- 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 9:03 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:03 pm to AggieHank86
Reminder for the board.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
1
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:04 pm to David_DJS
quote:There is no question that the Founders (going back at least to Justice Marshall) intended for the Judiciary to serve as a check on illegal actions by the Executive.
do you believe that it was the intent of congress when they established the district courts and passed law(s) related to their remit/power that the opposing party (to whoever is in office) could put before a "sympathetic" court an action that would allow said judge to handcuff a president on a policy matter for years?
quote:The Circuits and SCOTUS.
what's the protection against a rogue district court judge neutralizing legitimate executive action?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:04 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
They will say impeachment but historically that has not, and will not, ever happen.
It's almost as if they enjoy the judicial branch being unaccountable.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:04 pm to David_DJS
dp
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 9:06 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:05 pm to David_DJS
quote:
- do you believe that it was the intent of congress when they established the district courts and passed law(s) related to their remit/power that the opposing party (to whoever is in office) could put before a "sympathetic" court an action that would allow said judge to handcuff a president on a policy matter for years?
No which is why judges are confirmed in congress upon presidential recommendation and aren't supposed to act politically motivated. Ido believe they gave them the power to affirm injunctions nationwide though for cases that end up in their court. And that administrations can end up in their court and have an injunction enforced against them.
quote:
what's the protection against a rogue district court judge neutralizing legitimate executive action
Court of appeals and appealing to supreme court post appeals verdict if supreme court decides to hear it.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
There is no question that the Founders (going back at least to Justice Marshall) intended for the Judiciary to serve as a check on illegal actions by the Executive.
Why didn't you answer the question? Nobody is arguing that the Executive should not be checked by the judiciary. So, how about answer the question?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The Circuits and SCOTUS.
You just got done claiming that's so slow that it's not a realistic check.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:07 pm to David_DJS
quote:Because your question, as written, contained more inherent bias than "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Why didn't you answer the question? Nobody is arguing that the Executive should not be checked by the judiciary. So, how about answer the question?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:07 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
No which is why judges are confirmed in congress upon presidential recommendation and aren't supposed to act politically motivated. Ido believe they gave them the power to affirm injunctions nationwide though for cases that end up in their court. And that administrations can end up in their court and have an injunction enforced against them.
Well, I have news for you - the judiciary is political AF. So now what?
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
ecause your question, as written, contained more inherent bias than "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Then rewrite the question, Hank. You know what I'm arguing.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:09 pm to Flats
quote:No.quote:You just got done claiming that's so slow that it's not a realistic check.
The Circuits and SCOTUS.
There is a delay in the appeal process, whichever route you take.
But one has the potential to create FAR more irreparable harm than the other.
I choose to avoid irreparable harm, where possible.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:09 pm to David_DJS
quote:
I have news for you - the judiciary is political AF. So now what
Should be easy to prove and remove them then if it's political AF....
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:09 pm to Flats
quote:
You just got done claiming that's so slow that it's not a realistic check.
Arguing for the status quo is, in practice, putting the judiciary head/shoulders above the other branches of government.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:10 pm to David_DJS
quote:I answered a "fair" version of the question.
because your question, as written, contained more inherent bias than "When did you stop beating your wife?"quote:
Then rewrite the question, Hank. You know what I'm arguing.
You didn't like it.
If your emphasis is on the "forum shopping" element, keep in mind that this was much less of a a problem with 13 states and only a few dozen courts. Did they anticipate the sheer size and diversity of the current federal judiciary? Almost certainly not.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:10 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Reminder for the board.
Then the numbers should look somewhat balanced, right? Both sides do this, it's even. Fine. Maybe our deities who wear black robes are impartial and evenhanded and just and help little old ladies across the street, so we won't see any political bias in how these injunctions stack up.
What do you think?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:11 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Arguing for the status quo is, in practice, putting the judiciary head/shoulders above the other branches of government.
Which isn't surprising for a lawyer.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:11 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Should be easy to prove and remove them then if it's political AF..
You seem to be arguing that these district judges - the conservative ones used to handcuff Dem presidents, and liberal ones used to handcuff Rep presidents - aren't political.
Are you suggesting that?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:11 pm to Flats
The SFP/Boosie response is that DJT is pushing the envelope on a lot of issues and causing penalty flags to be thrown.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I answered a "fair" version of the question.
You didn't like it.
No. You shrunk from the question.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:14 pm to David_DJS
quote:No. It is little different from the Hippocratic Oath ... "First, do no harm."
Arguing for the status quo is, in practice, putting the judiciary head/shoulders above the other branches of government.
In legal terms, "When the legality of your proposed actions have been challenged, don't change a bunch of shite until we have a month or two to look into the matter."
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 9:35 pm
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News