- 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: Simple solution to judicial overreach and nationwide injunctions
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:20 am to MMauler
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:20 am to MMauler
quote:
the Democrats also lose. Only 8% of Biden‘s executive orders were subject to a nationwide injunction. On the other hand, during the first Trump administration over 29% of his executive orders were stopped via nationwide injunction.
What part of being norm-defiant is confusing to you?
Again, just look at the EO on birthright citizenship. Everyone involved with that farce knew it was going to be automatically enjoined as it's currently illegal as frick.
2
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Is the executive desiring an audit of his own executive agencies “norm defiant”?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The reason why you're seeing such an increase is by making major policy changes via EO and not legislation and/or proper administrative policies.
Congress is responsible for this. It ceded enormous power to the Article II branch by creating the alphabet agencies under it.
Naturally that would make the EO a powerful tool.
A blind man could see this.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:28 am to Y.A. Tittle
Creating a closet agency in 2 weeks and then having people outside of government without any specific mandate or policies/regulations doing that is very norm defiant.
This was already a function of the IGs. Compare how they were formed, and their mandate updated by Congress, and the regulatory actions done properly through normal channels in the APA, and this.
This was already a function of the IGs. Compare how they were formed, and their mandate updated by Congress, and the regulatory actions done properly through normal channels in the APA, and this.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:33 am to SlowFlowPro
That’s quite the idiosyncratic answer to a very straightforward non-idiosyncratic question.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Again, just look at the EO on birthright citizenship. Everyone involved with that farce knew it was going to be automatically enjoined as it's currently illegal as frick.
There is nothing “illegal as f*ck" about that executive order.
I would say that you just can’t be THIS F*CKING STUPID, but you have proven over and over again that you are.
There is more than enough evidence to show that birthright citizenship was never meant to apply to criminals who enter the country illegally. Further, the Supreme Court has not spoken directly on this issue as the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the newly freed slaves.
There are numerous scholarly articles, laying out the case that there is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship, at least with respect to what it has become.
Did Trump understand and realize that this would be challenged? Of course. But this is an issue that deserves a hearing before the Supreme Court.
There was no f*cking way that the people who voted to pass the 14th amendment could have foreseen the cottage industry illegal anchor babies that has arisen
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:36 am to DByrd2
quote:
But it would. Adding even one of these cases to the USSC's docket to hear through trial would destroy the annual calendar.
So your reasoning for not supporting the USSC prioritization of critical national interest cases regarding corruption in Congress and the agencies is that doing so would cause schedulers to actually earn their paycheck? Give me a fricking break, dude. You’re helpless.
Sounds like Trump! needs to expand the court to 99 judges.
Heck maybe 999.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Is norm compliance some sort of benchmark?
very norm defiant
Jackson, Calhoun, TR, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, JFK, Clinton, and Biden and others had unelected, unappointed trusted advisors, or so-called "Kitchen Cabinets."
The "very norm defiant" element here is Trump told everyone well in advance what he was planning. It was part of the campaign.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Creating a closet agency in 2 weeks and then having people outside of government without any specific mandate or policies/regulations doing that is very norm defiant.
USDS was created in 2014, not two weeks ago.
And it was created specifically to do exactly what it’s currently doing.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The "very norm defiant" element here is Trump told everyone well in advance what he was planning. It was part of the campaign.
And the majority voted for it.
Trump isn't being norm-defiant;
he's being norm-compliant.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:47 am to MMauler
quote:
The whole point is to delay, delay, delay for years while these fraudulent cases and restraining orders make their way up to the Supreme Court
Help me out here... Isn't there a petition or some means available to request SCOTUS hear cases quickly? Like they did with Trump's case?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:49 am to TrueTiger
quote:
quote:
where injunctive relief/TRO is sought.
nationwide or local?
Either.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This was already a function of the IGs.
How was that working out for us?
Most of what you said is bullshite anyway, but do you really want to appeal to the IGs who've been supposedly watching over this financial clown show?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:54 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
That’s quite the idiosyncratic answer to a very straightforward non-idiosyncratic question.
Any discussion of DOGE will be idiosyncratic due to it's novelty.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:55 am to MMauler
quote:
There is nothing “illegal as f*ck" about that executive order.
Other than ignoring Supreme Court precedent, nothing.
quote:
Further, the Supreme Court has not spoken directly on this issue as the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the newly freed slaves.
Read Wong Kim Ark. It covers all of this and is a Supreme Court decision. It was confirmed not long ago and the court specifically referenced birthright citizenship.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:55 am to udtiger
Impeach for treason
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Is norm compliance some sort of benchmark?
No, but if you're intentionally throwing wrenches into the system, the system is going to react skeptically and analyze these thing thoroughly.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:58 am to tigeraddict
quote:
Would need a constitutional ammendment
nah
Posted on 2/11/25 at 7:58 am to Flats
quote:
How was that working out for us?
I'm not anti-DOGE. I said a long time ago my fear over Trump and DOGE was they'd do what they did last time and be too aggressive ant not follow the law properly and get DOGE tied up. That's literally exactly what happened.
quote:
Most of what you said is bullshite anyway, but do you really want to appeal to the IGs who've been supposedly watching over this financial clown show?
No, but I want the replacement to withstand legal challenges by following the proper protocols in formation and administration, so that we don't end up exactly where we're at today. I said this months ago specifically about DOGE.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and analyze these thing thoroughly.
Like taking 4 hours late Friday night to digest a 60 page document? And not only the document, but all the of the relevant law?
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News