Trump Demands Supreme Court Rein In Lawless Leftwing Tyrants in Judge's Robes

[Rambunctious]

• Judge Fernando Rodriguez (Southern District of Texas): Judge Rodriguez ruled against the administration's attempt to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for migrant deportations. He determined the situation didn't meet the act's requirement of a "declared war" or "invasion".
• Judge Trevor McFadden (D.C. District): Judge McFadden ruled that the Trump administration must restore access to presidential events for the Associated Press after they were barred.
• Federal Trade Court Judges: A three-judge panel, including a Trump appointee, blocked the administration's emergency tariffs, finding they exceeded presidential authority under the IEEPA and were not directly related to the declared national emergency.

Okay two.... until just an hour ago with the trade court...

 

[BULLDOG]

Okay two.... until just an hour ago with the trade court...

Supreme Court justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have all ruled against trump.

 

[Rambunctious]

Supreme Court justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have all ruled against trump.

Then he picked some good justices and not partisan lackies like Obama judges...

 

[j-mac]

You do realize that many of those judges, and the majority of judges on the Supreme Court, were put there by Trump, right?

His judges ruled against him in 2020 when he attempted to overthrow our democracy, and they have already ruled against him a few times this go-round.

Yep. Corruption doesn’t have a party designator.

Ever notice that it’s always the Republicans appointees that turn out to be huge disappointments?

I know why, do you?

 

[scruffy]

The judge can interpret the law to allow for that.

Horseshit.

If anyone disagrees with that ruling, they can go to the Supreme Court to overrule them.

Or just ignore them.

That's how it works.

Judges are not allowed to change the law by "re-interpreting" it.

That would be called a Constitutional crisis.

You, me, or the president can't change the ruling. The SC is the only one that has authority to change that ruling.

Judges that pull laws out of their butts need to be disciplined.

The SC can rule that the law in question is interpreted a certain way, and the law becomes what they say it is.

No, the law is what Congress passed.

Judges are not allowed to change it.

Congress can rewrite that law or write another one, but the SC still has the authority to interpret that one too.

Judges are not allowed to change the law.

End of story.

Period full stop.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Horseshit.



Or just ignore them.



Judges are not allowed to change the law by "re-interpreting" it.

That would be called a Constitutional crisis.



Judges that pull laws out of their butts need to be disciplined.



No, the law is what Congress passed.

Judges are not allowed to change it.



Judges are not allowed to change the law.

End of story.

Period full stop.

Iol


I like your posts, Scruffy.

Short, and to the point.

No interminable word salads, full of unpalatable ingredients, one finds in excess on these boards.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

All this "they want to talk" but there is no walk, guys.

The link doesn't expose the name of one judge... and then goes on to Roberts from 2018... honestly I do think there has been one Trump appointed Judge that gave him an unfavorable decision... when I read her opinion it made some sense... but I haven't heard of any others... these libs don't go to Trump appointed judges... they seek out Obama judges...

At least one judge appointed by Donald Trump has ruled against him on the issue of tariffs. In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade, a three-judge panel struck down Trump's unilateral tariffs, stating they exceeded the authority granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The panel included:

• Judge Timothy Reif, appointed by Donald Trump
• Judge Gary Katzmann, appointed by Barack Obama
• Judge Jane Restani, appointed by Ronald Reagan
  1

This ruling is significant because it shows that even judges appointed by Trump are willing to rule against him when they interpret the law as being violated. The court found that the tariffs were not justified under the emergency powers law and were therefore "ultra vires" (beyond legal authority).

 

[Rambunctious]

All this "they want to talk" but there is no walk, guys.

At least one judge appointed by Donald Trump has ruled against him on the issue of tariffs. In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade, a three-judge panel struck down Trump's unilateral tariffs, stating they exceeded the authority granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The panel included:

• Judge Timothy Reif, appointed by Donald Trump
• Judge Gary Katzmann, appointed by Barack Obama
• Judge Jane Restani, appointed by Ronald Reagan
  1

This ruling is significant because it shows that even judges appointed by Trump are willing to rule against him when they interpret the law as being violated. The court found that the tariffs were not justified under the emergency powers law and were therefore "ultra vires" (beyond legal authority).

until yesterday there was only two Trump appointed judges ruling against him... this trade district court will be overruled in a matter of days maybe hours....

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

until yesterday there was only two Trump appointed judges ruling against him... this trade district court will be overruled in a matter of days maybe hours....

I don't think so. Taco is stopped in his tracks until it is and if it is overturned.

 

[Rambunctious]

I don't think so. Taco is stopped in his tracks until it is and if it is overturned.

You need to watch FOX news on this... every legal expert they talk with say this court will be overturned.... maybe by the end of the day... this is messing with on going tariff talks... they do not have that power....

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You need to watch FOX news on this... every legal expert they talk with say this court will be overturned.... maybe by the end of the day... this is messing with on going tariff talks... they do not have that power....

breitbart

fox

slayernews

 

[Rambunctious]

breitbart

fox

slayernews

Okay stay brainwashed....

 

[BULLDOG]

Horseshit.



Or just ignore them.



Judges are not allowed to change the law by "re-interpreting" it.

That would be called a Constitutional crisis.



Judges that pull laws out of their butts need to be disciplined.



No, the law is what Congress passed.

Judges are not allowed to change it.



Judges are not allowed to change the law.

End of story.

Period full stop.

I'm sure you believe all you wrote is true. I'm sorry that you are such an idiot.

 

[scruffy]

I'm sure you believe all you wrote is true. I'm sorry that you are such an idiot.

Maybe you should go back to school.

Take Civics 101.

Leftard lawfare is over. Done.

 

[WEATHER53]

We will see if USSC supports 1.5% of thee judicial branch usurping the POTUS to such an extent that he can’t enact tariffs

 

[Oddball]

 

[JLW]

Horseshit.



Or just ignore them.



Judges are not allowed to change the law by "re-interpreting" it.

That would be called a Constitutional crisis.



Judges that pull laws out of their butts need to be disciplined.



No, the law is what Congress passed.

Judges are not allowed to change it.



Judges are not allowed to change the law.

End of story.

Period full stop.

This is among the biggest bunches of garbage I have ever read. No, you can't just ignore a court order unless you want to live in a place like Somalia; Judges interpret the law because we are human beings, and the laws we write can be vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Judges don't make law. You need to take a civics course or go back to high school and learn about the three branches of government.

 

[kyzr]

You need to watch FOX news on this... every legal expert they talk with say this court will be overturned.... maybe by the end of the day... this is messing with on going tariff talks... they do not have that power....

I think that court does not have the authority to rule what constitutes an economic "emergency" and what does not.
That decision is wayyyyyyy outside their lane.

 

[kyzr]

This is among the biggest bunches of garbage I have ever read. No, you can't just ignore a court order unless you want to live in a place like Somalia; Judges interpret the law because we are human beings, and the laws we write can be vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Judges don't make law. You need to take a civics course or go back to high school and learn about the three branches of government.

Trump can ignore district courts, but not the Supreme Court.

Trump needs to push his Constitutional Article 2 Power vs district courts.

 

[WEATHER53]

Usually a plaintiff and defendant cause a ruling
These rogues are not holding hearings, they are making unsolicited decrees.