Trump Ignores the Courts

#951
#951
LouderVol said:
sounds like that is what 5 of the venezuelan's lawyers are arguing. like I keep explaining Trump used A&E to circumvent the process.

the Venezuelans were facing the normal deportation process. Letter, go in front of a judge, if judge orders deportation they can appeal, and only after an appeal do they get deported. thats the normal process immigrants facing deportation go through.

at some point after the normal de-immigration process had started, the feds switched from the process requiring a judge BEFORE deportation, to a process that doesn't have a "trial" and only allows an appeal after deportation.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll look into that.
 
#954
#954
Simple solution is to have the Supreme Court to take up the issue of national injunctions or have Congress implement the change. The problem being, there really isn't an injunction in this case, so at some point you have to ignore the nonsense.
 
#955
#955
hog88 said:
I think the public sentiment has changed since then.
Click to expand...

Maybe... I think the DC court is totally out of whack here but I would be hesitant on a massive change to court system. The issue is long-term effects. I see it all the time in our system, we will use one action that is against the rules to often change something else that is entirely different or out of visibility.

You would be surprised, for example, how much craziness has come up as a result of the interstate commerce clause rulings to support Civil Rights. Because a lot of the Civil Rights rulings on business fell under the interstate commerce clause, it opened the door for a can of worms down the line for items that had nothing to do with original rulings and were out of scope but allowed Federal Government to take on more power. (Think Environmental rulings, gun control, property right limitations, control over businesses, etc.).
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, hog88 and LSU-SIU
#956
#956
EasternVol said:
I'd say it's far less Nancyish to complain about the Executive Branch misusing laws and trampling due process than it is to moan and wail about nonexistent danger and 'feeling unsafe' caused by people exercising their right to assembly and freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you didn’t actually read my response (where i said it wasn’t the worrisome position, it was the schtick) and simply had your canned response ready to go.

Who’s moaning and wailing about “feeling unsafe” over Hamas pity parties?
 
#957
#957
hog88 said:
I wonder if congress has the power to limit the scope of injunctions made at the district court level? Can congress pass legislation saying a US district courts authority ends at it's geographic boundaries?
Click to expand...
Some lawyers have argued that judges can simply be fired (rather than impeached) for lack of good behaviour under Article 3. There is talk on social media congress can restrict district judges rulings, Article 3 section 2

Also:

Belinda Wysner
@BeWy2021
·
4m
ICYMI: Ron DeSantis suggested something I had not heard of...a "Must Pass Bill."

It's certainly another way to stop these rogue judges. Here's what Grok says about it (summarized)...

Yes, a "must pass" bill could theoretically be used to remove judicial jurisdiction—known as "jurisdiction stripping"—in response to a District Judge ruling against a sitting U.S. President, even without a lawsuit pending.

Congress has the constitutional authority under Article III, Section 2 to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts, including exceptions to their appellate and original jurisdiction, outside of the Supreme Court’s core constitutional powers.

This means lawmakers could attach a provision to a "must pass" bill (like a government funding measure or defense authorization) that limits or eliminates a court’s ability to hear certain cases, effectively nullifying or preempting a judge’s ruling.

In practice, this could happen if a District Judge issues a ruling—say, invalidating a presidential action—and Congress, leveraging the urgency of a "must pass" bill, includes language stripping jurisdiction over that type of case.

Congress could act proactively to shield a president’s authority from future judicial challenges or to render an existing ruling unenforceable by altering the court’s power to adjudicate.

The catch? "Must pass" bills thrive on bipartisan need. Tacking on a polarizing move like protecting a president from judicial oversight risks sinking the bill unless one party has overwhelming control. Even then, the Supreme Court might later weigh in if it deems the move unconstitutional, though it’s constrained by Congress’s Article III leverage.





1742481502251.png
 
#959
#959
jmacvols1 said:
Some lawyers have argued that judges can simply be fired (rather than impeached) for lack of good behaviour under Article 3. There is talk on social media congress can restrict district judges rulings, Article 3 section 2

Also:

Belinda Wysner
@BeWy2021
·
4m
ICYMI: Ron DeSantis suggested something I had not heard of...a "Must Pass Bill."

It's certainly another way to stop these rogue judges. Here's what Grok says about it (summarized)...

Yes, a "must pass" bill could theoretically be used to remove judicial jurisdiction—known as "jurisdiction stripping"—in response to a District Judge ruling against a sitting U.S. President, even without a lawsuit pending.

Congress has the constitutional authority under Article III, Section 2 to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts, including exceptions to their appellate and original jurisdiction, outside of the Supreme Court’s core constitutional powers.

This means lawmakers could attach a provision to a "must pass" bill (like a government funding measure or defense authorization) that limits or eliminates a court’s ability to hear certain cases, effectively nullifying or preempting a judge’s ruling.

In practice, this could happen if a District Judge issues a ruling—say, invalidating a presidential action—and Congress, leveraging the urgency of a "must pass" bill, includes language stripping jurisdiction over that type of case.

Congress could act proactively to shield a president’s authority from future judicial challenges or to render an existing ruling unenforceable by altering the court’s power to adjudicate.

