Can We Trust Courts to Stop Trump's Lawlessness?

[JohnDB]

Yet judge after judge has injoined Trump because he broke the law.

And been overturned too....
Now looking at being removed from the bench.
Wonder why?

 

[BS Filter]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/us/politics/trump-policies-blocked-courts.html

As of late March, judges had issued 17 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration,

How does a District Judge have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction?

 

[meaner gene]

And been overturned too....
Now looking at being removed from the bench.
Wonder why?

Maybe you missed Chief Justice John Roberts already warning against going after judges because they don't agree with their decisions.

 

[BackAgain]

In other words, you have zero combat experience and fought your war at the donut shop while sucking on someone else's tit.

\

His reaction is: “wait. That was a tit?”

 

[Unkotare]

‘Just following the mass of litigation against the second Trump Administration can be a full-time job.

One leading tracker currently identifies 244 distinct cases filed against the administration. Many of these cases have been through multiple stages: temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, summary judgment motions, enforcement and contempt proceedings, and appeals (and requests for stays) at each stage — in a number of instances going all the way to the Supreme Court. And Trump’s been back in office for a mere four months!

Even the past weeks have been dizzying. On May 16, the Supreme Court issued its latest ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump. (The letters “A.A.R.P.” here are the initials of the person who filed the lawsuit, not the well-known advocacy organization for older Americans.) The Court seemed to take a strong stand against Trump’s mass deportations. It issued an injunction preventing the deportation of immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act without due process, and it held that “notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”

Yet on May 19 — the very next business day — the Court issued an order that had the effect of removing “Temporary Protected Status” from over 300,000 Venezuelan immigrants, thus clearing an obstacle to their deportation. As one leading immigration lawyer noted, “This is the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history. That the Supreme Court authorized it in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking.” Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted her dissent.’

Can We Trust Courts to Stop Trump’s Lawlessness?

The harms that Trump is causing — to our people, our polity, our politics, and so much more — go well beyond any possible violations of law.

www.lincolnsquare.media

“Can We Trust Courts to Stop Trump's Lawlessness?”

Not the Supreme Court, clearly.

The lower courts have demonstrated a willingness to do so – but trusting the courts really isn’t the issue or concern.

Of concern is Trump’s criminality and lawlessness when it comes to ignoring the courts, refusing to obey orders and injunctions, relentlessly violating the law and Constitution with impunity.

Guess what? YOU LOST.

 

[meaner gene]

How does a District Judge have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction?

When a case has national application it can be enjoined on a national basis.

Simple legal analysis.

There are 94 federal district courts in the United States. These courts are organized into 12 regional circuits.

Something that's being done on a national basis would require 94 lawsuits, taking up the resources of 94 judges.

There are 677 authorized United States District Court judgeships.

That requires using up 14% of the workforce. With each judge duplicating the work of the other 93 judges.

The DOGE principle says the government should consolidate duplicate efforts. Where ever government employees are doing the same exact job, that work should be consolidated.

Now you're against DOGE.

 

[Vrenn]

What violence? This is a message board

You really need some help

Let me quote, " If you watch these violent fascist libs the war has already begun...." is exactly the reason a 17 year old murdered and maim and then got off complete. The quote was from

Rambunctious​

 

[BS Filter]

Maybe you missed Chief Justice John Roberts already warning against going after judges because they don't agree with their decisions.

District Judges don't have authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

 

[BS Filter]

When a case has national application it can be enjoined on a national basis.

Simple legal analysis.

There are 94 federal district courts in the United States. These courts are organized into 12 regional circuits.

Something that's being done on a national basis would require 94 lawsuits, taking up the resources of 94 judges.

There are 677 authorized United States District Court judgeships.

That requires using up 14% of the workforce. With each judge duplicating the work of the other 93 judges.

The DOGE principle says the government should consolidate duplicate efforts. Where ever government employees are doing the same exact job, that work should be consolidated.

Now you're against DOGE.

No, I'm against District judges making policy that's reserved for the Executive Branch.

 

[meaner gene]

District Judges don't have authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

The Harvard Law Review reported 127 nationwide injunctions

64 issued against the first Trump Administration.

The total number of nationwide injunctions issued against both Trump administrations is 79,

 

[LeftofLeft]

‘Just following the mass of litigation against the second Trump Administration can be a full-time job.

One leading tracker currently identifies 244 distinct cases filed against the administration. Many of these cases have been through multiple stages: temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, summary judgment motions, enforcement and contempt proceedings, and appeals (and requests for stays) at each stage — in a number of instances going all the way to the Supreme Court. And Trump’s been back in office for a mere four months!

Even the past weeks have been dizzying. On May 16, the Supreme Court issued its latest ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump. (The letters “A.A.R.P.” here are the initials of the person who filed the lawsuit, not the well-known advocacy organization for older Americans.) The Court seemed to take a strong stand against Trump’s mass deportations. It issued an injunction preventing the deportation of immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act without due process, and it held that “notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”

Yet on May 19 — the very next business day — the Court issued an order that had the effect of removing “Temporary Protected Status” from over 300,000 Venezuelan immigrants, thus clearing an obstacle to their deportation. As one leading immigration lawyer noted, “This is the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history. That the Supreme Court authorized it in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking.” Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted her dissent.’

Can We Trust Courts to Stop Trump’s Lawlessness?

The harms that Trump is causing — to our people, our polity, our politics, and so much more — go well beyond any possible violations of law.

www.lincolnsquare.media

“Can We Trust Courts to Stop Trump's Lawlessness?”

Not the Supreme Court, clearly.

The lower courts have demonstrated a willingness to do so – but trusting the courts really isn’t the issue or concern.

Of concern is Trump’s criminality and lawlessness when it comes to ignoring the courts, refusing to obey orders and injunctions, relentlessly violating the law and Constitution with impunity.

Can we trust courts not to be activist?

 

[BS Filter]

The Harvard Law Review reported 127 nationwide injunctions

64 issued against the first Trump Administration.

The total number of nationwide injunctions issued against both Trump administrations is 79,

I understand that. That's the only weapon that democrats have against democracy.

 

[meaner gene]

No, I'm against District judges making policy that's reserved for the Executive Branch.

They aren't making policy, they're upholding the constitution, as required by their oath of office.

 

[BS Filter]

They aren't making policy, they're upholding the constitution, as required by their oath of office.

That's the script. Actually, they're the only weapon democrats have against democracy.

 

[meaner gene]

That's the script. Actually, they're the only weapon democrats have against democracy.

Judges that Trump hand picked are following that same constitutional imperative and ruling against Trump's actions.

 

[BS Filter]

Judges that Trump hand picked are following that same constitutional imperative and ruling against Trump's actions.

How many?

 

[meaner gene]

Judges that Trump hand picked are following that same constitutional imperative and ruling against Trump's actions.

How many?

At least these three
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett

 

[BS Filter]

At least these three
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett

They haven't decided on the authority of district Judges yet.

 

[The Duke]

Some will get reversed on jurisdictional grounds (independent of the facts of the case) but most will / have been upheld.

They will be the judges of nothing soon. That's where this leftist lunacy is headed.
Their districts will be redefined into other districts and they will have nothing to preside over.

 

[meaner gene]

They haven't decided on the authority of district Judges yet.

The Harvard Law Review reported 127 nationwide injunctions

64 issued against the first Trump Administration.

The total number of nationwide injunctions issued against both Trump administrations is 79,

They've upheld nationwide injunctions before, and they'll do it again.