Advice for wildcard redneck:
Posted on 02/26/2025 7:12:10 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Roberts was on the right side, at least this time.
I can hear Howard Cosell’s voice while reading your post.
Senator Mike Lee has the best solution. Congress can pass legislation to prevent federal district court judges from issuing NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS and TRO’s interfering with Article II powers of the executive. Simple majorities are all that is required to pass both House and Senate. President Trump then signs it into law and hundreds of disgruntled district court judges can STFU and mind their own business.
Personally, I'm unsure why one judge can overrule another in a similar place of power. Why can we not simply go to another District judge, for example, and rule that the block on an EO is not allowable? That the EO is permitted?
Would never make it through the Senate. Might not even make it through the House.
Winning !!
This time. We'll see what he does next.
You’d like to KMA, you suspect-sexuality whiner. I doubt if you could count to thirty.
Six weeks into Pres. Trump’s term, and you’re crying. You must have been, and maybe still are, a terrible baby.
How’s that for a reply to “KMA fool”?
Advice for wildcard redneck:
Its a 24 hour pause
By default, the request went to Roberts, who handles emergency appeals arising from the nation’s capital. His pause lasts until the court decides whether to wipe Ali’s ruling, which Roberts could decide himself or refer to full court for a vote.
Roberts ordered the plaintiffs to respond in court filings by mid-day Friday.
Don’t get too excited. When the money’s gone, it’s gone. So the Court probably wanted to avoid any irreparable harm. How they will rule ultimately is up in the air.
Thanks ma’am for posting this. I’ve been PO’d about this all day. Thanks again.
“ Your really not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?”
Your comment was uncalled for. I’m sure you have at some point either did not understand something someone wrote or misread it. Besides, the tag line could have been written much clearer.
Trump was forcing someone in the judicial branch to step up.
He is not unfreezing those funds.
It was my understanding that this was Ali’s third deadline.
Clearly Ali had only one action left to take and he was rightly hesitant to take which is hold the executive branch in civil contempt as whatever that entails is unclear.
I don’t think weaselly swampster Roberts wants any part of this, but that is his job to clarify the powers vested to the three branches by the Constitution.
I don’t see how the SCOTUS can tell the executive how to operate the executive branch.
Whatever arm of enforcement it routinely has is clearly situated in the executive branch.
Trump must be given a lot of credit for clearing the decks of traitors in the DOJ, FBI and yes even the military.
He was acting urgently not just to get rid of the rot, but make sure the traitors could not rise up against him.
There were rumblings of the military plotting against Trump and his new administration.
Judges such as Ali are attempting another judicial coup against Trump.
I say another because the lawfare against former President Trump could only be characterized as preemptive coup.
I am leery of the SCOTUS and Roberts in particular.
Berman is the swing justice because Roberts has NO qualms about siding with the liberals has he has done many time before.
But if the SCOTUS would rule against Trump it will be a constitutional crisis and it won’t be pretty.
Shaddup VanShitten.
Should we continue this here, or in private posts?
“Shaddup VanShitten.”
I say here. Lowcard_red,drippydick
Moderators, please stop me.
Musk needs to tell Ali to go take a flying leap at a rolling donut. The judiciary stooges do not run the Executive and Legislative branches.
Real classy drivel from a leftist appeaser. Real classy move pulling a moderator in like a douche canoe.
I get it. You're angry. We all are.
But this kind of post does nothing to help us figure out what we can do, and what we can urge lawmakers (and to a lesser extent, the courts) to do.
I, for one, have researched the powers of the courts to stop EO's and to a large part they are permitted and powerful here. Read up on Marbury v. Madison (as an earlier poster posted).
The problem that we might push as a remedy is that many of these judges have obvious conflicts of interests. They should have recused themselves. They did not.
I would like to suggest an interesting new tack: I've discovered that one District Judge may not rule in direct opposition to another. Per my research:
When a federal district judge issues an injunction blocking an executive order, that injunction typically has nationwide effect, preventing enforcement of the order across the entire country. This nationwide scope means that another district judge cannot simply issue a conflicting ruling to permit the executive order's enforcement, as doing so would create legal chaos and undermine the judiciary's authority. The appropriate legal pathway to challenge or overturn such an injunction is through the appellate process. The federal government can appeal the district court's decision to the relevant U.S. Court of Appeals. If necessary, the case can be further appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final authority to uphold or overturn lower court rulings. This hierarchical structure ensures consistency and stability in the application of the law.
For instance, in the case of Washington v. Trump (2017), a federal district judge in Washington state issued a nationwide injunction against Executive Order 13769, which restricted entry into the U.S. from certain countries. The federal government sought to stay this injunction, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the stay, leaving the nationwide injunction in place. This example illustrates how challenges to nationwide injunctions are addressed through the appellate courts rather than through conflicting district court rulings.
This process underscores the importance of the appellate system in resolving disputes over executive actions and maintaining a uniform interpretation of the law across all jurisdictions.
So I have a novel possible solution: What if WE judge-shopped and found a FRIENDLY judge who specifically rules an EO is permissible and Constitutional? Why don't we go on offense? Once our side gets a ruling, it would have to go through the Appellate system and then to SCOTUS.
To my mind, this might be a way to preemptively quash PopUp Judges.
Roberts should have done that on his own without being forced by Trump.
Roberts issued an ORDER all by himself and Trump cannot force the Scotus to do anything. The latest ORDER of the District Court stepped in it.
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.