Boasberg’s Judicial Coup Update: Judge Gives President Trump Deadline of Tuesday for Compliance

[Seymour Flops]

It's Wednesday, and of course the POTUS did not "comply" with Judge Biasberg's order to explain himself to a lower district court.

Question for Democrats who believe that a District Court Judge has this power: Does a part-time federal magistrate also have the power to order the POTUS to turn a plane around?

Something else to keep in mind: Judge Biasberg gave no ruling in the case. He issued the TRO to give himself time to "think" about the case and possibly make a ruling later His word, not mine. The president should tell him this:



Don't get me wrong. I applaud him for thinking about this. He should think long and hard. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has a job the people sent him to do, and he is not going to be slowed down by Soros-funded lawyers filing cases in more than seven hundred different federal courts.

What if one court ordered him one way, and another court ordered him another?

If Dems think they got a case, make an emergency appeal to SCOTUS.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Boasberg, a hero of the criminal illegal alien huggers.

^^^ The writer above is a writer for the MAGA criminals holding power in government today.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It's Wednesday, and of course the POTUS did not "comply" with Judge Biasberg's order to explain himself to a lower district court.

Question for Democrats who believe that a District Court Judge has this power: Does a part-time federal magistrate also have the power to order the POTUS to turn a plane around?

Something else to keep in mind: Judge Biasberg gave no ruling in the case. He issued the TRO to give himself time to "think" about the case and possibly make a ruling later His word, not mine. The president should tell him this:



Don't get me wrong. I applaud him for thinking about this. He should think long and hard. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has a job the people sent him to do, and he is not going to be slowed down by Soros-funded lawyers filing cases in more than seven hundred different federal courts.

What if one court ordered him one way, and another court ordered him another?

If Dems think they got a case, make an emergency appeal to SCOTUS.

No, the President is he is ruled against must ask for an expedited appeal to SCOTUS.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It's Wednesday, and of course the POTUS did not "comply" with Judge Biasberg's order to explain himself to a lower district court.

Question for Democrats who believe that a District Court Judge has this power: Does a part-time federal magistrate also have the power to order the POTUS to turn a plane around?

Something else to keep in mind: Judge Biasberg gave no ruling in the case. He issued the TRO to give himself time to "think" about the case and possibly make a ruling later His word, not mine. The president should tell him this:



Don't get me wrong. I applaud him for thinking about this. He should think long and hard. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has a job the people sent him to do, and he is not going to be slowed down by Soros-funded lawyers filing cases in more than seven hundred different federal courts.

What if one court ordered him one way, and another court ordered him another?

If Dems think they got a case, make an emergency appeal to SCOTUS.

Yes, he will answer to the courts if he wants succeed with his agenda, which is far more than rendering the wrong people to El Salvador.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, he will answer to the courts if he wants succeed with his agenda, which is far more than rendering the wrong people to El Salvador.

Why is that so?

Would the courts be vindictive and stop his agenda, somehow?

You forgot this one:

What if one district court orders him to one thing, while another district court orders him to the oppose, in reference to a flight currently over international waters? Suppose one district court tells him to turn that fight around!, and the other issues an order to continue the flight on its current course?

How can he comply with both?

No, the President is he is ruled against must ask for an expedited appeal to SCOTUS.

Why?

Shouldn't those who feel that he is "ignoring" the first ruling,* appeal to SCOTUS?




*there was no "ruling" from Judge Biasberg, only a TRO so he can "think" about making a ruling.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Why? Because we use the courts to decide such things, not Presidents.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why? Because we use the courts to decide such things, not Presidents.

The courts decide whether to deport illegal aliens?

Expedited removal is not a thing?

 

[Seymour Flops]

 

[Seymour Flops]

It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stuck for the years that it takes to go through normal process.

-Justice Kagan in the above video at 2:10.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The courts decide whether to deport illegal aliens?

Expedited removal is not a thing?

No, courts decide how the law is applied, if the act is legal.

Not the President.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, courts decide how the law is applied, if the act is legal.

Not the President.

Anyone can decide if an executive act is legal or not. We can all have our opinions.

Only the executive is authorized to carry out executive acts.

In a few specified cases, one branch is authorized to override another branch’s authority. For example, Congress can override a presidential veto. That makes sense, because Congress is the lawmakers.

I know of no part of the constitution that provides that low level district judges can override the president of the United States in a matter of foreign policy.

Do you?

 

[Blaster]

Trump should ignore these judges.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Anyone can decide if an executive act is legal or not. We can all have our opinions.

Only the executive is authorized to carry out executive acts.

In a few specified cases, one branch is authorized to override another branch’s authority. For example, Congress can override a presidential veto. That makes sense, because Congress is the lawmakers.

I know of no part of the constitution that provides that low level district judges can override the president of the United States in a matter of foreign policy.

Do you?

Don't be quick, because you are not. Executive acts are governed by law, and the judiciary has the final authority on it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Don't be quick, because you are not. Executive acts are governed by law, and the judiciary has the final authority on it.

I guess that’s in article III? Or I guess it would be article II, since it says who has final authority over executive actions.

But it’s about the judiciary. Weird,

I guess you got me with this one. Which article and which section says that the judiciary has final authority over executive actions?

Please name the article and section. Don’t bother quoting it. Lefties‘ records of quoting things on here is not so good so I will look it up myself.

BTW, Biasberg has not to this day said what law the deportations of illegals supposedly broke. Seems like he’s the one not governed by THE LAW.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I guess that’s in article III? Or I guess it would be article II, ...

Article II mandates that the President faithfully execute the laws of the United States. The Presidents action are restricted by law.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

Article II mandates that the President faithfully execute the laws of the United States. The Presidents action are restricted by law.

WW

Yes, but it doesn’t say that the lower courts decide whether he is doing that.

Elections and impeachment leading to removal are the remedies that the COTUS provides.

What law does Biasberg say the president broke?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I guess that’s in article III? Or I guess it would be article II, since it says who has final authority over executive actions.

But it’s about the judiciary. Weird,

I guess you got me with this one. Which article and which section says that the judiciary has final authority over executive actions?

Please name the article and section. Don’t bother quoting it. Lefties‘ records of quoting things on here is not so good so I will look it up myself.

BTW, Biasberg has not to this day said what law the deportations of illegals supposedly broke. Seems like he’s the one not governed by THE LAW.

Boasberg will rule one way or another, and the case will move forward or being dismissed.

Your questions are about the reach of his authority, which is fine, and are meaningless as mine.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, but it doesn’t say that the lower courts decide whether he is doing that.

Elections and impeachment leading to removal are the remedies that the COTUS provides.

What law does Biasberg say the president broke?

That is why we have laws and judges. No, we will not answer what already has been answered.

MAGAs keep asking the same questions because they don't like the answers.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Boasberg will rule one way or another, and the case will move forward or being dismissed.

Your questions are about the reach of his authority, which is fine, and are meaningless as mine.

Meanwhile Trump is ignoring him, so what’s the point?

That is why we have laws and judges. No, we will not answer what already has been answered.

MAGAs keep asking the same questions because they don't like the answers.

You have never answered what law Biasberg said Trump broke. Unless you said “he doesn’t know yet.”

 

[Blaster]

Congress has the power to stop these activist judges from blocking Trump's agenda.