Posted on 03/19/2025 2:48:06 PM PDT by 7thson
Question for everyone.
Why can't the Trump administration basically inform these courts - by a nationwide press conference/speech, by a letter, and/or in person DOJ attorneys - that because of the 1948 Supreme Court decision, the only court that the President will pay attention to is the USSC. That this administration will continue to do what it is doing and lower courts have no lawful basis in attempting to dictate Executive policy?
I'm going out to dinner now and will read your responses upon my return.
Whenever Dems go judge shopping in a deep blue area and get some low level leftist District judge to issue a sweeping ruling against the Trump Administration that s/he applies to the whole country, why don't Republicans respond by judge shopping a conservative judge in some deep red area, to issue a countermanding order? Then Trump can decide which of these low-level judges he's going to heed.
"Let's see, which low level District Judge am I going to listen to? One from Massachusetts or one from Oklahoma? Hmm, I can't decide. LOL!"
Just keep this up til John Roberts gets disgusted with this Judicial Circus that is embarrassing the entire US judicial system from SCOTUS on down and he's forced to do something about it.
Perplexity.ai, (a wonderful alternative to google), quotes a Forbes article: This decision was seen by some as Roberts "inventing out of whole cloth a new definition of taxation that contravenes long-standing precedent."
Then Roberts allowed the bureaucrats to subsidize insurance companies to pay for some of the costs.
No wonder insurance costs are astronomical. Taxpayers get to pay double: whatever they have to pay, plus using taxpayer money to help pay health care fees.
This is where I got the perplexity.ai info: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/justice-roberts-rewrote-obamac-42rlBf6LSn2Xcvir8R_xfA
“There is nothing in the constitution that says judges can’t be impeached except for high crimes and misdemeanors. It says they can be removed. PERIOD.”
That would require our coin operated congress to actually do something.
You can’t hate these people enough. I’d bet a donut that these judges are tied in some way to USAID.
:: Just keep this up til John Roberts gets disgusted with this Judicial Circus ::
He won’t
:: he’s forced to do something about it. ::
He won’t
I’ll go so far as to say that he will not let the Court take under their consideration, any counter-questions filed by the Administration.
Marbury ruled that the courts must stay out of the execution of the President's discretionary powers:
§ 76 offers the only exception: If Congress passes laws regarding individual rights, the President cannot issues orders that violate those rights.
74
By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.75
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing the department of foreign affairs. This officer, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the president. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.76
But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others.77
The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the president, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.99
It is scarcely necessary for the court to disclaim all pretensions to such a jurisdiction. An extravagance, so absurd and excessive, could not have been entertained for a moment. The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.
However, SCOTUS ruled in Marbury in § 142-143 that laws meant to constrain the President must not impede on his Constitutional powers.
128
To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.129
It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true; yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.131
The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.135
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.136
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.137
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.140
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.141
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.142
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.143
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
-PJ
He has to inform them either they back off or he can eliminate the district courts altogether.
They have no authority and they know it.
In the meantime, DJT and the DOJ should initiate some pardonfare on these judges by having DJT pardon or commute any victims who’ve been convicted as guilty in their courts. (Except for real criminals of course)
DOJ can also start to drop cases that are being handled by these judges if warranted
It’s a great way to make them irrelevant and also another nail in the coffin of “justice”
Congress can reduce the wages of Federal Judges down to Federal Minimum wage. That would do it.
And for that reason Roberts should be impeached first.
Defunding is not limited to salaries. Congress could make them reduce staffing or use their computers longer. Smaller offices. Car allowances. Take away security guards and chauffeurs. Close the cafeterias.
That would be a very bad thing.
That kind of defunding is constitutional. But you can’t mess with their salaries.
I like that strategy!
Item #2 would take too long to accomplish the goal.
Item #1 is the best approach. Do away with the DC district and reassign the judges to other districts. Make a state file a lawsuit against the President. This would put the case in whichever district covers that state. This way, we won't have all of these leftist judges located in one central district where they can tag-team the President with coordinate by a DC law firm.
-PJ
Look up with Jefferson did in 1802 and Lincoln in 1863. Both men abolished entire parts of the judiciary and left the sitting judges in those parts unemployed.
“Why can’t the Trump administration basically inform these courts - by a nationwide press conference/speech, by a letter...”
I think this is the main part of your question and it is explainable. The courts are there for law interpretation. However, they have no enforcement capacity based upon their purpose which is to decide the validity of law. If this wasn’t the case, then the judicial branch of the government would have more power than the POTUS as judge, jury, and executioner. It’s checks and balance, not over run. This is why the DOJ has such a wide margin for decision to carry out the laws as interpreted. Could that judge physically stop the flights? Not in his wheelhouse.
wy69
If Trump does something strong-armed, a future dem president can do it also. We’ve already seen Joe ignore the court with student loan forgiveness.
Not one of these judges let J6 defendants move their trial somewhere else. This in spite of DC being the one place in the country that hated Trump supporters the most. It was like Mr. Bill before a jury of Sluggos.
The DC Circuit already deserves to be dissolved.
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.