It is Time for President Trump to Declare a Four-Year Moratorium on Responding to, or Acknowledging Politically Motivated Lawsuits

[whutTHEYsay]

That seems off-topic for this thread.

how is it off topic?

 

[Seymour Flops]

how is it off topic?

The topic is a proposed moratorium on responding to or acknowledging politically motivated lawsuits.

"ORANGE MAN BAD! WAAAAAAH!" is not the topic of every thread, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ORANGE MAN BAD! WAAAAAAH!" is not the topic of every thread, no matter how much you want it to be.

denying due process is bad. It’s a human rights violation. it’s a violation of every person‘s constitutional right before the government can take away their freedom.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The topic is a proposed moratorium on responding to or acknowledging politically motivated lawsuits.

The title of this thread is ….

It is Time for President Trump to Declare a Four-Year Moratorium on Responding to, or Acknowledging Politically Motivated Lawsuits​

Are you telling me that all responses to this thread must first acknowledge that your argument is based on some kind of universal truth or direction from God that what Don Trump is doing is “good”.

What Trump is doing is unconstitutional. There is no goodness with anti-constitutional lawless president. I don’t care who he or she would be..

From now on, such lawsuits should not even be responded to in court, until a lower court actually tries to enforce such nonsense. If that happens, the DOJ should immediately file a case with the USSC. If the USSC declines to hear the case, then they can continue to ignore the ruling.

you are saying Trump is the law. You are saying you want Trump to be your dictator. Opposition to Trump has no redress for violations by the Trump administration that affect their lives.

you are a direct threat to western democracy

 

[Seymour Flops]

denying due process is bad. It’s a human rights violation. it’s a violation of every person‘s constitutional right before the government can take away their freedom.

Who was denied due process?

Keep in mind that many illegals fail to show up to court dates, this refusing due process. To state the obvious, refusing due process =/= being denied due process.

The title of this thread is ….

It is Time for President Trump to Declare a Four-Year Moratorium on Responding to, or Acknowledging Politically Motivated Lawsuits​

Are you telling me that all responses to this thread must first acknowledge that your argument is based on some kind of universal truth or direction from God that what Don Trump is doing is “good”.

No.

Wow.

I said nothing close to that. Are your responding to the right thread?

What Trump is doing is unconstitutional. There is no goodness with anti-constitutional lawless president. I don’t care who he or she would be..

What part of the Constitution does it violate to deport illegal aliens? Even the judge was not specific about that, so how would you know?

you are saying Trump is the law. You are saying you want Trump to be your dictator. Opposition to Trump has no redress for violations by the Trump administration that affect their lives.

I said nothing like that.

You have named no violations. Violations of what specific laws?

you are a direct threat to western democracy

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The topic is a proposed moratorium on responding to or acknowledging politically motivated lawsuits.

Raw Story: Trump aims to officially abolish the [Dept of Education} — whose $286 billion in appropriations represents roughly 4% of the federal budget — it would require both a majority vote in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to bypass a filibuster. Republicans only have 53 seats, and it's unlikely that seven Democrats would join them in voting for a bill to get rid of the Department of Education. This means that Trump's only remaining option is to get the courts to back his executive order, which is also an unlikely scenario. Tristan Snell, who is a former prosecutor at the Office of the New York Attorney General, reminded his followers on X: "Even the Trump-aligned Heritage Foundation (which released Project 2025) concluded the president lacks unilateral power to kill a department without Congress."​

​

whut I ask Saint Seymor Flops … ~ … If Trump writes an executive order tomorrow to close the Department of Education without winning both a majority vote in the House of Representatives and a 60 vote majority in the U.S. Senate

And If Trump writes an executive order tomorrow to close the Department of Education despite the fact that the Trump-aligned Heritage Foundation (which released Project 2025) has already concluded the president lacks unilateral power to kill a department without Congress."

Are you saying Trump’s executive order to abolish the Education Deoartmeny cannot be stopped by a court of law because something changed such that Congress has become irelevant because Trump is a good man and you say so.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Raw Story: Trump aims to officially abolish the [Dept of Education} — whose $286 billion in appropriations represents roughly 4% of the federal budget — it would require both a majority vote in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to bypass a filibuster. Republicans only have 53 seats, and it's unlikely that seven Democrats would join them in voting for a bill to get rid of the Department of Education. This means that Trump's only remaining option is to get the courts to back his executive order, which is also an unlikely scenario. Tristan Snell, who is a former prosecutor at the Office of the New York Attorney General, reminded his followers on X: "Even the Trump-aligned Heritage Foundation (which released Project 2025) concluded the president lacks unilateral power to kill a department without Congress."​

​

whut I ask Saint Seymor Flops … ~ … If Trump writes an executive order tomorrow to close the Department of Education without winning both a majority vote in the House of Representatives and a 60 vote majority in the U.S. Senate

First of all, you have the part I bolded incorrect, because your media is mistating it to you, just as they did during the pathetic "battle" over the spending bill. 60 votes are not required to pass a law. 60 votes are only required to stop a fillibuster. If the fillibuster never happens and only 51 Senators vote for the bill, it passes (if it has already passed the House).

The reason your media misled you on that point, is that they did not want to report that "Democrats are fillibustering to Shutdown the Government," which is what would have happened if Chuck Schumer had not belatedly come to his senses.

