Posted March 19Mar 19 Time to carve out a separate thread for this topic as it is relevant and not going away. There is a noon deadline today (less than one hour) for the DOJ to provide answers to five questions to Judge Boasberg related to the deportation of 200+ immigrants to El Salvador over the weekend. This is the back and forth stuff where Roberts has weighed in scolding Trump. Naturally Bondi and the DOJ are trying to squash it. Quote "The pending questions are grave encroachments on core aspects of absolute and unreviewable Executive Branch authority relating to national security, foreign relations, and foreign policy,” the DOJ told Judge James Boasberg in a filing Wednesday morning. Quote "Continuing to beat a dead horse solely for the sake of prying from the Government legally immaterial facts and wholly within a sphere of core functions of the Executive Branch is both purposeless and frustrating to the consideration of the actual legal issues at stake in this case,” the DOJ wrote in its emergency request. Stay tuned...
March 19Mar 19 22 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Look what crawled out of the gutter I don't go on benders very often, but when I do...I go big.
March 19Mar 19 Author 4 minutes ago, The Norseman said: I don't go on benders very often, but when I do...I go big. Yeah, well I suppose you are in the camp that says "Trump doesn't have to abide to court rulings".
March 19Mar 19 Author 9 minutes ago, Gannan said: At the end of the day, Trump will do what he wants. This is what we signed on for. How long until he and the DOJ just completely ignore the judges?
March 19Mar 19 5 hours ago, DrPhilly said: Yeah, well I suppose you are in the camp that says "Trump doesn't have to abide to court rulings". Actually, I'm in the camp that says unelected judges issuing injunctions for political purposes should not circumvent the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support the deportation of foreign criminals. Biden whitewashed every single EO that Trump put in place regarding the border which lead to a massive increase in illegal crossings. These people are here because of Democrats and their insufferable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. A syndrome that convinces them that they must take the opposite position of anything Trump or his administration does. TDS got Democrats run out of office and now has them at their lowest approval rating in history. They are so blinded by their hatred that they can't even see that they are being baited to take the wrong side of every single 80/20 issue just to demonstrate to the American public how poisoned their minds have become. Now, they want to bastardize the legal system using appointed judges to try to inhibit any progress of their opposition. To pretend like this is anything other than political theater, leveraging our legal system is a waste of my time and yours. I'm not engaging in this nonsense until Trump defies a supreme court order. Wake me up when that happens. Until then, you can pretend with all your friends that temporary injunctions like this have merit and should be abided by. Be my guest.
March 19Mar 19 Author 24 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Actually, I'm in the camp that says unelected judges issuing injunctions for political purposes should not circumvent the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support the deportation of foreign criminals. Me too BUT the WH must follow proper legal procedures. Process is vital including the proper implementation of due process. 24 minutes ago, The Norseman said: I'm not engaging in this nonsense until Trump defies a supreme court order. Wake me up when that happens. Until then, you can pretend with all your friends that nonsense injunctions like this have merit and should be abided by. Be my guest. Just what I thought. You are in that camp that doesn't think Trump should abide to federal judge rulings. I, like Justice Roberts, believe that Trump should abide to all official rulings made in federal courts and use the existing tools available to him to appeal decisions he doesn't like.
March 19Mar 19 Author Boasberg pushed the deadline by one day to give the DOJ some more time to consider their options. He also took the chance to wack them a bit by referring to Justice Roberts statement. Quote "As the Supreme Court has made crystal clear, the proper recourse for a party subject to an injunction it believes is legally flawed — and is indeed later shown to be so flawed — is appellate review, not disobedience,” the judge said.
March 19Mar 19 Bots just don't understand that you can't impeach a judge for a ruling you don't agree with. As much experience as the orange clown has had with court cases, you would think he knows this, but no, he will just continue to say the wrong thing and his followers will believe it. He is wrong here, and I have no problem with Roberts making a public reminder. He and all his minions still won't listen because he is the worst human being on the planet. It won't stop until he stops breathing. Needless to say, hope you all are buckled up.
March 19Mar 19 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Actually, I'm in the camp that says unelected judges issuing injunctions for political purposes should not circumvent the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support the deportation of foreign criminals. No you aren't. If you were, you'd have to also say Biden could have ignored the courts and forgiven student loans. You are in the camp that says, if a judge is blocking a democratic president its ok. If a judge is blocking Trump, its not ok. Just like every other Trumpbot.
March 19Mar 19 Author 36 minutes ago, DiPros said: you would think he knows this, but no Oh he knows it full and well. This is like "grab 'em by the poosie" in that he just does it because he can and he is going to get away with it because he holds all the cards now. That is far worse.
March 19Mar 19 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Actually, I'm in the camp that says unelected judges issuing injunctions for political purposes should not circumvent the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support the deportation of foreign criminals. Biden whitewashed every single EO that Trump put in place regarding the border which lead to a massive increase in illegal crossings. These people are here because of Democrats and their insufferable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. A syndrome that convinces them that they must take the opposite position of anything Trump or his administration does. TDS got Democrats run out of office and now has them at their lowest approval rating in history. They are so blinded by their hatred that they can't even see that they are being baited to take the wrong side of every single 80/20 issue just to demonstrate to the American public how poisoned their minds have become. Now, they want to bastardize the legal system using appointed judges to try to inhibit any progress of their opposition. To pretend like this is anything other than political theater, leveraging our legal system is a waste of my time and yours. I'm not engaging in this nonsense until Trump defies a supreme court order. Wake me up when that happens. Until then, you can pretend with all your friends that nonsense injunctions like this have merit and should be abided by. Be my guest. Wow...are you aware that pretty much all but one or two injunctions are based on the attempt to us an EO to circumvent processes required by law? These are not activist judges. If there is such a mandate, pass laws to change the processes. But, that wouldn't be fast enough because there are no guarantees that the majorities will exist in two years.
