Major win for the Trump Administration on federal judges

[Oddball]

Continue to support Trump after he tried to steal the 2020 election and kill his own Vice President on Jan 6.

That's what.

 

[BluesLegend]

View attachment 1273640

Ouch! lmao

 

[WEATHER53]

Except that is exactly wrong.

Slang 1216 one of the newby four digits paids.

 

[alang1216]

Respectfully, this was never part of the checks and balance system, federal courts never had the authority to issue nationwide injunctions in the first place. There is no lawful basis for them in any federal statutory law or Supreme Court precedent. Instead, this practice developed slowly in a gray area of American law throughout the nation’s history.

The Supreme Court’s decision rests solely on statutory authority, not constitutional grounds. That means Congress ( just like many case) holds the key to change it. Lawmakers could choose to restore this judicial power with new legislation, further restrict it, or leave the current limitations in place. That is actually a healthy outcome in a functioning democracy — the branch that makes the laws decides whether this remedy exists.

What it ends is a specific, legally questionable shortcut that allowed any single district judge to freeze federal policy for 330 million people — a power that, as the Court found, Congress never actually granted in the first place.

You're quite right, ideologically. Practically, Congress can't agree on even the most basic issues so, removing this option effectively removes a check on the power of the executive branch.

 

[WEATHER53]

Notice how the votes is 7-2 in favor of the thinkers despite the overwhelming majority presence of lib loons
What is that?
Well, it’s because the multiple screen names can vote Only Once and not for each name. That could change now that I have revealed that fact .

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

/---/ The president is empowered with the EO for the entire country. That is why he is called president of the United States. The district judge isn't.

Your avatar said you're from the Midwest. OK, let's say a traffic court judge in Florida says your driver's license is suspended for 6 months, even though you never set foot in that state or broken any traffic laws anywhere. You'd be OK with that?

EOs only apply to the Executive branch of the government.

 

[toobfreak]

Continue to support Trump after he tried to steal the 2020 election and kill his own Vice President on Jan 6.

I thought much the same thing Albert---
You continued to support Biden even after he stole the 2020 election, then failed to kill his own worthless gas bag airhead border czar Vice President who proved she wasn't worth the pantyhose on her body!

Go figure:

• 2016: Trump a political noob wipes Hillary the career politician off the map even after her having a 98% probability of winning election night.
• 2024: Trump demolishes Kammy Harris taking even the popular vote and all the swing states after four years of criminal investigation and her outspending Trump by 360%!
• But in 2020, despite beating Joe like an old rug all election day and night, Trump had to "steal" the election to beat a bum who ran no campaign, was unpopular, and was already a 3X loser never even getting 2% of the vote on his two previous attempts.

 

[Robert W]

EOs only apply to the Executive branch of the government.

Definitely and now a judge in SF rules just for his area and not the entire country.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Checks on unconstitutional actions by the executive branch to bring balance to the separation of powers.

/——/ What unconstitutional action?

 

[Captain Caveman]

You have someone seeking one person rule, where his word is law, and yet you accuse judges who issue rulings you don't agree with as "tyrants".

It's sad that millions more think like you do, but actual tyrants have always had supporters throughout history. That's why it keeps repeating.

So a tyrant is a president you disagree with?

 

[alang1216]

/——/ What unconstitutional action?

Multiple actions by Donald Trump have been challenged or struck down as unconstitutional by federal courts, including attempts to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, withholding congressionally appropriated funds, and attempting to target political opponents and certain law firms. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key unconstitutional or legally overreaching actions include:

• Ending Birthright Citizenship: Trump issued executive orders seeking to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, which federal courts and legal experts challenged as a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Withholding Congressionally Appropriated Funds: Federal judges blocked directives that froze and diverted billions in international and domestic funding, ruling the president lacked the authority to impound funds earmarked by Congress. [1, 2]
• Federalizing Elections and Police: Trump's attempts to use executive orders to unilaterally alter voter registration requirements and take control of independent agencies and local police forces were met with injunctions challenging the separation of powers. [1, 2, 3]
• Targeting Law Firms: A federal judge permanently blocked an executive order intended to punish and restrict law firms associated with political opponents, citing violations of fundamental Constitutional rights

 

[Cellblock2429]

Multiple actions by Donald Trump have been challenged or struck down as unconstitutional by federal courts, including attempts to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, withholding congressionally appropriated funds, and attempting to target political opponents and certain law firms. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key unconstitutional or legally overreaching actions include:

• Ending Birthright Citizenship: Trump issued executive orders seeking to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, which federal courts and legal experts challenged as a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Withholding Congressionally Appropriated Funds: Federal judges blocked directives that froze and diverted billions in international and domestic funding, ruling the president lacked the authority to impound funds earmarked by Congress. [1, 2]
• Federalizing Elections and Police: Trump's attempts to use executive orders to unilaterally alter voter registration requirements and take control of independent agencies and local police forces were met with injunctions challenging the separation of powers. [1, 2, 3]
• Targeting Law Firms: A federal judge permanently blocked an executive order intended to punish and restrict law firms associated with political opponents, citing violations of fundamental Constitutional rights

/----/ Let's see who wins this fight.

 

[Alicia J]

Yeah, we shoved it up the Dems ass with a hot poker while laughing. The packed Trump SCOTUS has been giving the Democrats a knee to the groin ever since we stole two justice nominations from the Democrats.

Yeah, you fascists stole 2 Supreme Court seats and are now destroying the country like you wanted to do......yet you continue to cry about the 2020 election.

What pathetic cry babies Trump and you MAGA fascists are.

 

[meaner gene]

EOs only apply to the Executive branch of the government.

So an EO can be a Bill of Attainder?

 

[meaner gene]

/----/ Let's see who wins this fight.

There is no legitimate, recognized judge named Josephine Barron currently serving on any state or federal court in the United States.

Rumors and viral images regarding a "Judge Josephine Barron" stem entirely from online satire and fake news websites

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The USSC ruled that federal dismisses blocks on Trump EOs now only apply to that judges district. No more national rulings.

This is only a "victory" for a criminal.

But you're too far gone to see that.

 

[meaner gene]

You got fooled again.

Senior Judge Amy Berman Jackson | District of Columbia | United States District Court

www.dcd.uscourts.gov

 

[alang1216]

/----/ Let's see who wins this fight.

It won't be you. According to a fact check by Grok, “This post is false. President Trump did not fire federal judge Josephine Barron (or any Article III federal judge) for activism." Moreover, federal judges have lifetime appointments protected by the Constitution and cannot be fired by the president; removal requires House impeachment and Senate conviction.

 

[Blaster]

Judges should not be immune from being terminated.

 

[Papageorgio]

You're quite right, ideologically. Practically, Congress can't agree on even the most basic issues so, removing this option effectively removes a check on the power of the executive branch.

I disagree is, the Constitution is first and foremost and federal judges do not have the Constitutional right to make national injections, the Supreme Court found nothing in the Constitution or the statutory laws that allow a federal judge to make these injunctions within the last 22 years and started on an agricultural policy and has grown since. There is no precedent for one single federal judge to make a decision over 330 million people. It isn’t in the checks and balances and never was, it is preventing democracy not preserving it.