37 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

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.

Under normal circumstances I'd agree.  But when you have left wing organizations filing suit at breakneck speed, with judges issuing a record number of temporary injunctions you have a choice to make as a president.  Continue to do what you promised and what the American people overwhelmingly support, or literally stop everything until these cases slowly grind thorough the courts.  Knowing full well that the cases will be purposefully delayed so as only to ensure the president is unable to do anything for the four years they are in office.  

Or, you can take a risk, ignore the injunctions that don't make sense and wait for the courts to actually rule at which point you comply with the ruling. 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

1 hour ago, 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.  

They are issued when the plaintiff has presented arguments that are likely to prevail.

 

Temp injunctions are court orders.

18 minutes ago, BBE said:

They are issued when the plaintiff has presented arguments that are likely to prevail.

 

Temp injunctions are court orders.

Wrong. They serve the purpose of halting irrevocable harm until a case can be decided.  They are court orders, not court rulings.  Irrevocable harm is at the discretion of the judge and is defined by something that can not be adequately remedied or compensated by any monetary award or damages later. .  

Now I ask, what is the irrevocable harm in sending foreign criminals back to their home country?  Ending a DEI program?  Banning transgender people from the military?  Reviewing government expenditures?  Upon reversal, any of these things could have been reinstated at little to no harm to the interested party.

The temporary injunction process is being weaponized and thus this conversation of what to abide by and what not to is being forced upon the administration. 

 

Lack of due process.

Not following established contract clauses for notification period prior to cancelation. 

Violation of equal protection. 

Appointment clause issues.

All of these actions save the transgender and the violation of the appointments clause are end arounds legal established processes.  

Three of the issues are constitutional issues.

The lesson to be learned is that no one can take shortcuts.

2 minutes ago, BBE said:

The lesson to be learned

Oh you sweet summer child. We found out on November 6th that this country is wholly incapable of learning any lessons.

8 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

They are court orders, not court rulings.

JFC how GD dense are you? Call it what you want, but both are directives by the court that need to be obeyed. 

19 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh you sweet summer child. We found out on November 6th that this country is wholly incapable of learning any lessons.

Don't shift the argument.  Neither party has shown the desire to rein in the executive branch.

So we're just ignoring the part where the judge asked for evidence that all these people were criminals, and the administration couldn't provide it. 

30 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Wrong. They serve the purpose of halting irrevocable harm until a case can be decided.  They are court orders, not court rulings.  Irrevocable harm is at the discretion of the judge and is defined by something that can not be adequately remedied or compensated by any monetary award or damages later. .  

Now I ask, what is the irrevocable harm in sending foreign criminals back to their home country?  Ending a DEI program?  Banning transgender people from the military?  Reviewing government expenditures?  Upon reversal, any of these things could have been reinstated at little to no harm to the interested party.

The temporary injunction process is being weaponized and thus this conversation of what to abide by and what not to is being forced upon the administration. 

 

Totally agree. They won't get it, though.

16 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

JFC how GD dense are you? Call it what you want, but both are directives by the court that need to be obeyed. 

The point is that a temporary injunction is only at the discretion of the judge, and only after a brief, preliminary review of the plaintiff's evidence. Obviously, this leads to concerns around bias.  A decision, or ruling is the terminal point of of a trial (or settlement) the presentation of all the evidence and a precedent based opinion by the judge.  

9 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

So we're just ignoring the part where the judge asked for evidence that all these people were criminals, and the administration couldn't provide it. 

Remember the story of the US/Russia game where the official ran onto the court and demanded more time be added when he had no authority to do so? That's this judge and the JD knows it. They aren't giving up intel when they don't have to. They know they are in the right and that this is going to a higher court where the power will be restored to the EX branch. If they wanted to be ball busters they could ignore the entire thing, but they are playing it out. Just not to the degree this rogue judge wants.

3 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

The point is that a temporary injunction is only at the discretion of the judge, and only after a brief, preliminary review of the plaintiff's evidence. Obviously, this leads to concerns around bias.  A decision, or ruling is the terminal point of of a trial (or settlement) the presentation of all the evidence and a precedent based opinion by the judge.  

Which they are entitled to.  Deporting them unduly limits their due process rights. Hence an injunction.  Instead of going through the process of appeal, we are witnessing angry tweets/social media posts/punditry/calls for impeachment which has resulted in threats to the judges and their families.  None of those things provide any benefit and only make things worse.