The catch? "Must pass" bills thrive on bipartisan need. Tacking on a polarizing move like protecting a president from judicial oversight risks sinking the bill unless one party has overwhelming control. Even then, the Supreme Court might later weigh in if it deems the move unconstitutional, though it’s constrained by Congress’s Article III leverage.





View attachment 729031
Click to expand...

Not sure if things have changed or not but often judges are graded based on how many of their rulings get overturned on Appeal. Not sure of any disciplinary actions but it definitely is a reputation hit to the judge and keeps their career from advancing further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmacvols1
#962
#962
Okay, so I have been reading the reply to the motion to vacate by the Plaintiffs. Lets say its legally valid, I don't see at that point why there should be a President or how a war could ever be exercised. Now they could be partially right on the issues without possibly interfering with war powers but it would have to be very narrow and really doesn't make sense in a practical manner.

Also, the Plaintiffs are contending that its not a national injunction but one restricted to a class, that is cute, in effect its a national injunction. (if it is an injunction) Further, I see no mention that any of these Plaintiffs are Americans, matter of fact... they are claiming they are Venezuelans escaping gangs there.

Notably, some Plaintiffs’ asylum claims assert the real fear ofharm upon returning even to Venezuela because they fled the very same violent gangs the Government has wrongfully accused them of belonging to. Pls. Mot. for TRO at 17-19; see supra.
Click to expand...

So, the Plaintiffs are admitting they are illegally here in some cases and they committed fraud as far as I am concerned.

Plaintiffs face an imminent risk that they will be summarily removed from the UnitedStates to El Salvador or to Venezuela without any meaningful opportunity to assert claims forrelief. Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, Mot. 22-23, Plaintiffs do not claim irreparable harmfrom the mere fact of removal. Instead, as Plaintiffs described in detail in the TRO motion andabove, their removal constitutes grave and immediate irreparable harm because of what awaitsthem upon deportation.
Click to expand...
So, where do you want them to go even if done under an immigration process - go over the border and drop them from a plane with or without a parachute?

Maybe we just leave it to the district court as to where these people are going after deportation if the home country doesn't take them back, I mean they want to be President... let them figure it out. Maybe the Judge can take them all to his house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#963
#963
85SugarVol said:
Ah, so you didn’t actually read my response (where i said it wasn’t the worrisome position, it was the schtick) and simply had your canned response ready to go.

Who’s moaning and wailing about “feeling unsafe” over Hamas pity parties?
Click to expand...
Oh I read it. It didn't change it being silly to call someone a Nancy for posting what what posted, especially considering the snowflake 'oooh so unsafe' comments about the protests.
Several did, don't you recall?
 
#964
#964
EasternVol said:
Oh I read it. It didn't change it being silly to call someone a Nancy for posting what what posted, especially considering the snowflake 'oooh so unsafe' comments about the protests.
Several did, don't you recall?
Click to expand...
So you’re still worried about the important stuff - names.

Not sure why you keep trying to conflate Gaza with illegal aliens. Apparently this sounds great in your mind.
 
#965
#965
Let's simplify this. The President has war powers, these powers exist with and without the declaration of war. Matter of fact, the U.S. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, since that time there has been resolutions for long term military operations but nobody doubts that Congress really isn't necessary other than the purse $$$$ for long term engagements. Whether or not the statute in question exists or you need Congress doesn't seem material, the President most likely has the power to do what he is doing. Now, is this completely without recourse, no... not really... meaning the branches of government should be working together to help form a more perfect union. Now, the key question here is - is the President working in good faith, and is anyone really being harmed here? Not really. The Plaintiffs actually had recourse while in the U.S. to a degree, at least the executive branch is saying that at the moment.

I think there are some questions here, the problem is this Court has probably overstepped itself and done so to impact operations that the President believes are military operations. They appear to be working in good faith i.e. protecting Americans so what is the big problem here?

I don't necessarily see problems with questioning things here but the judicial branch needs to get their **** together and that probably starts with Roberts.
 
#970
#970
85SugarVol said:
So you’re still worried about the important stuff - names.

Not sure why you keep trying to conflate Gaza with illegal aliens. Apparently this sounds great in your mind.
Click to expand...
I'm concerned with actions. Calling someone a Nancy for being opposed to an Executive Branch power grab is disingenuous. The comparison was to some truly Nancyish comments.
 
#972
#972
LSU-SIU said:
At least there they probably have some type of authority there, the judge at least didn't order the trans to take over a B-2 and bomb the white house.
Click to expand...
judge is violating the rights of real women in the prison. Women's prison is for women, can the judge prove these men are women?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#974
#974
jmacvols1 said:
judge is violating the rights of real women in the prison. Women's prison is for women, can the judge prove these men are women?
Click to expand...

I agree in principle, but at least I assume (maybe incorrectly) he is actually writing down clear orders. I mean we're to the point where is so much to ask to see the actual order in clear format so I can tell my client. 😂
 
#975
#975
EasternVol said:
I'm concerned with actions. Calling someone a Nancy for being opposed to an Executive Branch power grab is disingenuous. The comparison was to some truly Nancyish comments.
Click to expand...
Then you still haven’t grasped what I said, or are choosing to ignore it.

But feel free to weep and whine with Louder for the illegal aliens (that totally, could possibly, well maybe… be US citizens… someday… perhaps)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top