- 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: Judges are trying to become president.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the judges can't review the actions of the admin, then how can a court determine the applicability of the law to the citizen?
Because some actions of a president are not reviewable. Just like certain things are not able to be overruled with instant replay in football.
Are all things reviewable in the nfl?
But surely if it is egregious even if it shouldn't be overruled by replay, on a really egregious case they would correct?
Oh, you say no. So some things are not reviewable in football and in this way. Unless the Supreme Court were to change the precedent and say or is reviewable.
Just like if they changed the rules in the nfl...
1
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:07 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
Because some actions of a president are not reviewable. Just like certain things are not able to be overruled with instant replay in football.
You're the only person who answered, so I give you credit for that.
But think about the standard you're arguing for.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
think about the standard you're arguing for.
Think about the standard you are fighting for.
You think everything should be able to be reviewed by a judge?
So trump wants to have a press conference.
Oh no, judge says he can't do it.
President wants to declassify certain documents.
Oh no, judge gets to decide if he can.
There simply are certain things a judge should not be able to review.
I mean first of what we have now is ridiculous.
Judges are blocking orders knowing that they will be 100 percent overruled.
But they don't care.
And then they insert themselves where they have no right to be.
I get it. You're a lawyer, right?
I think I've seen you say maybe once that you are a lawyer. I mean you hide it really well.
But I digress.
This is a non starter. The Supreme Court already said they the president has the power to decide who this law applies.
And the decision is at his sole discretion. So, in this case obviously the activist judge decided to ignore precedent.
Judges are not God. There are 3 rural branches of the government.
When you have activist judges suddenly the judges basically are passing laws by their decision..
The judiciary has to stay in is lame like everyone else.
But since I think you said you were a lawyer, no doubt you thing the judiciary should be final arbiter.
I mean they are the judiciary right?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:14 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
Think about the standard you are fighting for.
Imagine a grown adult with some form of spectrum diagnosis who also pretends to be a smart lawyer with a fetish for argument
now imagine said person is also progressive but hides behind his contrarian verbiage.
now imagine this person appears to not work much, if at all, so they have multiple tabs open for each thread they discretely argue against moderate and conservative ideals.
This is what you're dealing with.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Maybe it is not a "Radical Left Lunatic Judge" acting alone, but rather a duly, Constitutionally appointed and confirmed federal judge, enforcing statutes enacted by the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.
And you know in this action by the judge this is completely false, goes against SCOTUS precedent and is in direct conflict with the ACT that POTUS proclaimed.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The judges are limiting government
General Mike Flynn would like a word with you. He was prosecuted by a JUDGE, more or less.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:25 pm to CDawson
quote:
And you know in this action by the judge this is completely false, goes against SCOTUS precedent and is in direct conflict with the ACT that POTUS proclaimed.
Then the Circuit and/or SCOTUS should have no issue correcting the matter.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're the only person who answered, so I give you credit for that.
Speaking of which, how's about you answer the question Flats keeps asking you?
I would be interested in your answer as well.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:28 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
So trump wants to have a press conference.
Oh no, judge says he can't do it.
No, there is no standing for any conceivable litigant to prevent POTUS from speaking to the press.
quote:
President wants to declassify certain documents.
Oh no, judge gets to decide if he can.
Well, there are laws governing declassification determinations and procedures. Were they followed?
quote:
The Supreme Court already said they the president has the power to decide who this law applies.
And the decision is at his sole discretion. So, in this case obviously the activist judge decided to ignore precedent.
The issue isn't whether the law applies to any particular individual, but whether the law applies at all. At least as I understand it. There isn't anyone to answer that question other than the courts.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:40 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Then the Circuit and/or SCOTUS should have no issue correcting the matter.
That's what is at issue. Its a clear violation of separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches. The executive branch does not have to cower to the judicial or legislative branches on constitutional powers that are clearly delineated. The judicial branch is not superior or in charge of the executive branch.
