Posted on 04/16/2025 8:03:10 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
We don’t need an appeals ruling when we have Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. This is where the federal government GUARANTEES to the states a “Republican” form of government. A representative republic where We the People enforce our will at election time upon those who are given the task of representing and carrying out our intentions. A “lifetime appointed” judge in no way can be seen as superior to those we select ourselves to represent our will. It would destroy the guarantee made to the states in Article IV, Section 4. Thus it is that the Judicial branch, without the backing of the Executive branch’s power of enforcement is reduced to having an opinion, that’s all. No one has to obey an opinion that the Executive branch finds unworthy of supporting.
But that didn’t work in the Flynn case dealing with Judge Emmett Sullivan.
There aren’t that many arrests in a civil war.
Well, there is a set precedent regarding “pre-emptive pardons”. Checkmate.
If something is not in the Constitution, it belongs to the states and is non-existent at the federal level. Presidential pardons are listed in Article II and only ONE type of pardon, those pertaining to “offenses committed” is mentioned. If not associated with a committed offense, Presidential pardons do not exist. No precedent.
You’re right about popularity but I’m also interested in the bogging down of the Trump agenda.
As I already said weeks ago, a top analyst guest said on Fox News that the judicial quagmire would take a hundred years to get through if each individual had to have a lawyer and delays and a wait for a hearing and then an appeal——rather than busses and planes of them. Each illegal with their “full rights” and their Soros paid ACLU style attorneys.
A nightmare.
Ok for weeks, feel better now?
I wouldn’t doubt that bogging things down with the hideous red tape they’ve inflicted on us is exactly the intent.
An open letter to Judge Boasberg:
An appeals court just issued an order forbidding you from eating, drinking, pooping, peeing, farting, burping, or breathing until you have in your hand written permission from them to do any individual instance of any of those actions. Are you guilty of contempt if you take a breath before that order can be heard by a higher-level appeals court and ruled unconstitutional?
Using your own logic, you would be - because even unlawful orders have to be obeyed until they are ruled to be unlawful. What your logic fails to consider is that the protection of the law goes both ways - both to insure that judges are able to have lawful orders obeyed AND to insure that judges are NOT able to control other people through unlawful orders - which is called “punishing through the process.” Your reasoning would allow a judge to order a plaintiff to commit suicide and then punish them with imprisonment if they showed contempt for your unlawful order.
In what kind of nation does a judge have that kind of power, and what kind of judge would even claim to have that kind of power?
You, sir, are being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for deliberately lying in court records regarding how you were “assigned” this case.
You are also being charged with reckless endangerment for ordering a plane in mid-flight to turn around when doing so without adequate fuel, arrangements, etc could have brought down the entire plane and any others on its new route.
You are also being charged with giving air control orders without a license.
You are enjoined from eating, drinking, peeing, pooping, coughing, burping, or breathing until you have written consent from the court to do any single instance of any of those actions.
Welcome to the hell of your own making.
Why would I feel bad? I’m not the one who can’t tell time. lol
I remember you now, one of the FR silly squad.
Says the head of the clown squad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.