- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: SDNY fricking with DOGE ALSO
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:36 am to BlueTiger23
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:36 am to BlueTiger23
quote:
But don’t cut the corners. Again, I am only arguing for proper rule of law.
What corners were cut?
0
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:36 am to Wire Road 2
That would be AWESOME!! In our history, has an American Judge ever had to have gallows built for their malfeasance?
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:38 am to redneck hippie
quote:
trump doesn’t get to just steamroll past the constitution
I don't think your side reeeeeeally wants to play the strict constructionist game. If you did, 90% of what the federal government does would be gone tomorrow. Goodbye Social Security. Goodbye U SAID. Goodbye welfare state. Goodbye Medicare/Medicaid. Goodbye HUD. Goodbye HHS. Need I go on?
It's like the 10th Amendment never existed.
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:39 am to Wire Road 2
quote:
At some point Team DOGE needs to look into some of these judges…no doubt they’re on the take also.
I would dedicate a small team just for this purpose
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:40 am to Jbird
It is a fricking audit of the government system which is long overdue. In audits, auditors need full access to all data, including sensitive personal data (bank accounts, ssn, etc.) in order to follow the money. Otherwise, it is a limited scope audit. The top level has been exposed to light, and democrats are desperate that the web below that in the deeper levels will expose their personal corruption.
This post was edited on 2/8/25 at 11:41 am
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:41 am to UncleFestersLegs
These are legitimately included in the reasons why the states filed lawsuits and it got held by the Courts. That EO also was for a backlogging issues going back 6 months from the previous administration. This also doesn’t change what I said about those two things not being the same. If he would’ve went thru the proper channels the first time, there’d be nothing to take to court because they went through actual background checks (which that failure falls upon the transition team). Now it’s halted, and the removal also may be halted if they file a “national security” lawsuit.
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:42 am to BlueTiger23
quote:
Again, I am only arguing for proper rule of law.
No. You’re arguing for more of our tax dollars to go to Democrat pet projects. You’re arguing for no one to look behind the curtain.
It’s all very transparent.
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:42 am to HEtiger
Which is why our new proggy friends on here are melting.
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:44 am to omegaman66
That works both ways. The Supreme Court shot down Democratic initiatives as well. That occurs when we don’t have impartiality in the court rooms. How do you fix it? Great question. The judge isn’t breaking the law by utilizing the powers that they are given. It always works both ways and why movement whether right or left will always be stagnant
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:44 am to SemiNoblePursuit
quote:
Like face political retribution for doing her job?
She’s not doing her job. She’s stopping her political opponents from enacting their policy agenda.
fricking liars, all of you.
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:47 am to dickkellog
quote:
the notion of judicial review was created out of thin air in 1803 in marbury v. madison it's a custom we've observed but it is not in the constitution jethro.
Supreme Court cases are literally interpretation OF THE LAW and how they will utilized and enforced (and whether they align with the Constitution or not). Marbury v Madison is the interpretation of the Judiciary Act OF THE CONSTITUTION. Calling the ruling of how an amendment can be used and its statute(s) an observed custom is hilarious.
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:48 am to Jbird
quote:
Says you.
You’re right… being that a regular clearance background of that level takes months anyways. Who know
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:50 am to the808bass
quote:
No. You’re arguing for more of our tax dollars to go to Democrat pet projects. You’re arguing for no one to look behind the curtain. It’s all very transparent.
I’ve said 1000th times that I want transparency and an end to the fraud and corruption. What’s not clicking? I can want people to be vetted properly while also giving those vetted people the ability to do their jobs. How is that so outlandish LOL
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:53 am to BlueTiger23
quote:For a normal person, using the contract investigators.
being that a regular clearance background of that level takes months anyways.
So why can a head of an agency nominated by the President, confirmed by Congress with in a week or so have a security clearance?
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:54 am to BlueTiger23
quote:
blahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
The president has the power to grant security clearances. Google it progtard
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:56 am to BlueTiger23
Because you’re only paying lip service to it. You don’t really believe it.
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:56 am to BlueTiger23
quote:
Now it’s halted, and the removal also may be halted if they file a “national security” lawsuit.
Pray tell...WHO will be filing a "national security" lawsuit?
Who do you think is the ONLY branch of the government that would have the standing to bring that suit?
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:58 am to Jbird
1) transition teams get on that process way before hand. We know the nominees far before
2) also, the HEAD OF AN AGENCY is not the same as what we are talking about. Cmon man
2) also, the HEAD OF AN AGENCY is not the same as what we are talking about. Cmon man
Posted on 2/8/25 at 11:59 am to BlueTiger23
quote:They have a security clearance you idiot.
2) also, the HEAD OF AN AGENCY is not the same as what we are talking about. Cmon man
quote:Weeks you clown.
We know the nominees far before
Posted on 2/8/25 at 12:01 pm to udtiger
State attorney generals already are for the DOGE stuff. You’re crazy if you think a former president wouldn’t be able to file a lawsuit over security clearance and intelligence briefings being revoke on that claim.
Page 6 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News