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

[IM2]

Trump is not cleaning up any mess left by Biden. The mf is creating a huge mess and you dumb asses are going along with it because he promises you white control.

 

[berg80]

Trump is not cleaning up any mess left by Biden. The mf is creating a huge mess and you dumb asses are going along with it because he promises you white control.

If Dotard isn't stopped soon the country I knew is going to be in smoldering ruin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Dotard isn't stopped soon the country I knew is going to be in smoldering ruin.

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

 

[IM2]

If Dotard isn't stopped soon the country I knew is going to be in smoldering ruin.

Truth spoken.

 

[elektra]

Sure it is. The court has jurisdiction of all cases and controversies.

As it's always been.

Not in the constitution
Last you told me, jurisdiction is non existent

You claimed the speaker of the house did not have jurisdiction of the Capitol building and grounds, you claimed that was trumos jurisdiction

When you speak of jurisdiction you have proved you need to be educated on these things

 

[Marener]

Not in the constitution

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

It sure does.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If Dotard isn't stopped soon the country I knew is going to be in smoldering ruin.

Truth spoken.

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

 

[IM2]

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

Given the fact that Democrats won 3 out of the last 4 elections, your team is 1-3. You have nothing to say.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Given the fact that Democrats won 3 out of the last 4 elections, your team is 1-3. You have nothing to say.

So no plan, just reminisce about history?

 

[elektra]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

It sure does.

Nope, nowhere does that say inferior court judges.

Then of course, the laws themselves must be constitutional to begin with.

 

[Marener]

Nope, nowhere does that say inferior court judges.

Then of course, the laws themselves must be constitutional to begin with.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

It sure does.

The USSC still has to follow the Constitution. So if Congess passed a law, and sent it to the president, someone filed a motion in the USSC to stop it, the USSC could not issue a valid TRO forbiding the president from signing it. They could issue a TRO, but it would not be valid.

In that unlikely event, the president's proper course would be to sign it, if such had been his or her intention, and then let someone with standing sue if they cared to.

Nor could they issue a restraining order to Congress forbiding them to pass the law.

That is true, even though there was a case in front of the USSC. Having a case in front of them, does not give them supremacy over the other two branches.

 

[Marener]

The USSC still has to follow the Constitution. So if Congess passed a law, and sent it to the president, someone filed a motion in the USSC to stop it, the USSC could not issue a valid TRO forbiding the president from signing it. They could issue a TRO, but it would not be valid.

In that unlikely event, the president's proper course would be to sign it, if such had been his or her intention, and then let someone with standing sue if they cared to.

Nor could they issue a restraining order to Congress forbiding them to pass the law.

That is true, even though there was a case in front of the USSC. Having a case in front of them, does not give them supremacy over the other two branches.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. This hypothetical bears no resemblance to the situation being discussed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. This hypothetical bears no resemblance to the situation being discussed.

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.

 

[Marener]

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.

Okay, but your hypothetical isn’t happening.

The real case is trying to determine if the president is operating within the law. Thats all.

 

[Nobody911]

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.

Now I'm not sure whether Trump is Trump or a second Xi Jinping. Who exactly is Trump now? lol.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Okay, but your hypothetical isn’t happening.

The real case is trying to determine if the president is operating within the law. Thats all.

I did not realize that you are unable to process hypotheticals and generalize them to real situations. Happy to make accommodations.

The real case fails in the first step. It is consitutionally required when a senior official of the executive branch's actions are called into legal question that the USSC have original jurisdiction. Not only does the Constitution explicitely state that:

Section 2.​

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. ;

In fact, in Marbury v. Madison (1803) the USSC ruled that congress could not change that.

If the real case makes it to the USSC, which is doubtful,* the court will be obliged to find that - of course - the President is the only person in whom executive power is vested, and that multiple laws and precedents allow him to take exactly the action that Trump is taking to rid the nation of terrorist gang members, and/or illegal entrants.

*They may take the case just long enough to inform Judge Boasberg that his court is not an annex of the Supreme Court, but a lower court with no jurisdiction over presidential actions.

 

[Marener]

If the real case makes it to the USSC, which is doubtful,* the court will be obliged to find that - of course - the President is the only person in whom executive power is vested, and that multiple laws and precedents allow him to take exactly the action that Trump is taking to rid the nation of terrorist gang members, and/or illegal entrants.

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.

*They may take the case just long enough to inform Judge Boasberg that his court is not an annex of the Supreme Court, but a lower court with no jurisdiction over presidential actions.

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.

 

[elektra]

Given the fact that Democrats won 3 out of the last 4 elections, your team is 1-3. You have nothing to say.

???
Trump Biden Trump Obama, your math is wrong, it is 2-2

Trump Biden Trump Obama obama Bush Bush

In this century we win 4-3

You need to go back to the 20th century to get a better score in democrats favor. Of course, then you go back to when democrats denied black people and women the right to vote

 

[elektra]

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.

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