- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Bogus NY Treasury Case: Judge took less than 4 hours to review 60 page complaint and rule
Posted on 2/10/25 at 9:29 pm to dafif
Posted on 2/10/25 at 9:29 pm to dafif
quote:
See my OP about Congress and impeachment.
Thanks. Good thread. Sorry I didn't see it. I wouldn't have started this separate one.
I was just so flabbergasted when I reviewed the SDNY's docket. ANY responsible reporter would have to have commented on the bizarre circumstances of the filing...unless they weren't interested in reporting the truth.
It's almost as if they have an agenda: "Trump bad. Brave judges are protecting muh Democracy."
0
Posted on 2/10/25 at 9:41 pm to tigerfan 64
quote:
The judge probably was on a Skype or teams meeting call with Shumer, Pelosi, Swallowswell, Hillary, Perkins Coie and Marc Elias when the injunction was drafted.
I think the brazen judge shopping and the absurdly quick turnaround (less than 4 hours late on a Friday night!) make this an almost certainty. Also, who actually drafted the Complaint and got all those Attorneys Generals to sign off? (Angry me is going to research some of the attorneys.)
Anybody know the best way to force these answers? Any chance of filing a Rule 11 (sanctions for filing a clearly bogus complaint) motion and getting discovery? FOIA?
Posted on 2/10/25 at 9:51 pm to IvoryBillMatt
There was a story a couple weeks ago about Democrats strategy to stop Trump and in that story was a Judge who said he was writing an order to give to an attorney to file in his court so he could rule on it. He put it out their plain as day that he was using his office for political partisanship.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 9:57 pm to fwtex
quote:
story was a Judge who said he was writing an order to give to an attorney to file in his court so he could rule on it.
Doesn't surprise me at all.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 10:03 pm to IvoryBillMatt
If they are left then they are lawless
Posted on 2/10/25 at 10:08 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
No pay checks to judiciary employees until the Treasury Department is allowed to perform its duties without interference.
This is the best idea I’ve seen yet. Would force their hand.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 10:57 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:quote:That's going to be a problem in the Second Circuit. Probably won't get relief until it reaches the Supreme Court.
Find a bigger judge and overrule his arse.
The first judge rushes the ruling to put a hold on it, and then the appeals will be slow rolled.
This is what democracy looks like.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 11:37 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
The first judge rushes the ruling to put a hold on it, and then the appeals will be slow rolled.
This is what democracy looks like.
EXACTLY.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 5:40 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:So we have an obvious case of Judge shopping, followed by a cursory and apparently predetermined judicial review, with no argument even sought from the plaintiff, and ending with a nationwide injunction.
Bogus NY Treasury Case: Judge took less than 4 hours to review 60 page complaint and rule
This is a case which should be responded to with demonstrable Executive Branch nonacquiescence. The Trump Administration should force an expedited SCOTUS review.
Regardless, SCOTUS needs to take this case, and use it to promptly remodel Judicial Branch injunctions. Local judges need their wings clipped. Either their injunctions must be limited to plaintiffs directly involved, or preferably a higher court needs to hear the case prior to issuance of any extra-district injunction. As the situation currently exists, our judiciary runs risk of justifying nonacquiescence in the other two branches. If we continue down this path, it will severely weaken the Judicial Branch.
That's got to weigh heavily on the minds of SCOTUS Justices.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 5:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
If we continue down this path, it will severely weaken the Judicial Branch.
Great point. I have as much trust in the judiciary now as I do "public health officials" post-Covid.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:09 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:Right.
Great point. I have as much trust in the judiciary now as I do "public health officials" post-Covid.
Until this injunction is ripped up, Trump needs to direct JD Vance to pop over to the Treasury Building and aid officials there. Vance does not fall under the idiot judge's ruling, and he's still allowed access.
He should take possession of all materials previously recovered, and directly oversee continuing recovery. Each time a DOGE employee uncovers a tranche of material, a US Treasury employee should intercede, collect it, and pass it to the VP.
If Engelmayer objects, tell him to pound sand.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:12 am to IvoryBillMatt
Judge shopping is your answer.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:18 am to CR4090
quote:
Find a bigger judge and overrule his arse.
Play whack-a-mole? No thanks.
This judge must be removed and censured. A message regarding judicial overreach must be delivered by the executive branch.
Separation of powers and whatnot …
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:21 am to Epaminondas
quote:
He's saying even the Secretary of the Treasury, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, cannot access the records of the Department of Treasury.
Talk about an over-reach.
Where is the DOJ?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:22 am to Epaminondas
quote:
He's saying even the Secretary of the Treasury, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, cannot access the records of the Department of Treasury.
This is how you know it's bullshite.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:34 am to UncleFestersLegs
This is a very good summary. This guy knows his stuff.
If you don't have the time 7:00 mins. is a good place to start.
If you don't have the time 7:00 mins. is a good place to start.
This post was edited on 2/11/25 at 6:47 am
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:37 am to HagaDaga
quote:
The first judge rushes the ruling to put a hold on it, and then the appeals will be slow rolled.
This is what democracy looks like.
At some point, vigilante justice seems more expedient and it would send a different kind of message not heard or feared quite yet.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:52 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Our resident "principled libertarians" will pretend this is normal.
Plenty of injunctions were issued against Biden after forum shopping. It's been SOP for 20-30 years now. This isn't a partisan issue you can spin to create a good/bad guy dichotomy.
A poster calling this lawfare is icing on the cake
As I've said for a long time (pre-Trump being a political figure prior to this board shedding rationality for emotion), this is a Congressional issue.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:57 am to Marye
Thanks for posting this. Worth the time to watch.
I just want some avenue to at least force Judge Englemayer to explain his actions.
I just want some avenue to at least force Judge Englemayer to explain his actions.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:03 am to SlowFlowPro
Do you know of ANY cases against the Biden Administration that replicate this situation?
-"emergency filing" late at night for no stated reason?
-entire "process" taking less than 4 hours involving a 60 page Complaint
This reeks of collusion.
-"emergency filing" late at night for no stated reason?
-entire "process" taking less than 4 hours involving a 60 page Complaint
This reeks of collusion.
This post was edited on 2/11/25 at 7:04 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News