moral judgments in life.

Bondi should launch a strike force for ensuring judicial integrity. Two prongs... make the judges disclose much much much more information on the professional and personal dealings then prosecute any and all violations of law, including forgetting to use proper punctuation. Then publish judicial scorecards and out these ****ers for their biased.

Burn it all down.
Reply Quote
5
Prosperdick
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:54p, 8/22/25
AG
At this point I'd almost recommend hiring PI's to dig up whatever dirt they can find on them (I'm sure there is a TON) and blackmail them into recusing...hell, it's been in the Dem playbook for years, why not try it.
Reply Quote
5
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
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 • 1:00p, 8/22/25
AG
flown-the-coop said:
aggiehawg said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Hawg, the problem is SCOTUS has previously relied on the lower court judges to actually care about the reputation of the federal judiciary writ large. The activists foisted on us by Obama, Biden, and Durbin don't give a flip about reputation - they are about the religion of the left. There is no method for SCOTUS to deliver accountability.

That is indeed a major flaw in the current system. Only path to get rid of very bad judges is to impeach and remove them through the House and Senate. Those bodies are too divided to undertake that.

I suppose SCOTUS could direct that judges ignoring their precedents be removed from a case, or all cases involving the Trump administration?

These judges have shown they are corrupt to the core. If they lack any since of morality and justice in their dispositioning of our laws, their primary role, then I suspect they make other poor moral judgments in life.

Bondi should launch a strike force for ensuring judicial integrity. Two prongs... make the judges disclose much much much more information on the professional and personal dealings then prosecute any and all violations of law, including forgetting to use proper punctuation. Then publish judicial scorecards and out these ****ers for their biased.

Burn it all down.

Honest question and I don't know the answer. Could SCOTUS hold lower courts in contempt for repeatedly refusing to apply recent SCOTUS precedents to their rulings?
Reply Quote
3
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 2:26p, 8/22/25
AG
txags92 said:
flown-the-coop said:
aggiehawg said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Hawg, the problem is SCOTUS has previously relied on the lower court judges to actually care about the reputation of the federal judiciary writ large. The activists foisted on us by Obama, Biden, and Durbin don't give a flip about reputation - they are about the religion of the left. There is no method for SCOTUS to deliver accountability.

That is indeed a major flaw in the current system. Only path to get rid of very bad judges is to impeach and remove them through the House and Senate. Those bodies are too divided to undertake that.

I suppose SCOTUS could direct that judges ignoring their precedents be removed from a case, or all cases involving the Trump administration?

These judges have shown they are corrupt to the core. If they lack any since of morality and justice in their dispositioning of our laws, their primary role, then I suspect they make other poor moral judgments in life.

Bondi should launch a strike force for ensuring judicial integrity. Two prongs... make the judges disclose much much much more information on the professional and personal dealings then prosecute any and all violations of law, including forgetting to use proper punctuation. Then publish judicial scorecards and out these ****ers for their biased.

Burn it all down.

Honest question and I don't know the answer. Could SCOTUS hold lower courts in contempt for repeatedly refusing to apply recent SCOTUS precedents to their rulings?

Since that is more on the procedural side of things, I am not as familiar. Someone like Hawg may know.

But conceptually I think there is something to work out when the courts no longer care about the law and care about their own power and how they can wield that power for political favoritism.

The courts infamously lack an true enforcement mechanism. If the courts no longer feel obligated to follow the law or higher courts, then the result is for the executive to simply ignore them. I think we are actually getting closer to that.

At some point Trump to Roberts will be "get your house in order now or we can just ignore you guys". Of course, Roberts really holds no special powers outside of setting meeting agendas (which other justices can add to) and ceremonial roles like impeachment trial.

What Roberts is doing at the expense of his fellow justices is permanently weakening the judicial branch to the point that it went from the branch of deference and civility amongst the 3 to the more politicized and feckless than congress.
Reply Quote
4
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:26p, 8/22/25
AG

'Lengthy and pointless' are good terms for KBJ's dissents.
Reply Quote
7
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 2:29p, 8/22/25
AG
nortex97 said:

'Lengthy and pointless' are good terms for KBJ's dissents.

FIFY
Reply Quote
4
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
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 • 7:02p, 8/22/25
AG
flown-the-coop said:
txags92 said:
flown-the-coop said:
aggiehawg said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Hawg, the problem is SCOTUS has previously relied on the lower court judges to actually care about the reputation of the federal judiciary writ large. The activists foisted on us by Obama, Biden, and Durbin don't give a flip about reputation - they are about the religion of the left. There is no method for SCOTUS to deliver accountability.

That is indeed a major flaw in the current system. Only path to get rid of very bad judges is to impeach and remove them through the House and Senate. Those bodies are too divided to undertake that.

I suppose SCOTUS could direct that judges ignoring their precedents be removed from a case, or all cases involving the Trump administration?

