The time for dancing on the head of a pin is no more.

[Seymour Flops]

This is nonsense. This is not a case regarding whether the president has executive power. It’s a question as to whether Congress enables the president to do what he is doing. Taking these actions without due process or judicial oversight is a very dangerous precedent.

Congress did explicitely enable the president to do exactly what he is doing, not that he needed it since the Constitution vests all executive power in the President. The USSC could find that in a summary judgement since it is so well known.

Of course lower courts have jurisdiction over presidential actions. It’s silly to suggest otherwise. Judicial authority is vested in the Supreme Court and lower courts enabled by Congress. This is how the judicial system has always worked.

With exceptions that require the USSC to have original jurisdiction, as I posted above.

Dude, if you cannot even read the U.S. Consitution when I post the relevant part for you, I'm wasting my time. I'll post it again:

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.

 

[Marener]

You are stating there are no separation of power, congress enables the oresident not the constitution

The judiciary decides if the president is following the laws passed by Congress.

Obviously.

It feels like you guys have gotten a lot dumber in the last few weeks.

 

[Marener]

Congress did explicitely enable the president to do exactly what he is doing, not that he needed it since the Constitution vests all executive power in the President. The USSC could find that in a summary judgement since it is so well known.

With exceptions that require the USSC to have original jurisdiction, as I posted above.

Dude, if you cannot even read the U.S. Consitution when I post the relevant part for you, I'm wasting my time. I'll post it again:

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.

SCOTUS can grant lower courts to see cases that are subject to original jurisdiction.

Cases against the executive have started at the district court in almost every circumstance. This is yet another instance where you’re just trying to change the rules to suit your own lame purposes.

You need to read more:
Under Supreme Court doctrine and long-standing congressional practice, the Court’s original jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive. In some cases, Congress has granted the lower federal courts concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that cases subject to original Supreme Court jurisdiction may either be filed directly in the Supreme Court or in one of the lower federal courts. Chief Justice John Marshall appears to have assumed in Marbury v. Madison that the Court had exclusive jurisdiction of cases within its original jurisdiction.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004474">7</a> However, beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the inferior federal courts concurrent jurisdiction in some such cases.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004475">8</a> The federal circuit courts sustained thegrant of jurisdiction in early cases,<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004476">9</a> and the Supreme Court upheld concurrent jurisdiction in the nineteenth century.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004477">10</a> In another case from the late nineteenth century, the Court relied on the first Congress’s interpretation of Article III in declining original jurisdiction of an action by a state to enforce a judgment for a pecuniary penalty awarded by one of its own courts.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004478">11</a> Noting that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act referred to controversies of a civil nature, Justice Horace Gray declared that it was passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument, and is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004479">12</a>

 

[elektra]

It feels like you guys have gotten a lot dumber in the last few weeks

I could see how a person with low intelligence like yourself would have that confusion

 

[Marener]

I could see how a person with low intelligence like yourself would have that confusion

Just watching you guys defend Trump shows how little you think for yourself.

 

[elektra]

Just watching you guys defend Trump shows how little you think for yourself.

Democrats are not used to people defending the constitution

 

[Marener]

Democrats are not used to people defending the constitution

You’re attempting to institute authoritarian autocracy.

 

[elektra]

You’re attempting to institute authoritarian autocracy.

Throwing out and ignoring the authoritarian autocracy of congress and the courts is constitutional

 

[Lesh]

Yep, the unelected lawyer judges can be ignored. They don't have the power per the constitution to manage the executive branch of government

The Founders imagined that the executive branch was the least powerful of the three branches, not the most. And they set things up that way.
Trump wants to be a dictator and you want that as well

 

[elektra]

The Founders imagined that the executive branch was the least powerful of the three branches, not the most. And they set things up that way.
Trump wants to be a dictator and you want that as well

You must be drunk lush. Nobody in the world agrees with your idiocy

 

[Seymour Flops]

SCOTUS can grant lower courts to see cases that are subject to original jurisdiction.

Irrelevant, because they have not granted that to any lower court in the real cases we are talking about.

Cases against the executive have started at the district court in almost every circumstance. This is yet another instance where you’re just trying to change the rules to suit your own lame purposes.

