- 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: Joe Biden did not ignore/defy the Supreme Court re: Student Loans
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
An executive action like the vax mandate would specifically be under the TOTAL control of the executive he referenced.
Oh. You’re pretending to misunderstand his statement. That makes more sense. I didn’t understand how you were being a fig in the last post. Thanks for elucidating.
1
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:13 am to the808bass
quote:
Oh. You’re pretending to misunderstand his statement
I see you didn't answer, so I'll give you another chance.
From what other origin are you arguing the vax mandate arose from? A ruling of the judiciary? Congressional statute?
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
I see that you’re doubling down on misunderstanding his post.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Biden happy to oppose court
Then why did he brag about it?
Then why did he brag about it?
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:17 am to the808bass
quote:
I see that you’re doubling down on misunderstanding his post.
I don't think that I did. I think you're doing your "I lost and will raise a white flag by devolving to ad hom" routine you do. I'll give you one last chance to show you have intellectual honesty.
From what other origin are you arguing the vax mandate arose from? A ruling of the judiciary? Congressional statute?
There are only 3 options from which a federal mandate can arise in our system. If it wasn't the executive, which was it?
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:18 am to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
Then why did he brag about it?
quote:
404
Page Not Found
Fix your link
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Please! Everyone with a brain who is willing to use it, rather than being told what to think, knows what is going on here.
These preliminary injunctions haven't even gotten to a full trial court decision yet.
To state the obvious - this is all designed to disrupt and slow the momentum until better avenues to combat and stop what is actually being accomplished can be devised and implemented. All your clever and flowery legalese does nothing to refute that basic fact.
This is exactly why Executive branch immunity is a part of our constitution - to keep these kind of frivolous and insipient court orders from stonewalling proper executive action.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:23 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
This is exactly why Executive branch immunity is a part of our constitution
Even funnier the Biden administration forced that issue and POTUS clarified it.
The Dems keep stepping on their dicks.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:26 am to LSUnKaty
quote:Ding ding ding
To state the obvious - this is all designed to disrupt and slow the momentum until better avenues to combat and stop what is actually being accomplished can be devised and implemented. All your clever and flowery legalese does nothing to refute that basic fact.
Everyone knows this and is willing to admit this…even Democrats.
The only one that isn’t willing to admit this is SFP. He continues to act as if what is occurring is “simply normal judicial procedure”.
It is why we saw a 4.5x increase in TROs when compared to the next president (Biden). Hell, there have been more against Trump than 2x all the others combined (2000 onward).
It has become a stalking tactic and has been used against Trump at a rate significantly higher than any previous president.
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 9:29 am
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Regardless of which tier the decision remains, the President/executive is bound to follow the decision until a new tier rules.
He's bound, but how could it be enforced if the president ignores it because it's obviously a ruling made by an inferior court that doesn't have the authority to make this ruling???
Also, this judges ruling is outside of his district and in fact affects the nation. He should have stayed the ruling while the case is appealed to a higher court.
The fact he didn't handle it this way proves his decision was based on politics and not the law.
Oh, yeah ..... and his wife was receiving money from USAID......
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:31 am to Scruffy
quote:
Ding ding ding
Everyone knows this and is willing to admit this…even Democrats.
These challenges are SOP for everyone and have been since Obama at least.
quote:
The only one that isn’t willing to admit this is SFP
A lie. I've said this is SOP for both parties since the NPC melt began.
quote:
He continues to act as if what is occurring is “simply normal judicial procedure”.
Well, it is
quote:
It is why we saw an 4.5x increase in TROs when compared to the next president (Biden). Hell, there have been more against Trump than 2x all the others combined (2000 onward).
Trump's being very aggressive in use of EOs. What do you think that will do to lawsuits in response? They'll increase at the same scale.
Trump's issued the most EOs in his firth month since Truman.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
Imagine being a heterosexual male and white knighting for Joe Biden
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
Slo
So a lower court can stop the normal daily function of say the Treasury due to its unconstitutional action.
Being a clash of branches shouldn't the judicial branch be extremely clear in what those exact acts were and very specifically why unconstitutional.
Otherwise it seems a unconstitutional over reach and a impediment to normal function.
So a lower court can stop the normal daily function of say the Treasury due to its unconstitutional action.
Being a clash of branches shouldn't the judicial branch be extremely clear in what those exact acts were and very specifically why unconstitutional.
Otherwise it seems a unconstitutional over reach and a impediment to normal function.
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 9:34 am
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:What emergency?
gives the secretary of education the power to respond to a national emergency
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm waiting for the appellate ruling, but I'd wager they agree.
Again why?
There is nothing nor any precedent to say the courts can decide how the executive branch runs executive branch departments in terms of spending, marketing etc unless those departments are not following the constitution
But even then, they don’t get to determine line item spending
Example…court rules the cia/nsa can’t spy on Americans using certain technology…the court can’t come back and say…owe you can’t use that money elsewhere
That’s what they are doing here. They are not saying hey…you over stepped in terms of breaking the constitution, they are saying…executive branch doesn’t get to tell executive branch departments how they can spend the money congress allocated…no matter if they uncover fraud
Which is total bullshite
And even worse they are saying executive branch doesn’t have the right to audit spending on departments that fall under the executive which is even more bullshite
And even worse..the court is saying that those same departments do not have the ability to determine how they market through websites
So as far as waiting, you can get fricked with that
I know you like to think the law is very complicated and you are the only one that can understand it, but it’s really not and there are some of us that are smarter than you are
And understand this is coming from someone that usually agrees with you more times than not
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:34 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
because it's obviously a ruling made by an inferior court that doesn't have the authority to make this ruling???
Your question is baked with an incorrect assumption. The court does have the authority to make the ruling. It may be overruled at some point, but the authority isn't in question.
quote:
this judges ruling is outside of his district and in fact affects the nation.
Again, nationwide injunctions are permitted at the district court level.
Congress needs to step in here to fix this issue, as that's their Constitutional role.
quote:
He should have stayed the ruling while the case is appealed to a higher court.
The decision isn't even at that stage yet. There will be a trial relatively quickly over the issue and then the appellate court will decide any stay issues if there is an appeal after the trial. They don't usually weigh in at the initial stage because there isn't a record to rely upon (which is made during the trial I referenced earlier).
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:34 am to CarRamrod
quote:
What emergency?
The HEROES Act was passed during the Trump admin due to Covid.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:35 am to goatmilker
quote:
Being a clash of branches shouldn't the judicial branch be extremely clear in what those exact acts were and very specifically why unconstitutional.
They will be after the trial, I imagine. We're not there, just yet.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:so what emergency?
The HEROES Act was passed during the Trump admin due to Covid.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:36 am to SlowFlowPro
SFP, please keep wasting your time with something that means nothing as Donald Trump is now the POTUS. Keep beating a dead horse, attack attack attack Trump. Much like a liberal columnist in the local paper, she is still going after Trump for his opinions on abortions. American voters have already voted their position on both subjects & you still lose & we stiil win.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News