Trump Ignores the Courts

#1,201
#1,201
lawgator1 said:
Not the administration's decision. They are bound by law to follow the order and appeal.

No matter how much you post to undermine his authority, no matter how much you argue the judge was wrong, you just keep pointlessly dodging the fundamental point.
Click to expand...
Yes. The fundamental point is that there was a court order.

I asked you a philosophical question about the fundamental point the other day.

Should District court judges have the power to issue national injunctions?

In my first attempt to ask I included Elena Kagan’s thoughts on the topic from ‘22.

I’m interested in yours.
 
#1,202
#1,202
lawgator1 said:
Not the administration's decision. They are bound by law to follow the order and appeal.

No matter how much you post to undermine his authority, no matter how much you argue the judge was wrong, you just keep pointlessly dodging the fundamental point.
Click to expand...
Just curious, if a judge had ruled in 2021 that Biden had to halt the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan , what would Biden’s response have been and why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush, InVOLuntary and LSU-SIU
#1,203
#1,203
OrangeTsar said:
Just curious, if a judge had ruled in 2021 that Biden had to halt the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan , what would Biden’s response have been and why?
Click to expand...

I don't normally like to get in to this, "what ifs". What happens if one district court orders a withdraw, and another district court orders them to stay?

The problem with this is they want to micromanage but they're not doing any managing, only selective managing without any knowledge, information or ability to run the situation. If they want to run the executive branch at some point they need to run it all.
 
#1,204
#1,204
lawgator1 said:
Not the administration's decision. They are bound by law to follow the order and appeal.

No matter how much you post to undermine his authority, no matter how much you argue the judge was wrong, you just keep pointlessly dodging the fundamental point.
Click to expand...

That simply is not the case, they have a duty under the Constitution to perform certain duties regardless of the judicial branch. Also, the subject of national injunctions really hasn't been adjudicated at a high level. Once you get on certain subjects its about the branches of government working together to form a more perfect union.

Its best this disappears for all involved, imo.

The whole national injunction thing needs to addressed by the Supreme Court andor Congress, or there really is no country at some point.
 
Last edited:
#1,205
#1,205
LSU-SIU said:
That simply is not the case, they have a duty under the Constitution to perform certain duties regardless of the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this please? Are you suggesting that the Constitution stipulates somewhere that the law doesn't have to be followed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#1,206
#1,206
Septic said:
Can you elaborate on this please? Are you suggesting that the Constitution stipulates somewhere that the law doesn't have to be followed?
Click to expand...

The Constitution gives each branch specific powers, it would be like saying the President signs an executive order that the judicial courts can't hear cases against the government. The judicial court would have a duty to ignore such an order. The judicial court orders Congress not to pass laws... same thing.

One branch is not bound to cede their Constitutional duty, although when things get to this level... its about branches working together.

Now we have 600+ Presidents, who have no idea how to run their own court let alone management of large government agencies on a daily basis.

If the Civil War happened today, the U.S. would fall in a matter of days if the executive branch doesn't take the lead. Tough choices... no good choice but tough. In this case, the President has not tried to suspend Habeas Corpus.
 
Last edited:
#1,207
#1,207
LSU-SIU said:
The Constitution gives each branch specific powers, it would be like saying the President signs an executive order that the judicial courts can't hear cases against the government. The judicial court would have a duty to ignore such an order. The judicial court orders Congress not to pass laws... same thing.

One branch is not bound to cede their Constitutional duty, although when things get to this level... its about branches working together.

Now we have 600+ Presidents, who have no idea how to run their own court let alone management of large government agencies on a daily basis.

If the Civil War happened today, the U.S. would fall in a matter of days if the executive branch doesn't take the lead. Tough choices... no good choice but tough. In this case, the President has not tried to suspend Habeas Corpus.
Click to expand...

Presidential executive orders can't pre-empt federal law. It can't be ignored. You seemed to be hedging that the POTUS didn't have to pay attention to a judicial ruling. It's that check and balance that make all of this work. If one does not like the ruling, appellate courts are there for just that sort of backstop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#1,208
#1,208
Septic said:
Presidential executive orders can't pre-empt federal law. It can't be ignored. You seemed to be hedging that the POTUS didn't have to pay attention to a judicial ruling. It's that check and balance that make all of this work. If one does not like the ruling, appellate courts are there for just that sort of backstop.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Correct and the judicial branch can't void powers given in the U.S. Constitution to the executive branch... its exactly the same thing.

