8
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
SFP- This is Lawfare
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:22 am
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:22 am
Since you have trouble understanding this subject, I’m here to help you out. Enjoy:
LINK
A California federal judge Friday ordered the Trump administration to stop threatening election officials with criminal prosecution in its ongoing efforts to crack down on noncitizen voting.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order connected to a lawsuit brought by unions representing California election workers earlier Friday. In her decision, the Biden-appointed judge noted Election Day was “around the corner.”
“Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots,” Thompson wrote. “Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”
The order also directs the Trump administration to halt its efforts to force these workers to remove certain people from voter rolls, deny ballot requests to some voters or set aside ballots for individuals it suspects are ineligible to vote.
The plaintiffs involved in this case include The Service Employees International Union; American Federation Of State, County and Municipal Employees; the League Of United Latin American Citizens and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The initial complaint accuses Attorney General Todd Blanche and other top Justice Department (DOJ) officials of carrying out “a coordinated campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees.”
This week, the DOJ sent letters to election officials in all 50 states threatening potential prosecution if they failed to preserve election records.
The DOJ had sent similar correspondence a week prior to election officials in every California county, demanding they work with the federal government to identify potential noncitizens on their voter rolls. The letter warned these officials would “risk significant federal scrutiny” if they failed to comply with this request.
Earlier this week, another federal judge in California threw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit attempting to require the state to set aside the ballots of 20,000 people the federal government had identified as potential noncitizens. A split federal appeals court panel upheld this ruling Friday.
LINK
A California federal judge Friday ordered the Trump administration to stop threatening election officials with criminal prosecution in its ongoing efforts to crack down on noncitizen voting.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order connected to a lawsuit brought by unions representing California election workers earlier Friday. In her decision, the Biden-appointed judge noted Election Day was “around the corner.”
“Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots,” Thompson wrote. “Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”
The order also directs the Trump administration to halt its efforts to force these workers to remove certain people from voter rolls, deny ballot requests to some voters or set aside ballots for individuals it suspects are ineligible to vote.
The plaintiffs involved in this case include The Service Employees International Union; American Federation Of State, County and Municipal Employees; the League Of United Latin American Citizens and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The initial complaint accuses Attorney General Todd Blanche and other top Justice Department (DOJ) officials of carrying out “a coordinated campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees.”
This week, the DOJ sent letters to election officials in all 50 states threatening potential prosecution if they failed to preserve election records.
The DOJ had sent similar correspondence a week prior to election officials in every California county, demanding they work with the federal government to identify potential noncitizens on their voter rolls. The letter warned these officials would “risk significant federal scrutiny” if they failed to comply with this request.
Earlier this week, another federal judge in California threw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit attempting to require the state to set aside the ballots of 20,000 people the federal government had identified as potential noncitizens. A split federal appeals court panel upheld this ruling Friday.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:25 am to RandRules
quote:
SFP- This is Lawfare
Which part?
The actions by the admin?
The rulings?
The comments?
You're going to need a different definition for all 3 things
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:27 am to RandRules
More Lawfare
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 10/31/26 at 7:29 am
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:28 am to SlowFlowPro
This is what you do: “they didn’t file the proper paperwork and go through the right process therefore it’s all correct interpretations by the courts.” The Judicial Branch is infallible and it’s always the fault of something else, insufferable doucher
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Always defending tLeft
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:30 am to Rip Torner
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:31 am to RandRules
Our elections aren’t credible.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:33 am to SlowFlowPro
A Biden-appointed judge ruling that no one is to be held accountable for allowing illegals to vote - that is just one example of Lawfare. There are plenty more in the article. You disagree?
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
that's a lot like the infantry man experiencing drones, heavy artillery, rifle fire, mustard gas, bomblets, mortars, and then asking should we be concerned about the lack of a declaration of war.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:37 am to Rip Torner
quote:
This is what you do: “they didn’t file the proper paperwork and go through the right process therefore it’s all correct interpretations by the courts.”
Update: I said nothing of the sort ITT
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:37 am to TrueTiger
When the federal government has no control over a federal election, I would call that a big problem
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:37 am to Trevaylin
quote:
that's a lot like the infantry man experiencing drones, heavy artillery, rifle fire, mustard gas, bomblets, mortars, and then asking should we be concerned about the lack of a declaration of war.
It's actually nothing like that
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:38 am to SlowFlowPro
This right here should allow everyone to truly see what and who you are on this site. This is clear lawfare.....and now everyone on here knows what a truly low IQ, POS you are. Sure, most people with a functioning brain knew who you were and what your game is on here. There were a few on the short bus that should see now. You are literally trying to deflect and argue this is not blatant lawfare. You really are a POS.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:39 am to Pedropatterstine
quote:
This right here should allow everyone to truly see what and who you are on this site. This is clear lawfare.....and now everyone on here knows what a truly low IQ, POS you are. Sure, most people with a functioning brain knew who you were and what your game is on here. There were a few on the short bus that should see now. You are literally trying to deflect and argue this is not blatant lawfare. You really are a POS.
Holy shite. What an insane, irrelevant melt for 7:39 am (CST)
This conversation is clearly beyond your abilities
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:42 am to RandRules
quote:
Since you have trouble understanding this subject,
He doesn't. He knows damn well what it is, but will never admit it because he supports the intended goals of said lawfare.
This post was edited on 10/31/26 at 7:42 am
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:43 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
He doesn't.
Correct. I do not
This thread is a good example of people having trouble understanding my arguments, and then engaging in strawman fallacies left and right, trying to create an argument I never made.
quote:
He knows damn well what it is, b
Now this part is NOT true. I know about 50 things it could be, based on 50 different definitions used. Look at OP. 3 different scenarios of potential "lawfare", each with their own definition.
quote:
because he supports the intended goals of said lawfare.
I don't know what lawfare is to support or oppose it
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:45 am to RandRules
When judges say election laws can’t be enforced, you don’t have a legitimate election system.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:51 am to TrueTiger
Posted on 10/31/26 at 7:54 am to TrueTiger
quote:
When judges say election laws can’t be enforced,
None have done this. You're using creative framing.
What's being discussed is actions of the admin purportedly authorized by certain election-related laws.
Those sorts of admin actions are always subject to judicial review. See: Biden student loan forgiveness admin action and vax mandate admin action.
No rational person took those rulings and proclaimed that OSHA or the HEROES Act can't be enforced. Rational people understand they have to be enforced by legal admin behavior.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:04 am to SlowFlowPro
Stop deflecting. Just answer the question: Do you believe what transpired in this article is “Lawfare”? Yes or No?
Before you say you don’t know what Lawfare is, I can help you on that as well. Straight from Google, “Lawfare is the strategic use of legal systems, courts, and laws as a weapon to harm, weaken, or defeat a military, political, or commercial adversary.”
Does this qualify as Lawfare according to Google’s definition?
Before you say you don’t know what Lawfare is, I can help you on that as well. Straight from Google, “Lawfare is the strategic use of legal systems, courts, and laws as a weapon to harm, weaken, or defeat a military, political, or commercial adversary.”
Does this qualify as Lawfare according to Google’s definition?
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News