3 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Sure, F everyone,  I'm cool with that.

But that should also include all of us voters. We have F'ed ourselves and created this situation.

I'll admit to being as guilty as anyone.  IMO we care more about POTUS than congress and look to the POTUS to make big, sweeping legislative changes.  But we keep voting in morons for congressional positions and thus the POTUS has an impossible task without abusing power.

i agree 100%. it's F'ng sheetshow and we, the voters are to blame. that said, another wrong isnt going to make it right. 

Just now, Tnt4philly said:

As usually, you have no clue what the argument is. No one denies all admins push the limits, the problem is not listening to the courts that rule against them. 

Riiight.  Trump is the only POTUS to push back against the courts.    Give me a break.

These activist judges know what they're doing.  It's merely a speed bump.   Trump is prepared this term and my prediction is that all of these nonsensical injunctions get overturned.  

5 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

You sound like a toddler that's not getting her way. The balance of power has not been disrupted and the judiciary has not been ignored.  You are making procedural arguments that I am disagreeing with.  You are upset that temporary injunctions have been ignored until higher court rulings decide on the issue. You are upset that old laws have been used to try to expedite deportation of violent illegal aliens. 

When court rulings have come down, the administration has abided by them and, I hope, will continue to do so.  But you will not be happy until every temporary injunction is immediately abided by and all progress grinds to a halt.  So no, you are not for deporting the bad guys.  If it was up to you they'd still be here.

All you have to do is look at Roberts statement to know there is an issue in the way the Trump WH has dealt with the federal judiciary.  It is also without doubt given the amount of attention that all sides are putting on this topic.  You can't turn on Fox or read Trump's tweets or watch a Karoline press conference without this topic being front and center.  Of course the liberal outlets are also all over it.  There is clearly a struggle going on.

What I will agree with is that we aren't in a crisis yet and this thread is about discussing the situation as we move toward one OR perhaps find our way to a more settled situation.  I believe we will get to a crisis but that's in the future.

3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

As usually, you have no clue what the argument is. No one denies all admins push the limits, the problem is not listening to the courts that rule against them. 

Temporary injunctions are not rulings, they are temporary court orders designed to delay proceedings until some future date.  To my knowledge the administration has not defied any court rulings. 

7 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

I'll admit to being as guilty as anyone.  IMO we care more about POTUS than congress and look to the POTUS to make big, sweeping legislative changes.  But we keep voting in morons for congressional positions and thus the POTUS has an impossible task without abusing power.

This topic is worth a serious look.  Maybe it is a matter of things moving too quickly these days for a Congress to be effective given the historical Constitutional structure.

3 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Temporary injunctions are not rulings, they are temporary court orders designed to delay proceedings until some future date.  To my knowledge the administration has not defied any court rulings. 

We have an ongoing situation here.  There is an entire slate of decisions that the WH has not yet complied to and of course there are many many more to come as things move forward.  In any case, the WH has complied with a number of decisions after much delay and consternation.

Whether or not the WH defied Boasberg or not is being debated and likely will be in front of SCOTUS at some point.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

All you have to do is look at Roberts statement to know there is an issue in the way the Trump WH has dealt with the federal judiciary.  It is also without doubt given the amount of attention that all sides are putting on this topic.  You can't turn on Fox or read Trump's tweets or watch a Karoline press conference without this topic being front and center.  Of course the liberal outlets are also all over it.  There is clearly a struggle going on.

What I will agree with is that we aren't in a crisis yet and this thread is about discussing the situation as we move toward one OR perhaps find our way to a more settled situation.  I believe we will get to a crisis but that's in the future.

Roberts just rejected Trump's call for impeachment of a judge and he was right to do so.  He said nothing about how the law is being used or how the executive branch is dealing with the judiciary's ridiculous daily, temporary injunction frenzy.

I understand that you desperately want the I told you so moment, but we aren't there yet. 

Keep your pants on. 

14 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Riiight.  Trump is the only POTUS to push back against the courts.    Give me a break.

Again, no one is making this argument, so burn it. 
 

Is Chief Justice Roberts an activist judge? Did you not take his comments seriously? 

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

We have an ongoing situation here.  There is an entire slate of decisions that the WH has not yet complied to and of course there are many many more to come as things move forward.  In any case, the WH has complied with a number of decisions after much delay and consternation.

Whether or not the WH defied Boasberg or not is being debated and likely will be in front of SCOTUS at some point.

Temporary injunctions are not rulings, decisions or judgements.  They are a stay of proceedings intended to slow things down for further review.  It is not the same thing to defy an injunction as it is to defy a decision.  

2 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Roberts just rejected Trump's call for impeachment of a judge and he was right to do so.  He said nothing about how the law is being used or how the executive branch is dealing with the judiciary's ridiculous daily, temporary injunction frenzy.

Roberts said exactly that.  His signal to the WH was "use the appellate process" and stop threatening judges with impeachment.  It couldn't be more clear.

Roberts is a very measured individual.  It is very obvious why he said what he said.

Just now, The Norseman said:

Temporary injunctions are not rulings, decisions or judgements.  They are a stay of proceedings intended to slow things down for further review.  It is not the same thing to defy an injunction as it is to defy a decision.  

Of course it is when that injunction requires one to take an action that one does not take.  Injunctions are also legal events that must be comply with.