These judges have shown they are corrupt to the core. If they lack any since of morality and justice in their dispositioning of our laws, their primary role, then I suspect they make other poor moral judgments in life.

Bondi should launch a strike force for ensuring judicial integrity. Two prongs... make the judges disclose much much much more information on the professional and personal dealings then prosecute any and all violations of law, including forgetting to use proper punctuation. Then publish judicial scorecards and out these ****ers for their biased.

Burn it all down.

Honest question and I don't know the answer. Could SCOTUS hold lower courts in contempt for repeatedly refusing to apply recent SCOTUS precedents to their rulings?

Since that is more on the procedural side of things, I am not as familiar. Someone like Hawg may know.

But conceptually I think there is something to work out when the courts no longer care about the law and care about their own power and how they can wield that power for political favoritism.

The courts infamously lack an true enforcement mechanism. If the courts no longer feel obligated to follow the law or higher courts, then the result is for the executive to simply ignore them. I think we are actually getting closer to that.

At some point Trump to Roberts will be "get your house in order now or we can just ignore you guys". Of course, Roberts really holds no special powers outside of setting meeting agendas (which other justices can add to) and ceremonial roles like impeachment trial.

What Roberts is doing at the expense of his fellow justices is permanently weakening the judicial branch to the point that it went from the branch of deference and civility amongst the 3 to the more politicized and feckless than congress.

I think Jackson is the one weakening the court by putting out these silly and feckless opinions.
Pro College Station Convention Center
Reply Quote
4
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 9:43p, 8/22/25
AG
Roberts needs a law abiding drone strike. That is all.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 11:53p, 8/22/25
AG
nortex97 said:

'Lengthy and pointless' are good terms for KBJ's dissents.

Maybe her goal is to delay the decision...
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Logos Stick
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 • 12:59p, 8/23/25
Does that mean they'll just issue the opinion without waiting for her vote or dissent when they have the numbers?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Logos Stick • 1:03p, 8/23/25
AG
Logos Stick said:
Does that mean they'll just issue the opinion without waiting for her vote or dissent when they have the numbers?

Out of collegiality, they usually wait for all dissents, concurring opinions to be finished before release.

But that does not prevent the Chief Justice giving a deadline for that.
Reply Quote
5
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:14p, 8/23/25
Reply Quote
10
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:24p, 8/23/25


Reminder that the E Jean Caroll case is sitting on appeal at the 2nd Circuit.

Oral arguments to a panel were held on June 24, 2025, but no ruling has been issued yet.

Trump has posted a $91.6 million bond on this scam of a case thats sitting at 4.76% interest.

The classified documents case / Maralago raid which we now know had no basis in law or fact has to be the most egregious abuse of all time, This ginned up state-court rape case gotta be a close second.
Reply Quote
11
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
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 • 3:55p, 8/23/25
AG
It's not even a rape case - though that's how the left has touted it. It's a defamation case - and still a complete joke.
Reply Quote
12
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 4:21p, 8/23/25
AG
Evidently publicly denying you raped someone is punishable if become POTUS, once lives in NYC, and have some dumb hoe named Big Tish coming after you.
Reply Quote
4
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:44a, 8/25/25
Thread...

Reply Quote
10
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 11:59a, 8/25/25
AG
will25u said:
Thread...


They are the Supreme Court for a reason.
Pro College Station Convention Center
Reply Quote
8
We fixed the keg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 12:00p, 8/25/25
AG
Time for the Supreme Court to adopt the argument that worked in my, and many other's, houses growing up.

"Because we said so!"

Did wonders shutting down debate and any so-called confusion.
Reply Quote
7
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 12:27p, 8/25/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
Logos Stick said:
Does that mean they'll just issue the opinion without waiting for her vote or dissent when they have the numbers?

Out of collegiality, they usually wait for all dissents, concurring opinions to be finished before release.

But that does not prevent the Chief Justice giving a deadline for that.

They can also issue a ruling with opinion to follow if they really need to, no? If Jackson drags her feet long enough and makes it a big enough issue?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 12:32p, 8/25/25
AG
BusterAg said:
aggiehawg said:
Logos Stick said:
Does that mean they'll just issue the opinion without waiting for her vote or dissent when they have the numbers?

Out of collegiality, they usually wait for all dissents, concurring opinions to be finished before release.

But that does not prevent the Chief Justice giving a deadline for that.

They can also issue a ruling with opinion to follow if they really need to, no? If Jackson drags her feet long enough and makes it a big enough issue?

Yes but that's usually on the emergency docket, not the regular term.
Reply Quote
4
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 8/25/25
Reply Quote
12
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:44p, 8/25/25
AG
will25u said:

Right on, right on as Rush used to say.
Pro College Station Convention Center
Reply Quote
7
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:42a, 8/26/25
Anyone know anything about this Judge?


