Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals chastises SCOTUS For Dissing President Trump

[Contumacious]

Appellate Judge James Ho, who’s widely viewed as one of the most likely successors to Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a truly striking opinion in which he took serious exception with the Supreme Court majority in A.A.R.P. II—which he accused of showing “disrespect” to both the district judge and President Trump in favor of, in his words, “favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua.”

Let's give Judge Ho an standing ovation.

His opinion

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV0.pdf

 

[Contumacious]

Appellate Judge James Ho, who’s widely viewed as one of the most likely successors to Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a truly striking opinion in which he took serious exception with the Supreme Court majority in A.A.R.P. II—which he accused of showing “disrespect” to both the district judge and President Trump in favor of, in his words, “favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua.”

Let's give Judge Ho an standing ovation.

His opinion

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV0.pdf

 

[excalibur]

The Court outraged many current and former judges when they blamed the District judge, Hendrix, for no reason and indeed basically were untrue about what went down, as judge Ho outlines.

 

[Contumacious]

The Court outraged many current and former judges when they blamed the District judge, Hendrix, for no reason and indeed basically were untrue about what went down, as judge Ho outlines.

"One former President tried to shame members of the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address by disparaging a recent ruling. See Barack Obama, Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union, 1 Pub. Papers of the Presidents (Obama 2010) 75, 81 (Jan. 27, 2010). That same President also suggested that it would be illegitimate for the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional—while a case challenging his signature legislative achievement was pending before the Court. See, e.g., Peter Wallsten and Robert Barnes, Obama’s Supreme Court comments stir debate, Wash. Post, Apr. 4, 2012.

Another former President was suspended from practicing law before the Supreme Court. See In re Discipline of Clinton, 534 U.S. 806 (2001). See 8 No. 25-10534 also Editorial, Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’, Wall St. J., Feb. 23, 2024 (“American Presidents may not like Supreme Court decisions, but most since Andrew Jackson haven’t bragged about defying its rulings.”).

Yet I doubt that any court would deny any of those Presidents the right to express their views in any pending case to which they are a party, before issuing any ruling.

Our current President deserves the same respect."

 

[excalibur]

I love this part:

​

Notably, the Justices themselves have expressed concerns about​

making decisions under far more forgiving time constraints than those​

demanded here. ​

​

Recall the emergency relief sought in Does 1-3 v. Mills, 142​

S. Ct. 17 (2021). Members of the Court expressed concern about the “use​

[of] the emergency docket to force the Court” to “grant . . . extraordinary​

relief” “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing.” Id. at 18 (Barrett, J.,​

concurring in the denial of application for injunctive relief).​

​

The amount of time considered too short in Does 1-3 was nine days.​

​

Compared to 42 minutes, however, nine days is a lifetime to decide a motion.​

So the district court reasonably assumed that the principle invoked in​

Does 1-3 to justify denying relief to law-abiding citizens concerned about their​

religious liberties in the COVID-19 era would likewise justify denying relief​

to illegal alien members of a foreign terrorist organization.​

​

The district court was absolutely right, then, when it noted that​

issuing a competent and defensible ruling “required some level of care. And​

some level of care takes time.” A.A.R.P., 2025 WL 1177194, *2.​

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV0.pdf

 

[mudwhistle]

Appellate Judge James Ho, who’s widely viewed as one of the most likely successors to Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a truly striking opinion in which he took serious exception with the Supreme Court majority in A.A.R.P. II—which he accused of showing “disrespect” to both the district judge and President Trump in favor of, in his words, “favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua.”

Let's give Judge Ho an standing ovation.

His opinion

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV0.pdf

He seems to have a good head on his shoulders.

42 mins.....LOL.

 

[elektra]

I love this part:

​

Notably, the Justices themselves have expressed concerns about​

making decisions under far more forgiving time constraints than those​

demanded here. ​

​

Recall the emergency relief sought in Does 1-3 v. Mills, 142​

S. Ct. 17 (2021). Members of the Court expressed concern about the “use​

[of] the emergency docket to force the Court” to “grant . . . extraordinary​

relief” “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing.” Id. at 18 (Barrett, J.,​

concurring in the denial of application for injunctive relief).​

​

The amount of time considered too short in Does 1-3 was nine days.​

​

Compared to 42 minutes, however, nine days is a lifetime to decide a motion.​

So the district court reasonably assumed that the principle invoked in​

Does 1-3 to justify denying relief to law-abiding citizens concerned about their​

religious liberties in the COVID-19 era would likewise justify denying relief​

to illegal alien members of a foreign terrorist organization.​

​

The district court was absolutely right, then, when it noted that​

issuing a competent and defensible ruling “required some level of care. And​

some level of care takes time.” A.A.R.P., 2025 WL 1177194, *2.​

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV0.pdf

What are you doing! You cant quote the law directly from a government website.