On 3/20/2025 at 10:10 AM, DrPhilly said:

Of course it is when that injunction requires one to take an action that one does not take.  Injunctions are also legal events that must be comply with.

And they are being weaponized in an effort to impede progress.  Instead of hearing a case and ruling, judges are wantonly issuing temporary injunctions in an attempt to impede the administration as quickly as possible. And, no doubt, to create avenues for the left to scream about constitutional crisis.

You say all temporary injunctions must be immediately abided by. I say that injunctions have no place in most of these situations and instead these cases should be properly adjudicated. 

The problem, of course, is that adjudication takes time, and it doesn't hurt Trump today.

15 hours ago, Procus said:

No it isn't you dolt.  The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law with regard to dispute brought before them. 

What war are we currently in?

Just to be clear, defying an injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a District Court is the same as defying a final order -- both interlocutory and final orders are court orders that must be followed, and not doing so can lead to being found in contempt. This notion that an injunction can be ignored since it is not a final order is completely wrong and would make all injunctions completely toothless. 

People are found in contempt and can go to jail for violating injunctions and TROs.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Just to be clear, defying an injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a District Court is the same as defying a final order -- both interlocutory and final orders are court orders that must be followed, and not doing so can lead to being found in contempt. This notion that an injunction can be ignored since it is not a final order is completely wrong and would make all injunctions completely toothless. 

People are found in contempt and can go to jail for violating injunctions and TROs.

Pretty simple really

JFC -- the entire point of an injunction is to freeze things in place and avoid any party suffering irreparable harm before the court can make a fully informed and briefed decision. These issues can't be adjudicated in minutes without trampling on the due process rights of both sides. 

We have laws and processes on how these things need to be done. If the administration doesn't like the law, then they should work to change it. But you can't simply ignore the law because you want to -- and the precedent being set here will be used by a liberal President in the future. 

If your position is that the executive branch should be able to do as it pleases, because it won an election, then congratulations -- you support a tyranny of the majority and the rule of an autocrat. You support everything this country was founded to resist. It doesn't matter if Trump got 90% of the vote, the law still needs to be followed in a Republic.

6 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

You say all temporary injunctions must be immediately abided by. I say that injunctions have no place in most of these situations and instead these cases should be properly adjudicated.

So you agree that Trump should simply defy/ignore the injunctions, correct?

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Just to be clear, defying an injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a District Court is the same as defying a final order -- both interlocutory and final orders are court orders that must be followed, and not doing so can lead to being found in contempt. This notion that an injunction can be ignored since it is not a final order is completely wrong and would make all injunctions completely toothless. 

People are found in contempt and can go to jail for violating injunctions and TROs.

The only problem with that is, Trump is immune to any and all crimes. There's no doubt this is an official act. So our system has been set up that it is within the law for him to defy the courts. The immunity decision might go down as one of the biggest blunders by a SC ever. 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It doesn't matter if Trump got 90% of the vote, the law still needs to be followed in a Republic.

obviously from this statement, you're a commie who hates, merika. 

Just now, Gannan said:

The only problem with that is, Trump is immune to any and all crimes. There's no doubt this is an official act. So our system has been set up that it is within the law for him to defy the courts. The immunity decision might go down as one of the biggest blunders by a SC ever. 

I posted that earlier -- there is no real mechanism to hold Trump accountable other than impeachment, which is DOA in this Congress. You could see his lawyers slapped with sanctions, and maybe they go after lower level guys, but Trump can just pardon them. Unfortunately, our system was designed with a basic assumption that those in power would have a basic level of decency, but that ship has sailed.

And not to be all @DrPhilly, but I am dealing with this BS from a municipal government right now that thinks it doesn't have to abide by court orders. Luckily, they don't have immunity so we can ask for contempt and sanctions. But you don't get to simply ignore courts because you disagree with them.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

If your position is that the executive branch should be able to do as it pleases, because it won an election, then congratulations -- you support a tyranny of the majority and the rule of an autocrat. You support everything this country was founded to resist. It doesn't matter if Trump got 90% of the vote, the law still needs to be followed in a Republic.

The entire MAGA machine is taking this very position and doing it loudly all over the place.  Whether it is Trump, Vance, Miller, Bannon, Musk, Fox News, or Leavitt.  They are all saying the same thing which is basically "Trump won in a landslide" and "he is doing what the people voted him to do so get out of the way".

Trump ignores Federal Law because he believes the Law doesn't apply to him. So does Maga.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The entire MAGA machine is taking this very position and doing it loudly all over the place.  Whether it is Trump, Vance, Miller, Bannon, Musk, Fox News, or Leavitt.  They are all saying the same thing which is basically "Trump won in a landslide" and "he is doing what the people voted him to do so get out of the way".

The sad part is that people who know better, like that clown Scott Jennings on CNN, are saying this despite knowing it runs counter to the entire framework of our system. Trump is simply a moron with no fundamental understanding of our government. It's the lackeys that support him -- Rubio, Paul, Cruz, etc. -- who know better that are the ones paving the road to hell.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The sad part is that people who know better, like that clown Scott Jennings on CNN, are saying this despite knowing it runs counter to the entire framework of our system. Trump is simply a moron with no fundamental understanding of our government. It's the lackeys that support him -- Rubio, Paul, Cruz, etc. -- who know better that are the ones paving the road to hell.

Agreed.  The one that I think is the most pathetic is Rubio.  Cruz has always been a piece of sheet but Rubio used to have integrity.