- 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
1
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:18 pm to Loserman
They can issue injunctions, subpoenas, hold people in contempt, fine people, have their assets frozen and siezed. Courts often work slowly, but they have a ton of power if you piss them off.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:18 pm to Loserman
quote:
You seem to miss the entire point. The courts can rule however they want, but they can't enforce or fund anything.
Ok? The courts make rulings. Trump may or may not enforce them, but that doesn't change the function of the courts.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:18 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:We'll see.
See Marbury v. Madison for a very similar legal issue actually.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:18 pm to kingbob
quote:
They can issue injunctions, subpoenas, hold people in contempt, fine people, have their assets frozen and siezed. Courts often work slowly, but they have a ton of power if you piss them off.
While you are largely correct the people who ultimately enforce those are U.S. Marshalls and other LEOs who ultimately report to Trump.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:20 pm to udtiger
quote:
Likelihood of success on the merits
His determination of this is completely subjective when you look at South Dakota v Dole (unless the administration is using some other case as their basis) and as such should be thrown out and ridiculed.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:20 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
If the government defies this order, the judge could hold the government official responsible for defying the order, in contempt
Again, what can the courts do? Nothing!
They have very little power in our form of government.
Contrary to popular belief, we do NOT have 3 co-equal branches of Government. We only have 2 and one that can be ignored until like minded members who agree with the courts decision in the other 2 branches get in to power.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:21 pm to kingbob
Honest Ted will lead the charge on this
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:21 pm to CorporateTiger
Injunction junction, what's your function? Enforcing court action with complex siezure and contempt like:
Out of your bank account and into the fire
Throw you in jail because your contempt couldn't get any hire
Go up to the jailhouse
Or down to bankruptcy
When they ask you to do something, they don't ask nicely.
Out of your bank account and into the fire
Throw you in jail because your contempt couldn't get any hire
Go up to the jailhouse
Or down to bankruptcy
When they ask you to do something, they don't ask nicely.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:21 pm to Bard
Likelihood of success isn't actually a very high bar. You can have a <50% chance on the merits and still get a likelihood of success on the merits.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:22 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
The Associated Press?Verified account @AP
BREAKING: US judge blocks Trump order to cut off funding to cities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities.
another "so called judge" strikes again.
Three things:
1. Federal funding is authorized by Congress as they have the constitutional spending power. The executive branch can't do this through an EO. Only Congress can decide who gets money and how much.
2. It's been repeated over and over through the years by SCOTUS that federal funding can be used to induce states to comply with what the feds want, BUT the funding must be related to that end. Your not going to be able to stop all funding.
3. SCOTUS in several cases has also said that where monetary inducements cross the threshold from encouragement to coercion that it becomes unconstitutional. Again, removing all funding would be in violation of this.
What will have to happen is first it will have to come from Congress, not Trump, and second the money removed will have to be proportional to what Congress would like the States to do, then it is legal.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:24 pm to Loserman
quote:
Again, what can the courts do? Nothing!
They have very little power in our form of government.
They have the power to place someone in custody indefinitely for criminal contempt for not obeying them if they so please. That's a pretty good bit of power, considering they're the only branch that can literally throw your arse in jail at the snap of a finger and with no authorization other than their own.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:24 pm to kingbob
quote:
They can issue injunctions, subpoenas, hold people in contempt, fine people, have their assets frozen and siezed. Courts often work slowly, but they have a ton of power if you piss them off.
Wrong.
They can order all of those functions but can't enforce ANY of them. It takes Executives to enforce them.
This is true not only at the Federal level but at the State and City Levels. IT takes the Legislatures to oust/impeach the executives before the court order can ever be enforced against the executive branches.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:27 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Likelihood of success isn't actually a very high bar.
It makes no sense to define "likelihood of success" as anything less than 51% (because the lower it gets from that point, the less likely it becomes).
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
They don't care how it's supposed to work. They just want the government to act in accordance to the political ideology of liberalism.
fact
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:29 pm to tigerinDC09
So then how does this affect states who were forced to change their drinking age or risk losing federal funds?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:30 pm to Bard
A chance >51% is "probable" in Legal parlance.
So then the test would be "Has the Plaintiff shown a probability of success on the merits?"
The rest is designed to see if the case has at least some chance of succeeding. Even if you only have a 40% chance of winning, but will be irreperably harmed without a TRO then you should get your TRO and then take your 40% chance.
I'm not saying that is the probability here, I'm just pointing out the general logic behind this legal standard.
So then the test would be "Has the Plaintiff shown a probability of success on the merits?"
The rest is designed to see if the case has at least some chance of succeeding. Even if you only have a 40% chance of winning, but will be irreperably harmed without a TRO then you should get your TRO and then take your 40% chance.
I'm not saying that is the probability here, I'm just pointing out the general logic behind this legal standard.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:31 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
I mentioned that before. That was the Legislature writing the conditions prior to funding. Not the Executive changing conditions on existing funds.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:33 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
That was done by an act of Congress, not by executive order. The judge isn't saying that this type of action (defunding cities who flaunt federal law) is unconstitutional, but that it is unconstitutional to do that via executive order. Congress has the power to make a uniform rule for naturalization. Congress has the power to approprate funds. The president does not have those powers. He can only enforce laws, not make them. His regulatory agencies can only make rules in the manner Congress has delegated to them.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:33 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
So then how does this affect states who were forced to change their drinking age or risk losing federal funds?
The distinguishing fact between that and this is the money withheld for drinking age was proportional to what the government wanted AND was related to its purpose. SCOTUS in ruling that it was ok for Congress to that wrote in their opinion that if enough money is withheld then it can cross the line from encouragement to coercion and would be unconstitutional. Trump wants all funds, which is unconstitutional based on SCOTUS precedent.
Edited to add that as I said in a previous post and the above poster stated, it also would have to come from Congress, not the executive.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 5:05 pm
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News