It is clear the judicial branch has no authority as it relates to foreign policy, foreign terrorist, or the removal thereof. It's nothing more than a political attempt to slow the Trump agenda down through violations of powers.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:42 pm to GumboPot
That one low level nobody judge can halt every executive office move makes no sense. The US Supreme Court should be the only court that can block executive action. This is a way to get cases up to the Supreme Court but the low level judge’s ruling shouldn’t block the action. The executive action should be allowed to continue until SCOTUS rules.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:47 pm to CDawson
quote:
Its a clear violation of separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches.
This is the explanation I'm looking for. Why is that? No one has explained the legal issue here, instead everyone just parrots talking points. What specifically makes the ruling unlawful OTHER than it being derived from a differing interpretation of the statute. I'm not defending the merits of the ruling, I'm asking WHY its beyond judicial authority. Because if its based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute...you're just going to have to wait on the judicial process to play out.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:52 pm to Indefatigable
And if the President issues pardons that is solely up to him.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
This is the explanation I'm looking for. Why is that? No one has explained the legal issue here, instead everyone just parrots talking points. What specifically makes the ruling unlawful OTHER than it being derived from a differing interpretation of the statute.
There is a Supreme Court case bouncing around the echo chamber, that establishes the most important fact for triggering the statute, which is the biggest area of dispute in this situation.
And the Trump admin has been extremely confident in how they describe their view of power and the muted role of the judiciary. It's worn off.
quote:
I'm asking WHY its beyond judicial authority. Because if its based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute...you're just going to have to wait on the judicial process to play out.
Their argument is that the judiciary has no ability to review the executive's actions pursuant to either statute involved, and since the admin is claiming "national security", it's shielded from providing any information about the facts underlying their actions, if they so choose.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:54 pm to The Boat
quote:
The US Supreme Court should be the only court that can block executive action.
They are not, and have never been, built for this. I mean even the current court would have to be completely redone to permit testimony and the presentation of evidence. It would require a complete upheaval of how our system has been built for quite some time.
And it's up to Congress to give the jurisdiction to the courts, and the sides exchange only in puffery on this issue b/c neither will give up this power.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It would require a complete upheaval of how our system has been built for quite some time.
The system is clearly broken and in need of reworking.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:59 pm to The Boat
You may have missed the edit, but neither side wants to give up this power, so Congress isn't likely to change the jurisdiction/procedure for district courts anytime soon.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:00 pm to The Boat
quote:
That one low level nobody judge can halt every executive office move makes no sense. The US Supreme Court should be the only court that can block executive action. This is a way to get cases up to the Supreme Court but the low level judge’s ruling shouldn’t block the action. The executive action should be allowed to continue until SCOTUS rules.
The Trump administration currently appears to be adopting a strategy of superficial compliance with judicial rulings, while anticipating that the judiciary will perceive their actions as noncompliance. The Department of Justice should consider treating lower court rulings as advisory opinions, particularly when they encroach upon the executive branch's Article II responsibilities. If lower court judges hold executive branch officials in contempt, President Trump could issue pardons, allowing the executive to continue exercising its constitutional duties unimpeded.
The tactic of using lower courts to delay or obstruct the executive branch's Article II functions must be addressed. The administration could achieve this by outwardly respecting and appeasing the lower courts, while adhering to the executive's own interpretation of compliance. However, once a case reaches the Supreme Court and a ruling is issued, the executive branch should fully abide by the decision. This approach would balance deference to the judicial process with the preservation of executive authority.
This is how I think the Trump admin is currently proceeding.
ETA: I come to this conclusion after listening to the WH press conference.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Their argument is that the judiciary has no ability to review the executive's actions pursuant to either statute involved
Well that is silly, because the statute has to apply first. Which I am guessing is the central issue at play.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:03 pm to Lg
quote:
He was prosecuted by a JUDGE, more or less.
1000% Correct.
AFTER the DOJ dropped the case, no less.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News