re: Simple solution to judicial overreach and nationwide injunctions

quote:

---

Where did I say anything in that post about being illegal?

---

Are you f*cking serious?

You’ve been trying to defend the nationwide injunctions because it’s your belief that the audit is illegal. And then, as part of your insane justification for the audit's illegality, you use the fact that the audit has been fully transparent from the get-go - like that is some sort of criminal offense.

You really need some serious f*cking professional help.

quote:

---

There is no need to have one of those two exceptions apply.

---

That's literally what WKA ruled, in defining "subject to the jurisdiction".

quote:

---

and the person who drafted the amendment,

---

Why do you hate Scalia?

quote:

---

There is nothing in that phrase that suggests that criminals who enter this country illegally are covered by the 14th amendment.

---

WKA disagrees and is a Supreme Court case defining what that phrase means.

quote:

---

Are you f*cking serious?

---

Yes. You misquoted me. I replied. You melt.

quote:

---

You’ve been trying to defend the nationwide injunctions

---

Strawman. I've never done this.

In fact, I said Congress needs to address this issue in this very thread.

quote:

---

Congress needs to figure this out

---

quote:

---

because it’s your belief that the audit is illegal.

---

I never said that. You can lie about it all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Emotional outbursts and lies

quote:

---

It doesn't end there. There will be a trial shortly.

---

Of course it ended there. The injunction was the end. It may eventually be overruled, but assuming Treasury acquiescence to this absurd Judicial overstep, elective oversight of the Treasury vis-a-vis the Executive nominated, Legislatively confirmed Dept Secretary is effectively terminated until the injunction is lifted.

A local Judge just basically told two branches of government to F/O. SCOTUS had better address the pipsqueak injunction BS, and quickly, or the Judiciary is going to get reintroduced to the principle of Executive nonacquiescence, and a major undermining of SCOTUS authority. FAFO.

quote:

---

elective oversight of the Treasury vis-a-vis the Executive nominated, Legislatively confirmed Dept Secretary is effectively terminated until the injunction is lifted.

---

Which is exactly why I said I feared Trump admin version 2.0 would fall into the same unintelligent muh fight nonsense instead of rational, patient aggression .

You can go into various DOGE-related threads during the election and see me post my concerns about this EXACT scenario unfolding.

quote:

---

A local Judge just basically told two branches of government to F/O.

---

And if Congress doesn't like it, they have the power to remove this authority from district court judges. The solution is purely Congressional, as I noted previously ITT.

quote:

---

or the Judiciary is going to get reintroduced to the principle of Executive nonacquiescence, and a major undermining of SCOTUS authority. FAFO.

---

That would be a declaration of authoritarianism.

quote:

---

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.

---

I bolded

Now DOGE is tied up until the courts determine if it was formed legally, due to being too aggressive in implementaiton.

quote:

---

Of course it ended there. The injunction was the end. It may eventually be overruled, but assuming Treasury acquiescence to this absurd Judicial overstep, elective oversight of the Treasury vis-a-vis the Executive nominated, Legislatively confirmed Dept Secretary is effectively terminated until the injunction is lifted.

---

This ×1000. Even one day of this injunction was one day too many AND provided fuel for the Trump = lawless narrative, even though the decision will be overturned at some point.

quote:

---

That's literally what WKA ruled, in defining "subject to the jurisdiction".

---

For the last f*cking time you f*cking retard – they never addressed the issue of criminals who come here illegally. The ONLY thing we really have is contemporaneous constitutional history where the drafter specifically stated that "subject to the jurisdiction of" would not include illegals.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanent domiciles and had LEGAL residence in the United States, and were "there carrying on business." As a result, the Supreme Court never ruled on the anchor babies of illegal criminals.

It wasn't at issue in the case. You’re trying to use the inartful semantics of the Wong Kim Ark opinion to apply to a situation that was never f*cking contemplated in the case. And, we all know that you’re doing it strictly because it supports your political agenda. Well, that and the fact that you’re a f*cking idiot.

I’m serious when I say this dude -- get some professional f*cking help. You are one STUPID and f*cked-in-the-head individual.

quote:

---

Separation of powers. Same reason judicial can’t overstep executive. Legislative can’t overstep judicial.

---

Great thought. Can DJT use an EO to term limit congress?

quote:

---

Because you feared a local Judge would take it upon himself to overstep and shutdown executive oversight of the Dept of Treasury?

---

Not just this case. They're having to litigate if DOGE was formed properly or is even legal, which could invalidate all of their actions.

quote:

---

You actually think the Trump Admin stepping more gingerly into the night would solve that judicial bullshite?

---

By doing things the right way (either via Congress or following regulations like the APA by the book), they would thwart these challenges easily.

quote:

---

Call it what you'd like.

---

Authoritarianism.