Posted on 08/26/2025 9:10:34 AM PDT by Red Badger
Again, JUST STOP WASTING TIME LISTENING TO THESE CORRUPT SHT JUDGES AND DO WHAT NEEDS DOING
“that required the clerk to automatically enter an injunction against removing any illegal alien who challenges their deportation and files a habeas petition”
Prejudgment as a class.
Unheard of in American law. What if it was the reverse? That no deportation order could ever be challenged? The screaming would be deafening.
The judiciary is basically over with as a credible institution. They are now claiming sovereign right that is unchallengable. Only one court under the Constitution has that right. The rest are creations of the Congress and the State Legislatures.
Getting a law degree shouldn’t make you a god.
“On September 9, 2020, the United States Senate invoked cloture on his nomination by a 77–18 vote.”
Also, republicans have a bunch of RINOs and don’t play hardball like the Dems. Republicans consider themselves gentlemen and vote in a bipartisan manner, and have consistently betrayed the country to please democrats.
Defund them.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep080335/
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 US 335, 347-349 (1871)
The principle, therefore, which exempts judges of courts of superior or general authority from liability in a civil action for acts done by them in the exercise of their judicial functions, obtains in all co.untries where there is any well- ordered system of jurisprudence. It has been the settled doctrine of the English courts for many centuries, and has never been denied, that we are aware of, in the courts of this country. It has, as Chancellor Kent observes, "a deep root in the common law."Nor can this exemption of the judges from civil liability be affected by the motives with which their judicial acts are performed. The purity of their motives cannot in this way be the subject of judicial inquiry. This was adjudged in the case of Ployd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608, where it was laid down that the judges of the realm could not be drawn in question for any supposed corruption impeaching the verity of their records, except before the king himself, and it was observed that if they were required to answer otherwise, it would "tend to the scandal and subversion of all justice, and those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual calumniations."
The truth of this latter observation is manifest to all persons having much experience with judicial proceedings in the superior courts. Controversies involving not merely great pecuniary interests, but the liberty and character of the parties, and consequently exciting the deepest feelings, are being constantly determined in those courts, in which there is great conflict in the evidence and great doubt as to the law which should govern their decision. It is this class of cases which impose upon the jtidge the severest labor, and often create in his mind a painful sense of responsibility. Yet it is precisely in this class of cases that the losing party feels most keenly the decision against him, and most readily accepts anything but the soundness of the decision in explanation of the action of the judge. Just in proportion to the strength of his convictions of the correctness of his own view of the case is he apt to complain of the judgment against him, and from complaints of the judgment to pass to the ascription of improper motives to the judge. When the controversy involves questions affecting large amounts of property or relates to a matter of general public concern, or touches the interests of numerous parties, the disappointment occasioned by an adverse decision, often finds vent in imputations of this character, and from the imperfection of human nature this is hardly a subject of wonder. If civil actions could be maintained in such cases against the judge, because the losing party should see fit to allege in his com- plaint that the acts of the judge were done with partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, the protection essential to ju- dicial independence would be entirely swept away. Few persons sufficiently irritated to institute an action against a judge for his judicial acts would hesitate to ascribe any character to the acts which would be essential to the maintenance of the action.
If upon such allegations a judge could be compelled to answer in a civil action for his judicial acts, not only would his office be degraded and his usefulness destroyed, but he would be subjected for his protection to the necessity of preserving a complete record of all the evidence produced before him in every litigated case, and of the authorities cited and arguments presented, in order that he might be able to show to the judge before whom he might be summoned by the losing party—and that judge perhaps one of an inferior jurisdiction—that he had decided as he did with judicial integrity; and. the second judge would be subjected to a similar burden, as he in his turn might also be held amenable by the losing party.
[...]
Judgment on the demurrer having passed for the defendant, the plaintiff applied for leave to amend his declaration by introducing an allegation of malice and corruption; but Mr. Justice Compton replied: "It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit, and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges, and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions;"--and the leave was refused.
Black-robed American Mullahs.
Investigate them for mortgage fraud ,LOL
I hope corruption, like family members profiting off judicial decisions (don’t quote me because I don’t remember clearly, Boasberg-daughter) opens the dorr to some inquiries/ prosecutions since impeachment seems a bridge too far.
“Getting a law degree shouldn’t make you a god.”
They tell God what to do.....................
Yet WHO has the power/authority to do so? Are these STATE judges or FEDERAL? Lots of crazy blurred lines and questions. And that is the problem. The POTUS/executive branch has no other direct recourse.
And while my preference would be for the DOJ to just bust in and arrest these criminal judges who have directly usurped authority and attacked the Constitution... that isn’t necessarily any better!
HOW?
The Dems are not ruling at the moment; nonetheless they want their judgeships to reign supreme.
What does that leave?
Anarchy or communism or both comrade.
A weaponized Feral Judiciary. Even the Abrego Bandito cried out we have a “corrupt government” for his butt boys in the “media” today. Weird but the little Pipino doesn’t want to leave. I guess it isn’t as corrupt of all the crap south of the border.
Guillotines
See: French Revolution
European-induced problems require European solutions
Trump needs to take it up to the Supreme Court and demand jail time for every one of these fraudulent chimp “judges.”
Sad for ideology of justice in this country. The judiciary needs overhauling from SCOTUS to the federal to the state to the local justice system.
This won’t last long.
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.