12
- 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
Separation of powers? frick that. Judiciary is supreme.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:11 pm
LINK
Trump as head of executive branch cannot fire US attorneys appointed by district court judges.
Turns the Constitution on its head. Also allows one branch of government to compel another branch of government to retain and pay employees it does not want.
Trump as head of executive branch cannot fire US attorneys appointed by district court judges.
Turns the Constitution on its head. Also allows one branch of government to compel another branch of government to retain and pay employees it does not want.
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:15 pm to udtiger
quote:
Separation of powers
whole point of the govt
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:15 pm to udtiger
Yes the check on rogue judges is supposed to be the ability to impeach them. However the bar for that is so high that it's pretty much impossible to do and they don't even bother to try.
As such the one check on misuse of judicial power is never used and as such they know they can pretty much do whatever they want.
They really should just be ignored
As such the one check on misuse of judicial power is never used and as such they know they can pretty much do whatever they want.
They really should just be ignored
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:22 pm to udtiger
This may be a little more complicated than I thought. There is a statute that allows district judges to appoint interim prosecutors when the president has been unable to appoint and confirm a permanent US attorney. The president could clearly replace the interim but would first need to get Senate approval. But can he just keep firing the interims and subvert the statute? This one will be interesting.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:25 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
This is all Thune's fricking fault for not letting Trump have recess appointments.
Grassley also bears a shitton of the blame for honoring blue slips.
Grassley also bears a shitton of the blame for honoring blue slips.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:26 pm to udtiger
quote:
This is all Thune's fricking fault for not letting Trump have recess appointments.
Grassley also bears a shitton of the blame for honoring blue slips.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:27 pm to StansberryRules
quote:
Yes the check on rogue judges is supposed to be the ability to impeach them. However the bar for that is so high that it's pretty much impossible to do and they don't even bother to try.
It’s not high at all. We just have extremely weak and corrupt Congress members
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:27 pm to udtiger
quote:
This is all Thune's fricking fault for not letting Trump have recess appointments. Grassley also bears a shitton of the blame for honoring blue slips.
100%. fricking traitors
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:28 pm to udtiger
quote:
Turns the Constitution on its head.
It's an interesting clash which the Supreme Court will have to settle.
From your article (chicken shite TDS re "Trump loyalists...duh, what President doesn't appoint "loyalists"?):
"The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation process to appoint loyalists in top positions. In cases when district judges have exercised their authority to select someone else as the U.S. attorney, Trump has fired that person."
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:29 pm to udtiger
quote:
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Is Bastian not aware of the Constitution?
Also:
28 U.S. Code § 541 - United States attorneys
(c)Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President
Are Bastian's law clerks so eaten up by hatred of Trump that they failed to read on-point statutes?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:35 pm to udtiger
quote:
Judge rules Trump can’t fire court-appointed prosecutors
quote:
A federal judge on Thursday ruled that President Donald Trump doesn’t have the power to fire court-appointed U.S. attorneys, rejecting a core tenet of the Trump administration’s approach to top prosecutorial jobs.
“The president cannot unilaterally fire a United States attorney appointed by the district court,” U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian said in a ruling from the bench. Doing so, Bastian said, “would upend the framework created by the Constitution and the statutes, which together balance the president’s right to appoint and the Senate’s right to confirm.”
The Justice Department said it will ask an appeals court to temporarily block Bastian’s decision while it appeals the ruling.
The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by Roger Rogoff, whom Trump purportedly fired from the job of U.S. attorney for the Seattle-area Western District of Washington immediately after the district’s federal judges appointed him to the role in July.
In his ruling, Bastian, an Obama appointee, determined that Rogoff is the U.S. attorney and has legally occupied that role since he took the oath of office on July 15. The judge also stripped power from Charles Neil Floyd, whom the Trump administration had temporarily installed in Rogoff’s place, determining that the administration had “improperly granted” authority to Floyd.
The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation process to appoint loyalists in top positions. In cases when district judges have exercised their authority to select someone else as the U.S. attorney, Trump has fired that person.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:38 pm to udtiger
quote:
Separation of powers? frick that. Judiciary is supreme.
Isn't this via statute? In that case, separation of powers already were involved and the President who signed checked the box on the Executive approval of the law.
So you will be upset if the judiciary rules this legally passed statute unconstitutional because it would mean "judiciary is supreme"?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:39 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation process to appoint loyalists in top positions.
This is an absolute lie.
His nominees are bottled up in the Judiciary Committee because Grassley is honoring blue slips. What's more is that Thune won't recess the Senate so he can fill.the slots with recess appointments.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:40 pm to udtiger
quote:
The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation process to appoint loyalists in top positions.
quote:
This is an absolute lie.
His nominees are bottled up in the Judiciary Committee because Grassley is honoring blue slips.
That means it's not a lie
You're all over the place ITT
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:41 pm to udtiger
If a branch of government act outside its responsibility, the other branches must react likewise. Only then can each branch respect the other.
Tit for tat. I would pay big money to see a marine unit remove 5 - 8 rogue judges on any given day, those judges to be never heard from again.
Tit for Tat!!
Tit for tat. I would pay big money to see a marine unit remove 5 - 8 rogue judges on any given day, those judges to be never heard from again.
Tit for Tat!!
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Isn't this via statute?
Every statute is constitutional?
shite... guess there are a shitton of volumes from the Federal Reports and Supreme Court Reporta that need to be trashed.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:42 pm to udtiger
quote:
Every statute is constitutional?
shite... guess there are a shitton of volumes from the Federal Reports and Supreme Court Reporta that need to be trashed.
Keep reading. Already covered.
quote:
So you will be upset if the judiciary rules this legally passed statute unconstitutional because it would mean "judiciary is supreme"?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That means it's not a lie
You're all over the place ITT
He's not circumventing shite.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:43 pm to udtiger
quote:
He's not circumventing shite.
Did the Senate confirm them?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 3:44 pm to udtiger
Someday it'll only take 5 SC justices to literally destroy every right you've ever held dear and there will be absolutely no legal recourse. So yes the judiciary is indeed supreme which is why the lefts obsessed with destroying it as we have always known it.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News