You must quote an editorial opinion dictating what you must believe from a democrat controlled website.

Facts have no place in politics or our discussions

 

[Care4all]

Are you really sure it was not judge ho, disrespecting the supreme court?

 

[Kilroy2]

Trump judge slams Supreme Court 'disrespect' after ruling​

Well trump may select him if there is an opening if he still the president but no one else will

A play by the judge to get the job he wants by kissing ass

Separation of power means something

 

[frigidweirdo]

Appellate Judge James Ho, who’s widely viewed as one of the most likely successors to Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a truly striking opinion in which he took serious exception with the Supreme Court majority in A.A.R.P. II—which he accused of showing “disrespect” to both the district judge and President Trump in favor of, in his words, “favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua.”

Let's give Judge Ho an standing ovation.

His opinion

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV0.pdf

Oh no, showing disrespect to the most disrespectful mother ****** ever to have been president?

 

[wamose]

Roberts has let the supreme court get out of hand. Things are being judged like he wants them to, rather than how the constitution and the wellbeing of the US demands. The bottom line is, this is a liberal SC that sides with ideology over law in some very important cases.

 

[Contumacious]

Are you really sure it was not judge ho, disrespecting the supreme court?

HUH?

Did you read the oponion?

 

[Kilroy2]

You really need undisputable proof that is undisputable that multiple people would believe it.

One judge and trump does not cut it and question their own integrity. They do not even offer how it could be done.

For Trump yeah he lost but when he won using the same system was their cheating?

obviously to tamper with voting machines would require a technical understand on how it was done and a vast conspiracy involving people.

So who are these people who did it? and why have they not been prosecuted.

Not because someone told them how it could be done and they believe it.

 

[Kilroy2]

View attachment 1114431

The system always has problems when your candidate loses.

When Trump won where was the cheating?

when he lost then their was cheating?

was Trump cheating when he excited an angry mob to overturn an election

a lot of this comes from the

Dominion Voting Systems incident​

 

[excalibur]

Oh no, showing disrespect to the most disrespectful mother ****** ever to have been president?

Joe Biden is no longer President, if he ever was. Talk about disrespectful.

 

[Contumacious]

The system always has problems when your candidate loses.

When Trump won where was the cheating?

when he lost then their was cheating?

was Trump cheating when he excited an angry mob to overturn an election

a lot of this comes from the

Dominion Voting Systems incident​

Excuse me Kil , but the Chief has been demanding PAPER BALLOTS AND VOTER ID

The Socialist Demon Rats refused

 

[Contumacious]

obviously to tamper with voting machines would require a technical understand on how it was done and a vast conspiracy involving people.

"The evidence before the Court shows that voting machines are hackable and votes can be changed from one party to another in real time without leaving a trace of evidence " Federal Judge Amy Totenberg , Curling v Raffensperger , Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-2989 -AT . ND Georgia, Atlanta Division November 10, 2023
Curling v. Raffensperger, 403 F. Supp. 3d 1311 | Casetext Search + Citator

 

[airplanemechanic]

Oh no, showing disrespect to the most disrespectful mother ****** ever to have been president?

SCOTUS didn't disrespect Biden.

 

[BackAgain]

Are you really sure it was not judge ho, disrespecting the supreme court?

Yep.

 

[Care4all]

"The evidence before the Court shows that voting machines are hackable and votes can be changed from one party to another in real time without leaving a trace of evidence " Federal Judge Amy Totenberg , Curling v Raffensperger , Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-2989 -AT . ND Georgia, Atlanta Division November 10, 2023
Curling v. Raffensperger, 403 F. Supp. 3d 1311 | Casetext Search + Citator

Is that how Trump won in 2016, and just recently, in 2024?