You need to read more:
Under Supreme Court doctrine and long-standing congressional practice, the Court’s original jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive. In some cases, Congress has granted the lower federal courts concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that cases subject to original Supreme Court jurisdiction may either be filed directly in the Supreme Court or in one of the lower federal courts. Chief Justice John Marshall appears to have assumed in Marbury v. Madison that the Court had exclusive jurisdiction of cases within its original jurisdiction.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004474">7</a> However, beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the inferior federal courts concurrent jurisdiction in some such cases.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004475">8</a> The federal circuit courts sustained thegrant of jurisdiction in early cases,<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004476">9</a> and the Supreme Court upheld concurrent jurisdiction in the nineteenth century.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004477">10</a> In another case from the late nineteenth century, the Court relied on the first Congress’s interpretation of Article III in declining original jurisdiction of an action by a state to enforce a judgment for a pecuniary penalty awarded by one of its own courts.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004478">11</a> Noting that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act referred to controversies of a civil nature, Justice Horace Gray declared that it was passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument, and is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/['we', 'the', 'people']#ALDF_00004479">12</a>

Same answer. You didn't read what I wrote directly from the Constitution, but you try to stall with a lenthy copy pasta.

 

[Marener]

Irrelevant, because they have not granted that to any lower court in the real cases we are talking about.

You sure? Lower courts have had authority to direct the executive since as far back as I’ve been alive. They sure did under Biden.

Same answer. You didn't read what I wrote directly from the Constitution, but you try to stall with a lenthy copy pasta.

My copy pasta directly contradicts what you read.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Now Judge Boasberg is whining that Trump isn't obeying him.



Now you have to PROVE you're obeying me! Is he for real?

Look at this heroic picture the New York Times published:

Democrat leaders sure wish that everyone was as stupid as Democrat voters.

 

[berg80]

Give him a chance to put out all the fires Biden left for him and us.

I think it's fair to say Biden's immigration policy, organized around reversing the abject cruelty of Dotard's, went too far. Restricting those who qualify for asylum should have been done much earlier. Other than that, trump is unnecessarily lighting fires with each passing day.

 

[berg80]

So, USMB Brain Trust, what is your plan for the Democrats to stop whining about “Dotard” and win some elections?

James Carville had a salient thought in that regard. Get out of the way of trump ruining the country and things will take care of themselves.

 

[berg80]

The hypotheticals are cases in which the USSC tries to usurp executive or congressional power.

The real case is a lower court trying to usurp a clear executive function.

Judges who both Repub and Dem nominees have routinely ruled against trump's unconstitutional, unprecedented power grab.

 

[CrazyTrader55]

How Trump Is Trying to Consolidate Power Over Courts, Congress and More

President Trump called for one federal judge seeking basic information about his deportation efforts to be impeached amid mounting concern about a constitutional showdown. Another judge found that Mr. Trump’s efforts to shut down a federal agency probably violated the Constitution and stripped Congress of its authority. The president was accused of overstepping his executive authority yet again in firing two Democratic commissioners from an independent trade commission. And that was just Tuesday.
Nearly two months into his second term, Mr. Trump is trying to consolidate control over the courts, Congress and even, in some ways, American society and culture.

His expansive interpretation of presidential power has become the defining characteristic of his second term, an aggressive effort across multiple fronts to assert executive authority to reshape the government, drive policy in new directions and root out what he and his supporters see as a deeply embedded liberal bias.

“We’ve never seen a president so comprehensively attempt to arrogate and consolidate so much of the other branches’ power, let alone to do so in the first two months of his presidency,” said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/...date-power-over-courts-congress-and-more.html

Opinions may differ as to whether a prez inherently has the powers trump is claiming for himself. Or whether a prez should have those powers. But the debate over whether he IS seeking them has ended by virtue of his actions. Call it dictatorial, call it autocratic, call it what you will, trump is actively in pursuit of executive power that flies in the face of the Founder's intentions for co-equal branches of government. If successful it will fundamentally change America.

Next time don't:
1) open our border to 8 million illegals and then claim it's not really open
or
2) run an incompetent moron as your candidate.

 

[Seymour Flops]

James Carville had a salient thought in that regard. Get out of the way of trump ruining the country and things will take care of themselves.

I think that is a great idea.

Stop with the stupid lawfare and let Trump be Trump. If he is as terrible as your pundits say, the country will decline and you can do the happy dance about it.

Your Party's popularity is already in the toilet. Further whining about the Bad Orange Man will flush it away.

 

[berg80]

Congress did explicitely enable the president to do exactly what he is doing

That's an overt lie. For example, many of the agency heads trump has tried to fire were given protections from being fired for political reasons. Requiring being terminated on the grounds of poor performance. Dotard has ignored those protections.

 

[berg80]

Stop with the stupid lawfare

The only lawfare pertaining to the Felon-in-Chief was done on his behalf to keep him out of prison.