And If Trump writes an executive order tomorrow to close the Department of Education despite the fact that the Trump-aligned Heritage Foundation (which released Project 2025) has already concluded the president lacks unilateral power to kill a department without Congress."

First of all, the Heritage Foundation is a club - that anyone can join. Unlike Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-RI) beach club that is Whites Only.

Second, neither the Heritage Foundation, nor Project 2025, are empowered to issue binding legal rulings. I understand that by mentioning them, you are only following the instructions in Project Bedwet 25-33, so I don't hold that against you.

Are you saying Trump’s executive order to abolish the Education Deoartmeny cannot be stopped by a court of law because something changed such that Congress has become irelevant because Trump is a good man and you say so.

I said nothing of the kind.

It could not be changed, certainly not by a lower federal court. They are not empowered to settle disputes between the Executive and Congress, should Congress even object to that.

Article III, U.S. Constitution:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

Nor would it make the least sense for the USSC to order a president to open a cabinet-level department. Who would have standing to make such a demand? What would be the constitutional grounds? Where does it say that if Congress creates a cabinet level agency, the president cannot abolish it?

Finally, if that is the argument you want to make, you should pick another department. The Department of Education was NOT established by Congress. It was established by Executive Order issued by Jimmy Carter. So, obviously, it could be ended by another Executive Order issued by the current president.

As with the cases of Joe Biden and Barrack Obama both deporting millions of illegals without due process, you guys have to get over thinking that Donald Trump does not have the same powers as previous presidents. Wishing it does not make it so, and I can't imagine where else you got that idea.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

What part of the Constitution does it violate to deport illegal aliens?

NPR: The case began after Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which has been used just three times before in U.S. history to detain or deport nationals of an enemy nation during wartime or an invasion.​

​

Immigrant advocates sued, arguing that the administration's use of the act during peacetime is illegal, and that only Congress can declare a state of war. On Saturday, Boasberg ordered the administration not to deport anyone under the Alien Enemies Act for 14 days.​

​

Whut I am asking Saint Seymore Flops is why is the Republican Party above the law not needing to respond to the plaintiff’s , argument that the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act during peacetime is illegal, and that only Congress can declare a state of war?

 

[Seymour Flops]

NPR: The case began after Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which has been used just three times before in U.S. history to detain or deport nationals of an enemy nation during wartime or an invasion.​

​

Immigrant advocates sued, arguing that the administration's use of the act during peacetime is illegal, and that only Congress can declare a state of war. On Saturday, Boasberg ordered the administration not to deport anyone under the Alien Enemies Act for 14 days.​

​

Whut I am asking Saint Seymore Flops is why is the Republican Party above the law not needing to respond to the plaintiff’s , argument that the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act during peacetime is illegal, and that only Congress can declare a state of war?

Regardless of NPR's "legal ruling," Trump would not need the Alien Enemies act to deport illegal aliens, any more that Biden or Obama needed it. Nor to prioritize the deportation of terrorist, human trafficking, drug smuggling, gang members - not that BIden or Obama would have done that. They went for low-hanging fruit to pump up their numbers.

You know that Boasberg is the one with all the conflicts of interest, don't you?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

First of all, you have the part I bolded incorrect,

that applies to passing a budget under reconciliation.

Trump’s executive order tomorrow to shut down the Department of Education,is not part of the reconciliation legislation.
it would need 60 votes to pass.

That’s why he’s trying to do it by executive order and thinks that the Supreme Court will back him

What Roberts said yesterday indicates that the chief justice is getting pissed off at Republicans and may not put up with much more of this shit.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Trump would not need the Alien Enemies act to deport illegal aliens,

then why did he use it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

that applies to passing a budget under reconciliation.

Yes, it does.

It also applies to any law that one party wants to pass, that the other will fillibuster. It takes sixty votes to stop a fillibuster. It takes either fifty-one Senators, or fifty Senators plus the Vice President to pass a law if there is no fillibuster.

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3). Since 1789, 302 tie-breaking votes have been cast.

Trump’s executive order tomorrow to shut down the Department of Education,is not part of the reconciliation legislation.
it would need 60 votes to pass.

Nope.

That’s why he’s trying to do it by executive order and thinks that the Supreme Court will back him

What Roberts said yesterday indicates that the chief justice is getting pissed off at Republicans and may not put up with much more of this shit.

What did he say? I pay even less attention to what judges say outside of court, than to what hyper-partisan judges do in court. What's he going to do? Issue a restraining order against "this shit?"

He'll put up with the voters choice, just like you will. Just like Trumpers did for the four years of the Biden Figurehead Presidency. That's democracy. The smarter judges are realizing that no, they really don't have any enforcement power. So it is Trump who won't have to put up with shit from the courts much longer.

then why did he use it?

Because he can, but he did not need to. He's using all of the executive powers which, you may remember, he promised thousands of time during his campaign.

Did Biden or Obama need the Enemy Aliens Act when they deported people much faster than Trump is deporting them?

You know why they were so much faster? Because Trump is being selective in deporting those who are actively killing, raping, and poisoning Americans, while those Democats relied on jobsite raids, taking exactly the kind of illegals that Democrats insist are so good for the economy.

 

[Rawley]

The law he's attempting to use is not applicable to the situation,

Sure is.

and unconstitutional anyway.

GOod luck with that. It's already been to the Supreme Court.