re: DOJ Again Refuses to Give Judge Boasberg Sensitive Information on National Security

SympathizerFP will never comment of anything his boy Biden did or didn’t do. It’s his whole schtick. It’s OMB 24/7. 100% supports the importation of illegals and gangs at the expense of Americans and his few 100 posts on the subject support this

quote:

---

If that's ultimately the ruling, then the judicial branch is no longer equal to the Executive

---

WTF are you even talking about?
You think "co-equal" means that any singular wannabe district court judge with a conflict of personal interest can immediately, on a whim, without so much as hearing counter arguments, shutdown operations of entire divisions of the Executive Branch? You think "co-equal" means a singular judge-shopped POS can reverse entire Executive actions for years pending ultimate SCOTUS reversal of the partisan POS in favor of the original ruling?

You call that co-equal?
Because that spastic yank-around sounds like FULL Judicial control to me.

You want to talk about skyscreaming hypotheticals, what is to prevent each democrat-appointed district court judge from literally putting out word as to the cases they'd like to hear, then issuing random TROs to shutdown the Executive Branch or reverse its actions. The tally could be in the dozens per day. Your expectation is the EB must IMMEDIATELY abide even obviously hyperpartisan court restraining/reversal orders. That is NOT co-equality. That is Executive subservience.

What you describe as co-equal is the equivalent of allowing any single member of Congress, independently, with no other Congressional input, to insert a FULL STOP on Administrative actions for a couple of weeks or longer. Then rinse and repeat.

It is absurd!

quote:

---

WTF are you even talking about?
You think "co-equal" means that any singular wannabe district court judge with a conflict of personal interest can immediately, on a whim, without so much as hearing counter arguments, shutdown operations of entire divisions of the Executive Branch? You think "co-equal" means a singular judge-shopped POS can reverse entire Executive actions for years pending ultimate SCOTUS reversal of the partisan POS in favor of the original ruling?

You call that co-equal?
Because that spastic yank-around sounds like FULL Judicial control to me.

You want to talk about skyscreaming hypotheticals, what is to prevent each democrat-appointed district court judge from literally putting out word as to the cases they'd like to hear, then issuing random TROs to shutdown the Executive Branch or reverse its actions. The tally could be in the dozens per day. Your expectation is the EB must IMMEDIATELY abide even obviously hyperpartisan court restraining/reversal orders. That is NOT co-equality. That is Executive subservience.

What you describe as co-equal is the equivalent of allowing any single member of Congress, independently, with no other Congressional input, to insert a FULL STOP on Administrative actions for a couple of weeks or longer. Then rinse and repeat.

It is absurd!

---

The President is "co-equal" to the SCOTUS, not a single district court judge, or even a federal appellate court.

Past time for President Trump to tell all district judges to stay in their lane and frick off.

quote:

---

The President is "co-equal" to the SCOTUS, not a single district court judge, or even a federal appellate court.

---

So district courts cannot interpret agency actions or federal statutes now?

Has this argument ever been entertained in any federal appellate court in the US?

quote:

---

WTF are you even talking about?

---

Separation of powers and the equality of the 3 branches, specifically the judiciary's power/role in interpreting statutes and ensure actions are not taken outside of the specific and limited authority granted by Congress in the statute in question.

quote:

---

You think "co-equal" means that any singular wannabe district court judge with a conflict of personal interest can immediately, on a whim, without so much as hearing counter arguments, shutdown operations of entire divisions of the Executive Branch?

---

The answer is yes, and Congress is the one who granted the lower courts that jurisdiction, via their constitutional authority to do so.

quote:

---

You think "co-equal" means a singular judge-shopped POS can reverse entire Executive actions for years pending ultimate SCOTUS reversal of the partisan POS in favor of the original ruling?

---

Clearly, but there is appellate review. LINK

quote:

---

President Biden's order that federal employees get vaccinated against COVID-19 was blocked Thursday by a federal appeals court.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected arguments that Mr. Biden, as the nation's chief executive, has the same authority as the CEO of a private corporation to require that employees be vaccinated.

The ruling from the full appeals court, 16 full-time judges at the time the case was argued, reversed an earlier ruling by a three-judge 5th Circuit panel that had upheld the vaccination requirement. Judge Andrew Oldham, nominated to the court by then-President Donald Trump, wrote the opinion for a 10-member majority.

---

quote:

---

You call that co-equal?

---

Yes. If the President is acting illegally, his actions should be permitted to be restrained, via Congress and the judiciary (via the jurisdiction given to them to do so via Congress).

quote:

---

what is to prevent each democrat-appointed district court judge from literally putting out word as to the cases they'd like to hear, then issuing random TROs to shutdown the Executive Branch or reverse its actions.

---

Theoretically nothing, but these decisions are reviewed at light speed. For instance this TDA one is being heard Monday by the appellate court. Then they get the ability to file an emergency appeal to the USSC outside of normal procedures.

quote:

---

What you describe as co-equal is the equivalent of allowing any single member of Congress, independently, with no other Congressional input, to insert a FULL STOP on Administrative actions for a couple of weeks or longer.

---

Not at all. Bad comparison that ignores the interplay between Congress and the judiciary (from jurisdiction to its review procedure). Your example is outside of constitutional power with no check/oversight.

quote:

---

I posted about that in an earlier thread. There’s a chicken or the egg problem with that statistic. Trump’s upsetting the status quo is a feature, not a bug, to you guys. You can’t applaud him for pushing the boundaries and then cite the judiciary throwing penalty flags for pushing the boundaries as evidence they're out to get him.

---

Is this where we pretend that all these flags are the same? You can point to one that reasonable people can see might be a point of contention, therefore we just have to assume they all have similar objective, non-political reasoning behind them?

Nah, we don't have to do that.

quote:

---

Sure, they can verify the president has the right,

---

That's all that is being done. The court is analyzing the Executive's conformity within the authority of the statute.

The court, with the AEA, has to determine this condition precedent exists

quote:

---

predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government

---

THEN the President is given his full executive authority within the limitations of the statute once that threshold is met. That's all that's being argued.

quote:

---

but they can’t wade into the argument of whether the person or group are in fact “invaders”

---

They 100% can, and must, or else the Executive can violate the law without recourse or oversight.

Just like with the WW2 cases that keep getting cited, the court had to determine this:

quote:

---

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government

---

It was just a lot easier to do so with, you know, WW2. The question was if WW2 had ended, which was analyzed.

quote:

---

Were talking about nationwide TROs and injunctions of clear Article.II actoons.

---

Spin it that way, my question remains

quote:

---

Has this argument ever been entertained in any federal appellate court in the US?

---

I just linked the 5th Circuit, a full panel at that, issuing one against Biden. I did not hear this sky screaming during that fiasco of the Biden admin.

The 8th Circuit just enjoined Biden's SAVE plans. Crickets

Here is a thread about an injunction on Biden's CC fee limit EO

This outrage seems very selective and, dare I say, partisan. Which is why nobody in Congress is going to actually try to change this, because it's the tool of the party not in control of the Executive to check potential illegal actions by their opposition while in office.

Paxton secures injunction ­stopping Biden’s unlawful attempt to ban private firearms sales

Biden admin barred from firing unvaccinated employees after DC judge issues injunction

You posted in that last one. You did not seem to take offense.

quote:

---

So... all of your examples are instances where Biden was clearly outside of the scope.of his Article II powers.

---

I know. I'm the one saying it's a proper check on the executive, for that reason.

I thought we were talking about how district courts issuing injunctions were an afront to the constitution and separation of powers?