If this judge issues an order saying the executive branch should launch all nuclear weapons at China, than the executive branch should immediately launch the attack? That is not a judicial question.

The branches should be working together and all of them should want this to disappear right now.
 
Last edited:
#1,209
#1,209
LOL. This radical left-wing activist judge feelings got hurt bc criminal illegals not notified. Democrats pay these deranged lunatics right out of brainwashed colleges nowdays.

 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,210
#1,210
lawgator1 said:
This is wrong at so many levels. To be brief:



The administration doesn't get to simply ignore federal court orders because judges who rule against them are deemed by the administration to be "activist judges." A Dem administration could decide not to follow a federal court order from a right-leaning judge and you'd lose your sh!t.



I accept your representations and that these folks needed to go.

That's not the point.

The point is that the administration does not waive a magic wand and declare itself the arbiter of these issues. That is for the courts. And when you don't like the ruling, appeal. Don't ignore it.




This really is not complicated.
Click to expand...
So can a traffic court judge in Brevard county make a ruling that affects all of Florida traffic laws?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and walkenvol
#1,211
#1,211
SpaceCoastVol said:
So can a traffic court judge in Brevard county make a ruling that affects all of Florida traffic laws?
Click to expand...


If he enters an injunction, yes. He might well stay it pending further review, but my understanding was that this was basically a TRO for that very purpose -- to maintain the status quo pending full briefing.
 
#1,212
#1,212
lawgator1 said:
If he enters an injunction, yes. He might well stay it pending further review, but my understanding was that this was basically a TRO for that very purpose -- to maintain the status quo pending full briefing.
Click to expand...
How about for the whole of the USA?

It's complete horseshit and you know it. But hey... Nazis, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,215
#1,215
Septic said:
Can you elaborate on this please? Are you suggesting that the Constitution stipulates somewhere that the law doesn't have to be followed?
Click to expand...
Of course the law has to be followed. And the core law is the Constitution which gives the Executive Branch plenary Power to oversee national security and foreign policy (With the exception that the Senate must ratify treaties). If an argument is to be made that the Executive is violating the constitution in one of his activities, the only constitutional check on his power is a finding by the majority of the SUPREME Court. The constitution itself didn’t even create the inferior courts; they are created by (and be eliminated by) Congress. So a district judge can make any silly rulling he wants; but only the Supreme Court has the authority to block a co-equal branch
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood and LSU-SIU
#1,216
#1,216
lawgator1 said:
Federal judges can, and very frequently do, enjoin on a nationwide basis. That is what it means to be a "federal" judge.
Click to expand...
And Congress can shutter any inferior court tomorrow if they so choose. And if little Barney Fife judgies want to keep throwing their little tantrums; that will eventually come up for a vote
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#1,221
#1,221
lawgator1 said:
Federal judges can, and very frequently do, enjoin on a nationwide basis. That is what it means to be a "federal" judge.
Click to expand...

Federal judges have been allowed to do it but it really hasn't been adjudicated at a high level i.e. Supreme Court (see Thomas comments on it). That has nothing to do with the meaning of a "federal" judge. In this case, the judge said he entered an injunction but he really didn't, its simply a minute order, see government's response and motion to vacate. But even if it was an injunction, the government's position is the order was complied with anyway, at least their stance.
 
Last edited:
#1,222
#1,222
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#1,223
#1,223
LSU-SIU said:
In before someone says they can't do it and checks (and balances). 😂

Unfortunately, we are probably getting to that point - not saying we are there but certainly in the ballpark.
Click to expand...
They can clearly do it. That is one of the constitutionally specified checks of the judiciary by the legislative branch. Defenders of the courts sometimes seem to think that the judiciary is supreme branch, not coequal. There are ways to reign them in and it is their own arrogance that could end up making this happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, UT_Dutchman, LSU-SIU and 1 other person
#1,224
#1,224
OrangeTsar said:
They can clearly do it. That is one of the constitutionally specified checks of the judiciary by the legislative branch. Defenders of the courts sometimes seem to think that the judiciary is supreme branch, not coequal. There are ways to reign them in and it is their own arrogance that could end up making this happen
Click to expand...

You know that and I know that, the nutjobs are having difficulty with just about everything at this point.

Its very unfortunate that the higher courts are not coming down on this stuff.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top