- 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: Judge directs Trump administration to comply with order to unfreeze federal grants
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:41 pm to omegaman66
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:41 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Solidifying my position more and more to say FU to these judges as their "orders" will be found to not hold water.
Otherwise you're just handcuffing yourself against a lawless enemy and encouraging him to keep doing it.
0
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:42 pm to Jbird
AI Overview (from Google)
No, a federal judge in one state cannot directly dictate law on the federal level; only the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to definitively interpret and apply federal law across the entire country, meaning a single federal judge's decision in one state only applies within their jurisdiction and can be appealed to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, to establish nationwide precedent.
Limited jurisdiction:
Federal judges only have jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, and their rulings are generally only binding within their circuit or district.
Supreme Court authority:
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has the final say on interpreting federal law, making their decisions binding on all lower courts.
Circuit courts:
Appeals from lower federal courts typically go to the relevant circuit court of appeals, whose decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Therefore, this judge can go fly his kite in Rhode Island.
No, a federal judge in one state cannot directly dictate law on the federal level; only the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to definitively interpret and apply federal law across the entire country, meaning a single federal judge's decision in one state only applies within their jurisdiction and can be appealed to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, to establish nationwide precedent.
Limited jurisdiction:
Federal judges only have jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, and their rulings are generally only binding within their circuit or district.
Supreme Court authority:
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has the final say on interpreting federal law, making their decisions binding on all lower courts.
Circuit courts:
Appeals from lower federal courts typically go to the relevant circuit court of appeals, whose decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Therefore, this judge can go fly his kite in Rhode Island.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:44 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:
He’s going to have to or the lawfare will destroy his presidency again
Or he could just do things correctly the first time.
This is exactly what I was scared about occurring with lots of these regulatory reforms/scale backs, and I was not quiet about my concerns.
Many of these moves feel like the DACA repeal failure all over again.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
This is the same with the R problem with liberalism generally
You're constantly trying to defeat an untethered enemy and you're continually tying your own hands behind your back to do it.
For what?
You're constantly trying to defeat an untethered enemy and you're continually tying your own hands behind your back to do it.
For what?
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Or he could just do things correctly the first time.
What's incorrect about what he's doing? For example, what's incorrect about the US Treasury Secretary reviewing numbers about the US Treasury?
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:48 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
This is the same with the R problem with liberalism generally
You're constantly trying to defeat an untethered enemy and you're continually tying your own hands behind your back to do it.
This is more like an unforced error.
The admin should have anticipated all of these actions and relied on a more thoughtful, deliberate strategy instead of being a bull in a China shop trying to just win by overwhelming the system.
Like the formation of DOGE itself. Even that is being litigated.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
Just because something is lawful doesn't mean it's correct. That's why the law will be challenged.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:50 pm to Flats
quote:It is a Trump appointee doing it, not someone he supports.
For example, what's incorrect about the US Treasury Secretary reviewing numbers about the US Treasury?
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:50 pm to Flats
quote:
What's incorrect about what he's doing? F
He should have gone through the hoops to create DOGE clearly and then enact actual policy changes (not a vague EO) to permit them the authority, pursuant to APA regulations.
This could have been done but would have just taken more time. That's all. It would have also been much harder to unwind in the next DEM administration.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:51 pm to Jimmy Russel
quote:
That's why the law will be challenged.
This is also another option. Trump has the House and Senate. Pass legislation to do this.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:51 pm to Jbird
Trump has the constitutional authority to examine these payments for accountability, accuracy, fraud and abuse before they go out.
It may take a few days but that just the way it is.
It may take a few days but that just the way it is.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
LOL
The only reason this is effective is due to speed and surprise.
Your opinion is premised on the idea that if the same architects of our political and cultural decline were brought in to craft the perfect plan to be implemented in 2027, then the D judges would just go "well no way to attack this, it's perfect." It doesn't/hasn't ever worked like that.
It's all going to be litigated no matter what. The overwhelming majority of the judiciary is going to be hostile to Trump politically. The overwhelming majority of the administrative state is going to be hostile to Trump politically.
It's a skewed board, there is no way for the right to win until it shifts. We have the mandate to do it right now, and who knows when we'll get it again.
The only reason this is effective is due to speed and surprise.
Your opinion is premised on the idea that if the same architects of our political and cultural decline were brought in to craft the perfect plan to be implemented in 2027, then the D judges would just go "well no way to attack this, it's perfect." It doesn't/hasn't ever worked like that.
It's all going to be litigated no matter what. The overwhelming majority of the judiciary is going to be hostile to Trump politically. The overwhelming majority of the administrative state is going to be hostile to Trump politically.
It's a skewed board, there is no way for the right to win until it shifts. We have the mandate to do it right now, and who knows when we'll get it again.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:53 pm to Flats
quote:
What's incorrect about what he's doing? For example, what's incorrect about the US Treasury Secretary reviewing numbers about the US Treasury?
The Judge has explained what is incorrect.
The judge said specifically that the withheld funds that must be restored include those appropriated under two laws championed by former President Biden — the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act — and those intended for institutes and other agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
“The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country,” McConnell wrote.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He should have gone through the hoops to create DOGE clearly and then enact actual policy changes (not a vague EO) to permit them the authority, pursuant to APA regulations.
I don't know what any of that means and I doubt you do either. Go through what hoops? If the POTUS wants to hire an advisor on the proper amount of ketchup for a hamburger he can do that. And what does this "enact actual policy" changes look like for an executive function?
Posted on 2/10/25 at 12:57 pm to Jbird
Does that judge have F-35s under his command?
- trying to do my best Biden impression.
Do what the left would do. Ignore him.
- trying to do my best Biden impression.
Do what the left would do. Ignore him.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:01 pm to Jbird
These are the ones - who do their bidding in secret, under the guise of privilege that must be walked before God and the Universe
Absolutely and totally the MOST CORRUPT branch of 'We the People'
Where were these fackers when 'We the People' were suffering under the COVID19 pandemic - where every imaginable civil right was tread upon? Talk about 'taxation without representation'
Absolutely and totally the MOST CORRUPT branch of 'We the People'
Where were these fackers when 'We the People' were suffering under the COVID19 pandemic - where every imaginable civil right was tread upon? Talk about 'taxation without representation'
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:03 pm to Flats
Arguably the country's foremost expert of administrative law is pretty solidly in Trump's corner on this FWIW
Of course he's a Catholic integralist...but that's a different story.
Of course he's a Catholic integralist...but that's a different story.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:05 pm to AGGIES
quote:
The Judge has explained what is incorrect.
He didn't explain jack shite, he just said it's "likely" unconstitutional. Why is it likely unconstitutional? Do you think his job is to block anything the federal government does that, in his opinion, will cause harm to the country? He obviously thinks so, but do you?
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:07 pm to stout
quote:
Tell this judge to GFY
If it's a legal Presidential order, this. SOTUS has spoken.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 2:29 pm to omegaman66
The democrats built this machine. Playing nice doesn’t get us anywhere. They’d still pack the courts, abandon the filibuster, and give senate seats to DC and Puerto Rico. F them and give them a taste of their own medicine.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News