The exec branch is at war with the judiciary.

[Frankeneinstein]

Better to squawk at tyranny than sit quietly in its lap.

As anyone opposed to the "deep state" could tell you. [Of course they would have to write it on a cocktail napkin for ya]

 

[fncceo]

The exec branch is at war with the judiciary.

Which side has all the guns?!

ALL ENEMIES ... foreign AND DOMESTIC,

 

[Mack The Finger]

.
I just wanted to shoutout for your siggy. It is going to be my saying of the week.

BTW: ObamaChrist is so boring. I don't know if it's true ut I read he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar to the tune of 30-MIL. We shall see but it sounded like fake news.

 

[Mac-7]

you want a judiciary that's “worthy of fawning respect,” yet the moment it rules in a way that bruises your feelings, you declare the judges illegitimate, partisan, and unaccountable. That's not a standard--that’s a tantrum in a tricorn hat.

Let’s walk through your greatest hits:



Yes, Mac. Judges are supposed to be unelected. That’s by design. It’s called judicial independence. We don’t elect referees at football games either, because we expect them to interpret the rules--not pander to whichever fanbase screams the loudest.

And if you're worried about partisanship, maybe take a look at the Federalist Society conveyor belt cranking out Republican judges with ideological purity tests and billionaire sponsors. Your outrage, friend, seems to have a very selective filter.


That’s not how the law works, Mac. This isn’t a math test--it’s a system that applies legal reasoning to facts, context, and precedent. Reasonable minds can--and do--disagree. You want unanimous decisions? Move to a regime with one party and one judge. You’ll get your 9-0s. You’ll also get show trials and prison terms for tweeting.


Correct. And ironically, it’s Democrats who are actually calling out ethical lapses, demanding real accountability--like disclosing lavish gifts from billionaires or recusing from cases involving your spouse’s coup-curious emails. So if your sudden appetite for judicial integrity is real, great--welcome to the party. But maybe don’t enter through the Fox News back door yelling “DEEP STATE!” and expect to be taken seriously.

Tell us why the democrats judge shop among the same partisan lib hacks when they seek to block trump

These are not “ Reasonable minds (that) can--and do--disagree.“

Democrats appointed the judge and they know in advance what the ruling is going to be

 

[westwall]

You say Trump “violated nothing” and the “judge” did? Cute. Almost poetic in its wrongness--if ignorance were art, you’d be hanging in the Louvre.

Let’s set the record straight, since you’re clearly riffing off a headline you didn’t finish reading. The Supreme Court didn’t say Judge Boasberg was wrong about the law. They ruled on venue--a procedural technicality. The issue wasn’t whether Trump’s actions were lawful. It was about where the case should have been filed. In legal terms, that’s geography, not exoneration.

So no, Boasberg didn’t “violate” anything. He issued a temporary restraining order based on the Constitution and credible allegations of unlawful deportations. In fact, when the Trump administration ignored his order, Boasberg considered contempt proceedings. That’s not a judge gone rogue--that’s a judge upholding the law against an executive branch that thinks court orders are optional.

And Trump? “Violated nothing”? That’s rich. The man has been:

• Found liable for sexual abuse and defamation;
• Charged with hoarding classified documents;
• Indicted for a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election;
• Found by a court to have committed fraud to inflate his assets.

And in this very case, even Justice Sotomayor--a sitting Supreme Court Justice--called Trump’s secretive deportations an “extraordinary threat to the rule of law.” So no, your golden idol isn’t squeaky clean--he’s a one-man crime spree in a red tie.

So before you toss around “ignorance” like you’re handing out flyers at a conspiracy rally, maybe you should crack open a civics book--or at least learn what the word jurisdiction means.

And calling Boasberg “judge” in scare quotes? That’s not clever. That’s the rhetorical equivalent of drawing a mustache on the Constitution because you didn’t like what it said.

Grow up. Or at the very least--read up.

Trump is following the COTUS to the letter. The judges are not. That's why they keep getting overruled.

