- 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: Federal appeals court maintains temporary block on Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:48 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:48 pm to David_DJS
quote:
point me to the law where congress gave a single federal district court judge veto power over the chief executive.
Show me one judge who has veto'd a law or has exercised veto power.....
2
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:53 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Show me one judge who has veto'd a law or has exercised veto power..
I'm pretty sure you know what I mean, but if you need it spelled out -
Point me to the law where congress gave a single federal district court judge the power to impose a nationwide injuction halting a president's executive policy/action.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:20 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Point me to the law where congress gave a single federal district court judge the power to impose a nationwide injuction halting a president's executive policy/action.
So do you not believe courts have the power of injunctions or that a federal courts injunctions should be limited to... What exactly?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:23 pm to David_DJS
quote:The FRCP absolutely DO give to a District Judge the power to enjoin the actions of any party to litigation pending in his court.
Point me to the law where congress gave a single federal district court judge the power to impose a nationwide injuction halting a president's executive policy/action.
There is certainly no limitation on that power, saying that a litigant must obey that order ONLY in the few-hundred square miles of that District.
There is no need for a specific rule or statute saying "Yeah, this also applies to POTUS, if he is a litigant."
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:49 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
At this juncture, they are supposed to rule upon the propriety of injunctive relief
Pretend you are a lawyer - just try
Are they not supposed to rule in the jurisdictional limitations as well - like does this court actually have the authority to enter an injunction
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:12 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
So do you not believe courts have the power of injunctions or that a federal courts injunctions should be limited to... What exactly?
I do not believe a single judge (out of what, 500+ district judges) has this power.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The FRCP absolutely DO give to a District Judge the power to enjoin the actions of any party to litigation pending in his court.
And interpreting that to mean the whole f'n country is an interpretation. It's ironic that a district court judge can rule on a case before him and this ruling can be ignored by the district judge down the hall, but this same judge can decide for the whole country what the president can/can't do.
ETA: Seriously, I don't know why any president (any party) has ever given a shite about an injunction from a district court. No way congress intended for this nonsense, so this should have been thrown up to the supreme court years ago - or fixed by congress.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:18 pm to David_DJS
quote:Let's examine that.
And interpreting that to mean the whole f'n country is an interpretation.
Plaintiff John Everyman sues Defendant Mega Corp. in District A. Judge of District A enters order telling Mega Corp. not to destroy documents related to Everyman's claim.
Mega destroys all such documents, because they were stored in District B, rather than District A.
Your interpretation says that Mega should face no consequences, because Judge A has no authority to tell Mega what to do ... anywhere outside District A.
Justify that.
Now, substitute "Mega Corp" with "Biden Administration" or "Trump Administration" and justify that.
======
Could Congress CHANGE those rules? Sure, but it would be an impediment to implementation of justice and to enforcement of the law.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Your interpretation says that Mega should face no consequences, because Judge A has no authority to tell Mega what to do ... anywhere outside District A.
That's not my interpretation. Mega corp is a party to the action before this court.
My position is it's silly to think a district court can have the whole f'n country as a party before him. I can't make the legal argument for that. I just know what's retarded and what's not retarded, and it's retarded to have 500+ judges with all sorts of biases and interests, and any one of them can handcuff a president for years.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:23 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Tell his Cabinet to clean house and issue pardons!
Frick these anti-American scumbags!
We need to get physical with these losers
Frick these anti-American scumbags!
We need to get physical with these losers
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:27 pm to David_DJS
quote:As is SecDef Hegseth or ICE Director Homan or POTUS Trump, depending upon which lawsuit we are referencing.
That's not my interpretation. Mega corp is a party to the action before this court.
It is no different. A litigant is being enjoined. In most cases, a litigant is being enjoined for a few days, until a full evidentiary hearing can take place.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As is SecDef Hegseth or ICE Director Homan or POTUS Trump, depending upon which lawsuit we are referencing.
It is no different. A litigant is being enjoined. In most cases, a litigant is being enjoined for a few days, until a full evidentiary hearing can take place.
I don't care. I'm not trying to win a trial here. I'm making a simple argument - it's retarded to have any one of a pile of pedestrian assholes be able to tie up an administration on a policy matter for years, and I say this regardless of who's in office or what the policy is. Retarded is retarded.
I'm also arguing the Trump (or any president) should just ignore this noise until it reaches the supreme court or is fixed by congress.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:31 pm to AggieHank86
frick all that shite. Judges are not supposed to conspire together to slow EVERYTHING they can that an administration is supposed to do.
Anybody who thinks this is "organic" really is a moron.
Anybody who thinks this is "organic" really is a moron.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:36 pm to David_DJS
quote:So, you are arguing (in essence) that the Executive Branch is not subject to the jurisdiction of any federal court other than SCOTUS.
I'm also arguing the Trump (or any president) should just ignore this noise until it reaches the supreme court or is fixed by congress.
Look, I understand that you don't like it, but it IS the law.
If you just want to vent, vent-on.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 8:37 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:37 pm to David_DJS
quote:
do not believe a single judge (out of what, 500+ district judges) has this power.
What power do you disagree with though? Is it that the judge can't grant an injunction against participants in his court at all or that those injunctions against folks represented in the court aren't nation wide?
Just trying to understand with clarity what you see as the problem
Judges have filed injunctions against plantiffs in their court pretty often.
Or are you arguing that when in the judicial system the president has special powers that make him specifically immune from injunctions on his admins actions?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:38 pm to oklahogjr
Boiled down to its basics, their position seems to be that they don't think the Judicial Branch should have any authority to evaluate the legality of the actions of Dear Leader.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Boiled down to its basics, their position seems to be that they don't think the Judicial Branch should have any authority to evaluate the legality of the actions of Dear Leader.
Why would you lie like that? He plainly said ignore it until it got to SCOTUS.
His point is valid and one I've made. Having 600+ people able to stonewall any policy they don't care for isn't workable. If the exec branch is wrong, fine, give your opinion and run it up the chain, maybe all the way to SCOTUS, maybe a lower level, but it's got to be at a level higher than 600 assholes. That's insane.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Boiled down to its basics, their position seems to be that they don't think the Judicial Branch should have any authority to evaluate the legality of the actions of Dear Leader.
No rational read of my posts would lead you to this.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
because Judge A has no authority to tell Mega what to do ... anywhere outside District A.
Judge A in District A has no authority outside of District A.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:48 pm to Flats
quote:Yes, that is the STATED position.
Why would you lie like that? He plainly said ignore it until it got to SCOTUS.
quote:And THIS is totally unworkable.
His point is valid and one I've made. Having 600+ people able to stonewall any policy they don't care for isn't workable. If the exec branch is wrong, fine, give your opinion and run it up the chain, maybe all the way to SCOTUS, maybe a lower level, but it's got to be at a level higher than 600 assholes. That's insane.
As SFP has said repeatedly, the upper courts are not DESIGNED to hear this sort of thing as a matter of first impression. They are designed to review alleged legal error by the District Courts. Further, your proposal would allow a rogue Executive (of ANY party) to engage in blatantly illegal activities for years, until a challenge makes its way to SCOTUS ... doing "irreparable harm" to thousands or millions of people in the interim.
That whole "irreparable harm" thing is the very REASON that the FIRST court has the power to enjoin.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 8:55 pm
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News