- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Here’s Why the Era of Lawless Leftist Judges is Likely Ending Soon
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:11 pm
LINK
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to weigh in on one of the most significant legal power plays in recent memory: whether individual federal trial judges can continue issuing nationwide injunctions that derail national policy. The high court’s move could mark a turning point in the Trump administration’s effort to rein in what it sees as activist judges stifling the will of the elected government.
John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and former Justice Department official, broke down the issue during an appearance on Fox News, where he explained the gravity of the situation and why the Supreme Court is now stepping in.
“This is about who controls all those… and there’s about 675 federal trial judges spread out all over the country,” Yoo said. “And some of them have been bringing the federal government, bringing President Trump’s agenda to a screeching halt, even though they don’t have anybody, say, who works for the government or any of the illegal aliens or any of the spending in their own courtrooms.”
In recent years, liberal activists have filed lawsuits in strategically chosen jurisdictions where they know they’ll find a sympathetic judge. The result? Leftist district judges, with no direct connection to the underlying policy or parties involved, have been able to issue injunctions blocking Trump administration directives nationwide—from immigration enforcement to federal spending priorities.
quote:
“What’s going on here, I think it’s important to understand, is that the Supreme Court is already signaling that they’re very sympathetic to the Trump administration,” Yoo said. “The Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for May 15th.”
That date raised eyebrows among legal observers, as the Court typically stops hearing arguments by April and shifts to issuing decisions in pending cases. The fact that the justices have called for arguments in May suggests the urgency and significance of the issue.
“It never hears cases in May,” Yoo explained. “Usually, they’d be done their business and they’d be sending out opinions by now. They’ve called basically a special session in order to hear President Trump’s claims that there should not be unlimited nationwide injunctions, but that they should be under the control of the Supreme Court.”
quote:
“Whether you agree or disagree with President Trump’s order on birthright citizenship,” Yoo said, “they may not even get to the question, because the key thing here is for the Supreme Court to put an end to the 675 trial judges who all think they can run foreign policy, spending and hiring throughout the federal government.”
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:15 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
“Whether you agree or disagree with President Trump’s order on birthright citizenship,” Yoo said, “they may not even get to the question, because the key thing here is for the Supreme Court to put an end to the 675 trial judges who all think they can run foreign policy, spending and hiring throughout the federal government.”
Birthright citizenship should have ended 100 years ago, ending birthright citizenship should have been part of Reagan's 1986 Amnesty bill.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:18 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
Whether you agree or disagree with President Trump’s order on birthright citizenship,” Yoo said, “they may not even get to the question, because the key thing here is for the Supreme Court to put an end to the 675 trial judges who all think they can run foreign policy, spending and hiring throughout the federal government.
The specific case they chose to use makes me think it's less likely they do away with these injunctions at the district court level in totality, because of the subject matter of the case. The birthright citizenship EO/litigation is probably the one 2025 EO with the strongest history and precedent (against it on its face) in addition to the largest issue if the EO is left in place while the case is litigated.
It may not mean they take no action. I can see them developing a test to make the nationwide injunctions from the district court much more difficult on purely bureaucratic/admin actions, but keep it in place for Constitutional rights (like the birthright citizenship issue/case). Perhaps that's why they chose this case.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:18 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
“What’s going on here, I think it’s important to understand, is that the Supreme Court is already signaling that they’re very sympathetic to the Trump administration,”
Color me skeptical.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:18 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
Birthright citizenship should have ended 100 years ago, ending birthright citizenship should have been part of Reagan's 1986 Amnesty bill.
You need more than a bill. You'd need a Constitutional Amendment or a major reversal of very old precedent.
Congress can't override Constitutional rights in the Constitution.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Birthright citizenship should have ended 100 years ago, ending birthright citizenship should have been part of Reagan's 1986 Amnesty bill.
You need more than a bill. You'd need a Constitutional Amendment or a major reversal of very old precedent.
Congress can't override Constitutional rights in the Constitution.