I suggest you follow your own advice, your infantile wailing, while amusing, does nothing.

 

[Lisa558]

Because we are a constitutional republic.

And that means that a single District judge can override the will of the nation? Why would HE have more authority than the U.S. President carrying out what America voted him to do?

It’s disgusting the way you leftists have more concern for gang members from San Salvador, here illegally, than the American people.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You say Trump “violated nothing” and the “judge” did? Cute. Almost poetic in its wrongness--if ignorance were art, you’d be hanging in the Louvre.

Let’s set the record straight, since you’re clearly riffing off a headline you didn’t finish reading. The Supreme Court didn’t say Judge Boasberg was wrong about the law. They ruled on venue--a procedural technicality. The issue wasn’t whether Trump’s actions were lawful. It was about where the case should have been filed. In legal terms, that’s geography, not exoneration.

So no, Boasberg didn’t “violate” anything. He issued a temporary restraining order based on the Constitution and credible allegations of unlawful deportations. In fact, when the Trump administration ignored his order, Boasberg considered contempt proceedings. That’s not a judge gone rogue--that’s a judge upholding the law against an executive branch that thinks court orders are optional.

And Trump? “Violated nothing”? That’s rich. The man has been:

• Found liable for sexual abuse and defamation;
• Charged with hoarding classified documents;
• Indicted for a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election;
• Found by a court to have committed fraud to inflate his assets.

And in this very case, even Justice Sotomayor--a sitting Supreme Court Justice--called Trump’s secretive deportations an “extraordinary threat to the rule of law.” So no, your golden idol isn’t squeaky clean--he’s a one-man crime spree in a red tie.

So before you toss around “ignorance” like you’re handing out flyers at a conspiracy rally, maybe you should crack open a civics book--or at least learn what the word jurisdiction means.

And calling Boasberg “judge” in scare quotes? That’s not clever. That’s the rhetorical equivalent of drawing a mustache on the Constitution because you didn’t like what it said.

Grow up. Or at the very least--read up.

/----/ "They ruled on venue--a procedural technicality. "
So, the USSC ruled the democRATs judge shopped in the wrong venue, correct?
So when are they going to judge shop and file in the correct venue?

Meanwhile, in the Lame Stream Media world:

 

[Marener]

And that means that a single District judge can override the will of the nation? Why would HE have more authority than the U.S. President carrying out what America voted him to do?

It’s disgusting the way you leftists have more concern for gang members from San Salvador, here illegally, than the American people.

It’s disgusting how you accept the administration when it labels people as a gang member without any due process.

Are you disgusted by SCOTUS when all 9 justices agree that the president can’t unilaterally send people to gulags without judicial oversight?

 

[Lisa558]

It’s disgusting how you accept the administration when it labels people as a gang member without any due process.

No, it’s disgusting how you have more concern with an illegal alien from San Salvadore than Americans. All this hand-wringing for someone here illegally and no concern with the rights of American Jewish teens to walk safely to class.

Are you disgusted by SCOTUS when all 9 justices agree that the president can’t unilaterally send people to gulags without judicial oversight?

I abide by the SCOTUS, unlike how Biden kept doing end runs around their rulings to get more illegal lowlifes in here.

 

[Marener]

No, it’s disgusting how you have more concern with an illegal alien from San Salvadore than Americans. All this hand-wringing for someone here illegally and no concern with the rights of American Jewish teens to walk safely to class.

Considering you’re now on record against due process in addition to your history of opposing the first amendment, I wonder how many more constitutional rights you’ll decide to take away from people you don’t like?

I abide by the SCOTUS, unlike how Biden kept doing end runs around their rulings to get more illegal lowlifes in here.

Not the question I asked. All 9 justices agreed with me, but I’m the one that’s disgusting? You don’t support basic constitutional rights.

 

[Lisa558]

Considering you’re now on record against due process in addition to your history of opposing the first amendment, I wonder how many more constitutional rights you’ll decide to take away from people you don’t like?

