March 23, 2025Mar 23 5 minutes ago, Procus said: The title of this thread is incorrect. Should be federal judiciary v. Trump. It should actually be renamed Convicted Orange Felon VS the Constitution.
March 23, 2025Mar 23 3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: It should actually be renamed Convicted Orange Felon VS the Constitution. Kind of early in the morning for you to be doing edibles
March 23, 2025Mar 23 Author 40 minutes ago, The Norseman said: n case anyone is counting Another stupid MAGA talking point. You'd think they would embrace the numbers given that Trump's entire angle is to push the boundaries and drain the swamp. Of course the number of injunctions is higher for him. If it wasn't then he wouldn't be trying to do the job he said he was going to do.
March 23, 2025Mar 23 Author 40 minutes ago, Procus said: The title of this thread is incorrect. Should be federal judiciary v. Trump. The battle is waged on both sides. It doesn't read Trump "attacks". Putting Trump first is actually an honor but if you want me to switch it then I can do that.
March 23, 2025Mar 23 14 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Another stupid MAGA talking point. You'd think they would embrace the numbers given that Trump's entire angle is to push the boundaries and drain the swamp. Of course the number of injunctions is higher for him. If it wasn't then he wouldn't be trying to do the job he said he was going to do. Oh yes, of course. The courts are pure as snow and there is no political bias whatsoever on either side. Even you don't believe that nonsense.
March 23, 2025Mar 23 Author 7 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Oh yes, of course. The courts are pure as snow and there is no political bias whatsoever on either side. Even you don't believe that nonsense. Yeah, you understand the argument about high injunction numbers under Trump is silly. Yes, I agree, the courts aren't perfect by any means.
March 23, 2025Mar 23 The courts aren't perfect but there is an appeals process that allows for correction of bad rulings. There's no correcting for stupidity in the executive branch.
March 23, 2025Mar 23 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Have spent plenty of time voicing my displeasure with him too.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 Author I'm listening to the DC Appellate Court hearing and the DOJ attorney is getting hammered on the topic of habeas corpus. The attorney's argumentation is ridiculous. He is basically saying "yes, under AEA, suspects have a right to habeas corpus BUT the govt has no obligation to give notice to the suspect that they are about to be put on a plane and transported to a foreign prison". The judge is crushing that logical fallacy. No way the TRO is removed. A judgement upcoming.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 Author In parallel, the House will be holding hearings next week with the topic being "activist judges" after which they expect to pass a bill eliminating the possibility for a district judge to enjoin the entire country in a decision thru a national injunction.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: In parallel, the House will be holding hearings next week with the topic being "activist judges" after which they expect to pass a bill eliminating the possibility for a district judge to enjoin the entire country in a decision thru a national injunction. I can’t imagine them having the votes to pass anything, but wouldn’t the same courts they are trying to exclude be involved in decide whether or not any law they pass is constitutional?
March 24, 2025Mar 24 Author 26 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: I can’t imagine them having the votes to pass anything, but wouldn’t the same courts they are trying to exclude be involved in decide whether or not any law they pass is constitutional? All the Repubs in the House will fall in line on this one for sure and I expect the Repubs in the Senate to do the same. The courts would then weigh in in due time.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 44 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: All the Repubs in the House will fall in line on this one for sure and I expect the Repubs in the Senate to do the same. The courts would then weigh in in due time. That bill would be a prime filibuster target though. And that is if all of the Republicans stay in line which is not guaranteed on this matter. There should be no way the bill gets 60 votes for cloture.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 Author 3 minutes ago, BBE said: That bill would be a prime filibuster target though. And that is if all of the Republicans stay in line which is not guaranteed on this matter. There should be no way the bill gets 60 votes for cloture. Yeah, that's hopefully the answer
March 25, 2025Mar 25 7 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: I can’t imagine them having the votes to pass anything, but wouldn’t the same courts they are trying to exclude be involved in decide whether or not any law they pass is constitutional? You can be sure that if the law is passed, it will be challenged in court. But Article III of the Constitution vests the power to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts with Congress, so depending upon the wording of any such legislation if enacted, the challenge would likely not be successful. https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/jurisdiction-federal-courts
March 29, 2025Mar 29 Author There at least five EOs now targeting a specific law firm simply because someone associated with the firm did legal work against Trump. Please explain how that is a good thing: @The Norseman @Diehardfan @Procus @The_Omega
March 29, 2025Mar 29 Author Quote "Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a Government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule.” Gerald Ford
April 1, 2025Apr 1 18 hours ago, Mike030270 said: Judges appointed by presidents can stop executive orders by presidents
April 1, 2025Apr 1 Author Kind of off topic but I'll put it here. Today, Jim Jordan took a BIG shot at the Judiciary in a House hearing. It was an obvious attack/threat by the Legislative Branch on the Judicial Branch.
April 3, 2025Apr 3 Spoiler Pretty much. We know the liberals will stop at nothing to destroy the nation when they get back into power. Time to start ignoring the blatantly political rulings.
April 3, 2025Apr 3 1 hour ago, Kz! said: Hide contents Pretty much. We know the liberals will stop at nothing to destroy the nation when they get back into power. Time to start ignoring the blatantly political rulings. What do you think trump would do if one of his appointees or even an elected republican politician vocally opposed him? Say one of them had the opinion that trump was overstepping his presidential powers or disagreed with his tariffs and publicly called him out on it. What would trump do about it?
April 3, 2025Apr 3 On 3/29/2025 at 5:00 AM, DrPhilly said: There at least five EOs now targeting a specific law firm simply because someone associated with the firm did legal work against Trump. Please explain how that is a good thing: @The Norseman @Diehardfan @Procus @The_Omega crickets
Create an account or sign in to comment