Trump Is Going To Lose Most Of The Current Federal Court Cases....Then What?

[Dante]

Below is the current situation regarding all of Trump's Federal court cases. Trump is getting his ass handed to him right now by the Federal judges. --

Everything Trump is doing is blatantly unconstitutional. A 10 year old civics student can tell you that. Most of these court cases will just be laughed out of court.

What is Trump going to do when he ultimately loses most of these cases? Is he just going to ignore the rulings and become King Trump? That's my guess.

And his pathetic lackey JD Vance is already encouraging Trump to do just that.

View attachment 1077707

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/trump-lawsuits-executive-orders-actions-legal-challenges/

thank you for this public service, for this information

"Can people trust, fully trust a convicted felon?"

 

[Mac-7]

Are you an authority on unconstitutional executive orders?

No more than you are

 

[bendog]

Would it be ironic if the next D president locked up the jan 6 guys again, and told the courts to FO?

 

[BackAgain]

The constitution means what it says.

Yes. It does.

The 14th is pretty damn clear.

Apparently not.

How in the world do you interpret birthright citizenship anything but that?

How you derive that the Constitutional amendment EVER was intended to say (or that it somehow does say) that an illegal alien giving birth to a child on our soil automatically makes that newborn a US Citizen is the real mystery. It isn’t what the amendment says and absolutely not what it means.

If there were exceptions then they would have written them out. They didn’t.

They did. You just don’t understand the subordinate clause’s intended meaning.

So update the amendment if you want it changed

No need. Let’s have the court take another look at it and make use of the words of those who drafted it. That will suffice.

 

[Rambunctious]

your sources

Watch a little FOX news... it will do you good... the other news agencies are full of shit...

 

[BackAgain]

Would it be ironic if the next D president locked up the jan 6 guys again, and told the courts to FO?

No. It would be legally impossible.

But, don’t let that stop you from posting your absolute gibberish.

 

[Dante]

Would it be ironic if the next D president locked up the jan 6 guys again, and told the courts to FO?

If a D led Congress (both houses) went along like the lapdogs in the GOP do with Trump these days...it would be justice of some sort.

"Can people trust, fully trust a convicted felon?"

 

[bendog]

Watch a little FOX news... it will do you good... the other news agencies are full of shit...

ohhhh mr constitution. roflmao

 

[Rambunctious]

ohhhh mr constitution. roflmao

Really you are operating on bad intell......

 

[bendog]

If a D led Congress (both houses) went along like the lapdogs in the GOP do with Trump these days...it would be justice of some sort.

"Can people trust, fully trust a convicted felon?"

Well, I think it has to play out sort of like this. Courts tell Trump he cannot do X to a citizen. Trump does it anyway. The citizen sues.

Then, the SC will find it just castrated itself.

 

[Dante]

Well, I think it has to play out sort of like this. Courts tell Trump he cannot do X to a citizen. Trump does it anyway. The citizen sues.

Then, the SC will find it just castrated itself.

Really?

You have a wild imagination

 

[bendog]

Well, I think it has to play out sort of like this. Courts tell Trump he cannot do X to a citizen. Trump does it anyway. The citizen sues.

Then, the SC will find it just castrated itself.

Well, how will Trump's immunity play out, then?

 

[Slade3200]

I doubt it.

However, the decisions of the Executive Branch ARE within the sole province of the President. In terms of the Constitution, the President IS the Executive Branch.

Try to follow along.

Do you still doubt it? Are you unable to read for yourself?

JD's examples were perfect, comparing the limit on a judge's authority to direct Executive Branch members to the unlimited authority of a president to run the Executive Branch under Article 2.

 

[Slade3200]

However, the decisions of the Executive Branch ARE within the sole province of the President. In terms of the Constitution, the President IS the Executive Branch.

No shit. That doesn’t mean he can make unconstitutional decisions. That’s why we have checks and balances

 

[bendog]

No shit. That doesn’t mean he can make unconstitutional decisions. That’s why we have checks and balances

Well, practically speaking, what would limit Trump's power to take a blatantly unconstitutional action, allow the courts, and even the SC, tell him he cannot do it, and he does it anyway? What limits are there upon him? Suppose the dems take the House in 23 mos, and they impeach him, and Trump and the gop senate tell them to FO? Is there a legal remedy for an illegal action? And if there is not ...... that would be a bad day for republicans.

 

[Slade3200]

Bias, partisanship, and political persecution will never fly in the United States. There's a new sheriff in town , Get used to it

You seriously need to look in the mirror. Unbelievable how you have zero self awareness

 

[Slade3200]

No more than you are

I’m not. Yet I can have a discussion about it

 

[westwall]

In other words...you've got nothing, Kleetus.

More than you, Ghonorhrea!

 

[BackAgain]

Do you still doubt it? Are you unable to read for yourself?

Yes. I doubt our spin. Clearly, you don’t understand what he wrote. Read it again.

The President says what the Executive does. Not the courts.

Obviously, there can be perfectly valid and Constitutional insertions of judicial authority where a President directs something which actually violates the Constitution. But that’s a different concern.

Can a President order a judge to dismiss a particular criminal case or a given civil case? No. Why not. Because the Executive Branch is separate from the Judicial Branch.

 

[BackAgain]

I’m not. Yet I can have a discussion about it

As can anyone else. Need they be an “expert,” while you recognize that you don’t have to be?