March 19Mar 19 Author 3 minutes ago, BBE said: Wow...are you aware that pretty much all but one or two injunctions are based on the attempt to us an EO to circumvent processes required by law? These are not activist judges. If there is such a mandate, pass laws to change the processes. But, that wouldn't be fast enough because there are no guarantees that the majorities will exist in two years. The "rogue activist judges" talking point is all over MAGA and I mean everywhere. All the pro-MAGA social media political types, Fox News, right wing media, tweets from elected GOP officials including several by Trump himself, answers to questions from the press, etc. etc. This is a coordinated attempt to add power to the executive branch at the expense of the judiciary branch. Probably one of their top agenda items at this point. The likes of Norseman, Procus, Diehard, etc. are just parroting that talking point in here and they really don't care one iota about whether something is legal or not. After all, Trump is saving the country and according to him one doesn't break any laws no matter what one does if one is saving the country.
March 19Mar 19 4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: The "rogue activist judges" talking point is all over MAGA and I mean everywhere. All the pro-MAGA social media political types, Fox News, right wing media, tweets from elected GOP officials including several by Trump himself, answers to questions from the press, etc. etc. This is a coordinated attempt to add power to the executive branch at the expense of the judiciary branch. Probably one of their top agenda items at this point. The likes of Norseman, Procus, Diehard, etc. are just parroting that talking point in here and they really don't care one iota about whether something is legal or not. After all, Trump is saving the country and according to him one doesn't break any laws no matter what one does if one is saving the country. And that is the problem. Laws should always trump EO's. If they followed the processes then the majority of injunctions should not exist.
March 19Mar 19 10 minutes ago, BBE said: And that is the problem. Laws should always trump EO's. If they followed the processes then the majority of injunctions should not exist. That's actually a loaded statement. How to you define what a "law" is? Is the law you're referring to an enacted bill of Congress signed into law by the president? Is it the US Constitution? Or is it an EO?
March 19Mar 19 1 hour ago, Procus said: That's actually a loaded statement. How to you define what a "law" is? Is the law you're referring to an enacted bill of Congress signed into law by the president? Is it the US Constitution? Or is it an EO?
March 19Mar 19 Well, it seems as though SCOTUS has already ruled on this after WWII. That judge can't review it. I'm sure they will try to say we aren't at war. Well, they have literally invaded our country. He designated the gang as terrorists, so they would be grasping at straws. "or predatory incursion" Quote Watkins (1948) In Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), the U.S. Supreme Court turned down an appeal by an individual whom the government had classified as an "alien enemy” under the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 and had decided to deport back to Germany. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/ludecke-v-watkins-1948/ Bottom line is that judge and any other DC judge who tries to question him throwing members of that gang out of the country can be ignored.
March 19Mar 19 3 hours ago, Gannan said: No you aren't. If you were, you'd have to also say Biden could have ignored the courts and forgiven student loans. You are in the camp that says, if a judge is blocking a democratic president its ok. If a judge is blocking Trump, its not ok. Just like every other Trumpbot. Ridiculous comparison. Biden did continue to forgive student loans even after the supreme court ruled against him. That wasn't a temporary injunction from some circuit court judge, it was a supreme court ruling. Not to mention that public opinion on student loan forgiveness was heavily slated against Biden. Almost everything about this case is different.
March 19Mar 19 3 hours ago, DrPhilly said: The "rogue activist judges" talking point is all over MAGA and I mean everywhere. All the pro-MAGA social media political types, Fox News, right wing media, tweets from elected GOP officials including several by Trump himself, answers to questions from the press, etc. etc. This is a coordinated attempt to add power to the executive branch at the expense of the judiciary branch. Probably one of their top agenda items at this point. The likes of Norseman, Procus, Diehard, etc. are just parroting that talking point in here and they really don't care one iota about whether something is legal or not. After all, Trump is saving the country and according to him one doesn't break any laws no matter what one does if one is saving the country. All you have to do is look at who is suing to begin with. This one was was the ACLU - one of the most progressive organizations in the United States. I would question why they are battling for the rights of non-US citizens, but we already know the answer....because Trump. Look at who is brining the other cases, City of San Francisco, Counties in California, New Hampshire Indonesian Community, Pacific islander's heritage group. It's simply lawfare being funded by left wing dark money intended only to impede progress. They bring suit, hope for a sympathetic judge and call it a win if they get a temporary injunction. Very few of these judges are actually ruling on anything, they are just throwing up temporary injunctions as quickly as they can. The system has been corrupted and therefore must be decided by the higher courts.
March 19Mar 19 3 hours ago, DrPhilly said: The "rogue activist judges" talking point is all over MAGA and I mean everywhere. All the pro-MAGA social media political types, Fox News, right wing media, tweets from elected GOP officials including several by Trump himself, answers to questions from the press, etc. etc. This is a coordinated attempt to add power to the executive branch at the expense of the judiciary branch. Probably one of their top agenda items at this point. The likes of Norseman, Procus, Diehard, etc. are just parroting that talking point in here and they really don't care one iota about whether something is legal or not. After all, Trump is saving the country and according to him one doesn't break any laws no matter what one does if one is saving the country. Hilarious hypocrisy from the guy who's been on these boards for a month parroting leftists talking points around a "constitutional crisis"
March 19Mar 19 1 hour ago, vikas83 said: Here's something more up your alley and your level of understanding. Quick, without peeking on google - what is common law?
Create an account or sign in to comment