I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:49a, 8/26/25
Not necessarily case v. Trump, but still seems pertinent and interesting.

Judges rule that the law requiring discarding of votes with incorrect/missing dates on return envelopes is unconstitutional.

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 10:00a, 8/26/25
AG
The court provided for the solution in its ruling.

They can only be counted if received on or prior to Election Day.

If you rule the date / postmark or wrong or missing, then the only way you can ensure integrity is to discard anything received after Election Day.

Dems will continue to eat their own with their reliance on the disregard of common sense regarding their policy positions.
Reply Quote
5
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 • 10:16a, 8/26/25
I don't know about this judge in particular, but Mark Levin often reminds that republican presidents have to sometimes nominate democrat judges as compromise candidates, particularly in liberal states.

The Washington State federal judge who was a "Reagan appointee" who was giving trouble in the spring was the reason he pointed that out. Being a "Trump judge" does not necessarily even mean he is a republican or moderate.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 10:41a, 8/26/25
AG
Possibly due to the now infamous "blue slip"?

Trump admin is now challenging the constitutionality of the blue slip since Grassley is clinging to his woobie over Habba and New Jersey.
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
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 • 10:44a, 8/26/25
flown-the-coop said:
Possibly due to the now infamous "blue slip"?

Trump admin is now challenging the constitutionality of the blue slip since Grassley is clinging to his woobie over Habba and New Jersey.

Unfortunately the blue slip is 100% a political construct. Doubtful any court will touch it as it is also internal to another branch of government.

And since it helps the Democrats currently, the activist judges won't touch it.
Reply Quote
5
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 • 10:53a, 8/26/25
Quote:
Unfortunately the blue slip is 100% a political construct. Doubtful any court will touch it as it is also internal to another branch of government.

And since it helps the Democrats currently, the activist judges won't touch it.

And as with everything in government, democrats abuse it and use it to obstruct. Republicans don't do that.
Reply Quote
3
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 10:55a, 8/26/25
AG
will25u said:
flown-the-coop said:
Possibly due to the now infamous "blue slip"?

Trump admin is now challenging the constitutionality of the blue slip since Grassley is clinging to his woobie over Habba and New Jersey.

Unfortunately the blue slip is 100% a political construct. Doubtful any court will touch it as it is also internal to another branch of government.

And since it helps the Democrats currently, the activist judges won't touch it.

Maybe. But it seems an overstep of "advice and consent" by granting the senators a veto authority over nominations. Seems like the only proper venue would be SCOTUS.
Reply Quote
1
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 flown-the-coop • 10:58a, 8/26/25
It is a "tradition," like republicans allowing democrats to share committee powers in Texas. A tradition that has only resulted in us moving leftward. Stop playing nice.
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
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 • 10:58a, 8/26/25
flown-the-coop said:
will25u said:
flown-the-coop said:
Possibly due to the now infamous "blue slip"?

Trump admin is now challenging the constitutionality of the blue slip since Grassley is clinging to his woobie over Habba and New Jersey.

Unfortunately the blue slip is 100% a political construct. Doubtful any court will touch it as it is also internal to another branch of government.

And since it helps the Democrats currently, the activist judges won't touch it.

Maybe. But it seems an overstep of "advice and consent" by granting the senators a veto authority over nominations. Seems like the only proper venue would be SCOTUS.

It is an arbitrary rule in the Senate. They can take it out, or probably even disregard if they so choose.
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
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 • 11:03a, 8/26/25
AG
Quote:
It is an arbitrary rule in the Senate. They can take it out, or probably even disregard if they so choose.

More like this. IIRC, there was not a blue slip against Merrick Garland but McConnell refused to bring his SCOTUS nomination for a vote anyway.
Reply Quote
3
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:03a, 8/26/25
AG
Oh I get it that its just a rule internally. But their rules cannot violate the Constitution as far as I know.

For instance, the Senate cannot have a rule that says no Wypeepo can be confirmed until minorities reach 75% of the confirmations.

Here they have a rule that overrules POTUS and not by a majority vote in Senate, but by simple "veto".

The correct, proper thing would be for Grassley and friends to end the process.
Reply Quote
1
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:06a, 8/26/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
It is an arbitrary rule in the Senate. They can take it out, or probably even disregard if they so choose.

More like this. IIRC, there was not a blue slip against Merrick Garland but McConnell refused to bring his SCOTUS nomination for a vote anyway.

But that is a decision by the Senate Leader (at the time) who was elected by his peers to serve in that role and properly reflects the will of the people.

Its hard to argue Booker and the other dude are reflecting the will of the people, hell probably not even the will of their constituents.

On a broader note, the Dems have shown they care little and have no respect for our norms, procedures, gentlemanly agreements. As McConnel did with Garland then flipped for ACB, Rs need to play tough.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.