Not the question I asked. All 9 justices agreed with me, but I’m the one that’s disgusting? You don’t support basic constitutional rights.

You’re the libtard who insists a Syrian National here on a visa gets to spread HAMAS peopoganda on a campus already rife wih Jew-hate - and you call it “free speech.”

Libs label everything free speech when the victims of it are Jews. But let a pancake syrup company continue to use its logo, and you scream holy hell that it’s offensive to blacks. Why didn’t you defend it as free speech?

Your double standards continue to be noted.

 

[Marener]

You’re the libtard who insists a Syrian National here on a visa gets to spread HAMAS peopoganda on a campus already rife wih Jew-hate - and you call it “free speech.”

Libs label everything free speech when the victims of it are Jews. But let a pancake syrup company continue to use its logo, and you scream holy hell that it’s offensive to blacks. Why didn’t you defend it as free speech?

Your double standards continue to be noted.

Free speech is free speech no matter how much you want to redefine it based on your concept of wrongthink.

Did the government go after any syrup companies? I must have missed that.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Considering you’re now on record against due process in addition to your history of opposing the first amendment, I wonder how many more constitutional rights you’ll decide to take away from people you don’t like?

Not the question I asked. All 9 justices agreed with me, but I’m the one that’s disgusting? You don’t support basic constitutional rights.

/----/ "Considering you’re now on record against due process "
Speaking of which, what happened to due process when the J6 people were tossed in prison without a speedy trial?

 

[Lisa558]

Free speech is free speech no matter how much you want to redefine it based on your concept of wrongthink.

Did the government go after any syrup companies? I must have missed that.

No, a foreigner here on a visa does not get to promote Islamic terrorist propaganda.

As far as the syrup companies, you libs threatened a boycott and to ruin a company over a silly logo you thought could offensive to blacks. And yet, when a Jew-hating Muslim from an antisemitic Arab country spreads Islamic terrorist propganda and incites more antisemitism, you defend it as free speech.

Your bias is so pronounced is nauseating.

 

[Marener]

Speaking of which, what happened to due process when the J6 people were tossed in prison without a speedy trial?

They had due process. Right to speedy trial is waived by defendants when they file motions ad nauseum and change their lawyers repeatedly.

Any defendant who felt their right to a speedy trial was violated could take it before a judge.

Unlike those who are being disappeared by Trump and sent to the gulag who get nothing. It's up to their families to try to petition the government if they can ever even figure out whatever happened to their loved ones.

You're poorly informed.

 

[Lisa558]

/----/ "Considering you’re now on record against due process "
Speaking of which, what happened to due process when the J6 people were tossed in prison without a speedy trial?

Thanks. More of Marener’s bias on display.

 

[Lisa558]

They had due process. Right to speedy trial is waived by defendants when they file motions ad nauseum and change their lawyers repeatedly.

Any defendant who felt their right to a speedy trial was violated could take it before a judge.

Unlike those who are being disappeared by Trump and sent to the gulag who get nothing. It's up to their families to try to petition the government if they can ever even figure out whatever happened to their loved ones.

You're poorly informed.

Who’s being “disappeared”? An illegal alien with gang tattoos, back to San Salvadore? You make it sound like he was killed.

He never should have been here in the first place. Biden created an invasion of illegals and we want them deported.

 

[Marener]

Who’s being “disappeared”? An illegal alien with gang tattoos, back to San Salvadore? You make it sound like he was killed.

He never should have been here in the first place. Biden created an invasion of illegals and we want them deported.

This is the dangerous criminal you want to disappear to a gulag in El Salvador? You're going to abandon our Constitution to save America from him?

 

[SeaMajor7]

This is the dangerous criminal you want to disappear to a gulag in El Salvador? You're going to abandon our Constitution to save America from him?

View attachment 1099644

 

[Lisa558]

This is the dangerous criminal you want to disappear to a gulag in El Salvador? You're going to abandon our Constitution to save America from him?

View attachment 1099644

What’s all that gang tattoo shit on the illegal’s arm?