4 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Remember the story of the US/Russia game where the official ran onto the court and demanded more time be added when he had no authority to do so? That's this judge and the JD knows it. They aren't giving up intel when they don't have to. They know they are in the right and that this is going to a higher court where the power will be restored to the EX branch. If they wanted to be ball busters they could ignore the entire thing, but they are playing it out. Just not to the degree this rogue judge wants.

So what you are saying is that a court should find for the government without evidence because "trust them" they have it?  Do you realize how remarkably unconstitutional your argument is?

4 minutes ago, BBE said:

So what you are saying is that a court should find for the government without evidence because "trust them" they have it?  Do you realize how remarkably unconstitutional your argument is?

I'm saying what I did yesterday that he's irrelevant, powerless, and overstepping and the JD knows it. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true. This is going to a higher court. We'll see which of us is right.

17 minutes ago, BBE said:

Don't shift the argument.  Neither party has shown the desire to rein in the executive branch.

This is "both sider” BS. MAGA has given Trump more rope than either party ever has. 

2 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

This is "both sider” BS. MAGA has given Trump more rope than either party ever has. 

He's actually correct. That doesn't mean the judiciary isn't grabbing more power now, but you are only seeing it through your TDS glasses. Bush started us down this road with all his EX orders and every one since has pushed the envelope.

11 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I'm saying what I did yesterday that he's irrelevant, powerless, and overstepping and the JD knows it. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true. This is going to a higher court. We'll see which of us is right.

You just said that Justice Department can "trust me bro" to a favorable determination.  Pro-tip: one does not endear oneself to judges by withholding requested evidence/information.  See: OPM, Fani Willis, and so on.

4 minutes ago, BBE said:

You just said that Justice Department can "trust me bro" to a favorable determination.  Pro-tip: one does not endear oneself to judges by withholding requested evidence/information.  See: OPM, Fani Willis, and so on.

No, I said the JD is saying he can F off. They are playing his little game to a degree, but they know he's rogue and it's going to SCOTUS. I'm in a rush, but that should save time going back and forth. Off for a golf lesson. Enjoy.

4 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

He's actually correct. That doesn't mean the judiciary isn't grabbing more power now, but you are only seeing it through your TDS glasses. Bush started us down this road with all his EX orders and every one since has pushed the envelope.

Yes, but they didn’t threaten the courts with impeachment when they were reined in. They didn’t  defy court orders. But you are only seeing it through orange colored glasses. 

Neither Bush is even in the top 10 of EOs issued, so I’m not sure how it started with him. 

Just now, Tnt4philly said:

Yes, but they didn’t threaten the courts with impeachment when they were reined in. They didn’t  defy court orders. But you are only seeing it through orange colored glasses. 

Neither Bush is even in the top 10 of EOs issued, so I’m not sure how it started with him. 

Who cares what he says? That power is with the legislative branch. He can bring it up as much as he wants and if in a magical world of make believe he can convince that many Dems to vote for it then it's the way the Founders intended.

8 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

No, I said the JD is saying he can F off. They are playing his little game to a degree, but they know he's rogue and it's going to SCOTUS. I'm in a rush, but that should save time going back and forth. Off for a golf lesson. Enjoy.

Once again, not a winning strategy.  Telling a court to F off and higher courts permitting it is a terrible precedent.  You keep adding layers of behavior that is in direct violation of every rule of court procedure.

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

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.

This ^. All of this ^!

2 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Under normal circumstances I'd agree.  But when you have left wing organizations filing suit at breakneck speed, with judges issuing a record number of temporary injunctions you have a choice to make as a president.  Continue to do what you promised and what the American people overwhelmingly support, or literally stop everything until these cases slowly grind thorough the courts.  Knowing full well that the cases will be purposefully delayed so as only to ensure the president is unable to do anything for the four years they are in office.  

Or, you can take a risk, ignore the injunctions that don't make sense and wait for the courts to actually rule at which point you comply with the ruling. 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

It doesn’t matter who files.  The process is the process.  My god what is wrong with you people??

1 minute ago, BBE said:

Once again, not a winning strategy.  Telling a court to F off and higher courts permitting it is a terrible precedent.  You keep adding layers of behavior that is in direct violation of every rule of court procedure.

He does not care about court procedure and neither does Trump or MAGA.

From what I've read, Boasberg is very very highly respected by both sides of the aisle and withing the legal world as a super competent and fair judge.  Yet we we are with the entire MAGAsphere calling him "rogue", "activist", "leftist", "marxist", etc. because they don't like one decision that he has taken.

Just now, barho said:

It doesn’t matter who files.  The process is the process.  My god what is wrong with you people??

Don’t call them a cult though.