Yeah, I know. I was implying that Reagan should have proposed to congress amnesty will be given to 3 million illegals in exchange for ending birthright citizenship via amending the constitution.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:23 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Pretty wild John Yoo is still on TV and someone people listen to on issues.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It may not mean they take no action. I can see them developing a test to make the nationwide injunctions from the district court much more difficult on purely bureaucratic/admin actions, but keep it in place for Constitutional rights (like the birthright citizenship issue/case). Perhaps that's why they chose this case.
That should be a 9-0 case, no president should want every task force sizing effort to spent millions in court.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:46 pm to Narax
But the inherent damage in plainly unconstitutional efforts like the Birthright Citizenship EO is a legit concern, especially in conjunction with their aggressive (and sometimes improper/illegal) actions against people they don't consider citizens.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:48 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:52 pm to Bunk Moreland
Hey dumbass, do you really need someone to post the actual NUMBER of times it happened under each president?
You are a fricking idiot.
You are a fricking idiot.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:56 pm to Bunk Moreland
Glenn Greenwald
Somebody posted just the other day that something like 75% of the injunctions over the past 100.years have been filed against President Trump. Even a couple of low-life ambulance chasers should be able to do the math on that.
Somebody posted just the other day that something like 75% of the injunctions over the past 100.years have been filed against President Trump. Even a couple of low-life ambulance chasers should be able to do the math on that.
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 7:18 am
Posted on 4/19/25 at 7:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But the inherent damage in plainly unconstitutional efforts like the Birthright Citizenship EO is a legit concern, especially in conjunction with their aggressive (and sometimes improper/illegal) actions against people they don't consider citizens.
Ok sure, but it is NOT in the purview of lowly district court judges to say yes or no to the PRESIDENT of the United States.
Only the Congress and Supreme Court have a constitutionally valid claim to this.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 8:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But the inherent damage in plainly unconstitutional efforts like the Birthright Citizenship EO is a legit concern, especially in conjunction with their aggressive (and sometimes improper/illegal) actions against people they don't consider citizens.
Ideally both sides wind up unhappy.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 8:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Okay, now I got it. I ask a few days ago who SFP was and now it is very evident who the idiot is and why he is considered the dumbest poster on here.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 8:07 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Many of the so-called “leftist judges” are actually conservative Republicans(some appointed by Trump.
They’ve decided to apply the law honestly. You guys just don’t like the result. Trump is over-reaching and ignoring the law. If he followed proper
Procedure he may very well succeed in deporting the bad guys…
They’ve decided to apply the law honestly. You guys just don’t like the result. Trump is over-reaching and ignoring the law. If he followed proper
Procedure he may very well succeed in deporting the bad guys…
Posted on 4/19/25 at 8:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But the inherent damage in plainly unconstitutional efforts like the Birthright Citizenship EO is a legit concern, especially in conjunction with their aggressive (and sometimes improper/illegal) actions against people they don't consider citizens.
Someone really has read much history regarding birthright citizenship. Color me shocked!
Posted on 4/19/25 at 8:21 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
I think this is clearly why SCOTUS took this case and set it for argument. The current wave of judicial activism from the district court level is untenable.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 8:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But the inherent damage in plainly unconstitutional efforts like the Birthright Citizenship EO is a legit concern, especially in conjunction with their aggressive (and sometimes improper/illegal) actions against people they don't consider citizens.
Hell - I even upvoted your response to an earlier post because you were displaying some degree of rationality.
Then you come right back with this shite.
There is no way the current 'drop a kid across the line and get free stuff for the entire family forever' shite was ever the intent of any constitutional amendment. No other civilized country falls for this shite.
This is nothing more than a ploy to allow the democrats to invite 3rd worlders into our political system with zero understanding of our foundational history and our national civil responsibilities developed over centuries. They just want new names on registration rolls for their use when their arguments fail to garner enough support at the polls.
The only rank partisanship being displayed in the past half century comes directly from the democrat party and its handmaidens in the media and entertainment organizations.
Popular
Back to top


20








