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

[TemplarKormac]

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/

Maybe that is the point. The margins in Congress are so slim that it wouldn't take much to torpedo a spending cuts bill. With that knowledge in hand, perhaps he sees this as his only recourse, even as illegal as it may be.

 

[Slade3200]

I have batted you all over the place.

You’ve tried but ultimately failed to answer my basic questions, or back up your argument… you couldn’t even provide a simple definition that I asked half a dozen times for. You're obviously passionate about the subject, just weak in your ability to defend your argument

 

[Slade3200]

And now, since you’ve asked, perhaps you will at last address the matter of what the Congressmen said when asked about the prospect of the then pending 14th Amendment permitting the kids born here of illegal alien parents to be birthright citizens.

I have addressed this but happy to again and to elaborate. A line from a congressman where he recharacterizes the meaning of the 14th amendment without using its actual language is meaningless. You’re taking an out of context statement and making it gospel. I’m using an actual law, the actual language of the amendment, a scotus decision, and a century of legal process to back mine. There is no comparison

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The antis don't care what the law says about birthright status because they have nothing to reject it within the law.

 

[Slade3200]

Recall, they were clear. And their clarity is at odds with the interpretation of alleged “birthright citizenship” in such cases.

They and you are very clearly stating your desires for how you want the policy to be and trying to spin that into a warped “interpretation” of the 14th amendment.

What you’re not doing is giving an honest or literal reading of what the actual constitution says. I understand that you wish the policy was different but there is a constitutional process to use to do that.

 

[Frankenstein]

Do you really know that or are you just making a lazy argument. No need to answer, that was rhetorical. I know the answer.

Actually I do, I look them up and see who appointed them!

 

[Frankenstein]

Well, I can tell you're a bright one. Go vent your spleen somewhere else, Kleetus.

Dang straight I am bright, I see right through your B.S

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trump is going to lose a lot more than that....especially the freeze on Federal funds. That's a massive violation of the Constitution.

But it's interesting that you admit Trump will lose the birthright citizenship case....you are admitting that Trump is an imbecile and crazy for even going there, but you support him anyway.

That definitely doesn't say anything good about you.

Nope. He is the executive branch. Sorry. Only one you ll win is the 14th and he knows that. Dr. Defect you calling him an imbecile is like Lizzo calling me fat.

 

[BackAgain]

They and you are very clearly stating your desires for how you want the policy to be and trying to spin that into a warped “interpretation” of the 14th amendment.

Wrong again, Slack.

I want the Amendment to be reinterpreted to correct the prior and ongoing mistake. And yes, that ought to help create the far more intelligent policy. You (being a droid) prefer the long standing mistaken interpretation, clearly. You want the idiocy of having to accept babies born here of illegal aliens being automatically deemed U.S. citizens — because you’re an asshole.

What you’re not doing is giving an honest or literal reading of what the actual constitution says.

Yes I am. You’re the one who isn’t. You’re so superficial that you pretend the subordinate clause isn’t subject to a corrected interpretation predicated on what the drafters said was intended.

If stupidity was painful, you’d be in agony.

I understand that you wish the policy was different but there is a constitutional process to use to do that.

Yes. There is. And that process is to have SCOTUS at last settle the discrepancy in how it was interpreted (based on what was literally intended bits drafters). That process is nothing new.

 

[Slade3200]

I want the Amendment to be reinterpreted to correct the prior and ongoing mistake.

You twist yourself into pretzels with your so called interpretations when you could simply just use the language of the law. What is the definition of Jurisdiction? If you’re not going to post the definition again how about you explain why such a simple request is so hard for you…

 

[Slade3200]

You (being a droid) prefer the long standing mistaken interpretation, clearly. You want the idiocy of having to accept babies born here of illegal aliens being automatically deemed U.S. citizens — because you’re an asshole.

There’s a presumptive BS statement. If the issue was up for a vote I’d certainly vote to not grant citizenship to babies born here to illegal or undocumented people. I would have children adopt the same status as their parents.

But my opinion like yours isn’t what’s being debated. The constitution is, and it is pretty damn clear. I’m not going to reinvent some interpretation to make my ideal policy fit like you’re doing.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes. There is. And that process is to have SCOTUS at last settle the discrepancy in how it was interpreted (based on what was literally intended bits drafters). That process is nothing new.

That’s already been done… like I linked

 

[Slade3200]

Actually I do, I look them up and see who appointed them!

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Slade3200]

Nope. He is the executive branch. Sorry. Only one you ll win is the 14th and he knows that. Dr. Defect you calling him an imbecile is like Lizzo calling me fat.

Maybe you can explain to BackAgain why trump isn’t going to win the 14th amendment case.

 

[BackAgain]

You twist yourself into pretzels with your so called interpretations

Not at all. It’s in the regular course of the business of the Court to examine the evidence of what a Constitutional provision (or a law) was intended to accomplish.

The problem you have is simple and clear. You just don’t want such an analysis to take place for fear of the change it would lead to.

when you could simply just use the language of the law. What is the definition of Jurisdiction? If you’re not going to post the definition again how about you explain why such a simple request is so hard for you…

It’s funny. When a big 2d Amendment advocate says that the words of that Amendment are obvious and clear, you libtards vehemently disagree. THERE you try to spin the alleged significance of a qualifying clause.

Yet, where there is solid compelling evidence about the first section of the 14th Amendment, you shrink in mock horror from even engaging in the exploration.

Your hypocrisy is amusing but it leaves you hanging in the breeze when it comes to being at all persuasive.

 

[BackAgain]

There’s a presumptive BS statement. If the issue was up for a vote I’d certainly vote to not grant citizenship to babies born here to illegal or undocumented people.

The term is “illegal alien.” And we don’t need to put the question to a vote. We need only to stop wrongly seeing the 14th Amendment as a bar to disallowing birthright citizenship for children born here to illegal aliens.

I would have children adopt the same status as their parents.

Exactly as we can do right now.

But my opinion like yours isn’t what’s being debated.

Agreed. The correct interpretation of re intent of the 14th Amendment IS the issue of the debate.

The constitution is, and it is pretty damn clear.

Sadly, and obviously, that’s not true.

I’m not going to reinvent some interpretation to make my ideal policy fit like you’re doing.

It’s not a matter of reinvention. It is simply correcting an error of interpretation.

 

[Slade3200]

Not at all. It’s in the regular course of the business of the Court to examine the evidence of what a Constitutional provision (or a law) was intended to accomplish.

The problem you have is simple and clear. You just don’t want such an analysis to take place for fear of the change it would lead to.

The analysis has been done and your argument to justify a new analysis makes no sense. You can’t even address the actual language of the amendment. You need to make up interpretations instead of providing actual definitions. That’s a losing argument

 

[Slade3200]

It’s funny. When a big 2d Amendment advocate says that the words of that Amendment are obvious and clear, you libtards vehemently disagree. THERE you try to spin the alleged significance of a qualifying clause.

Now you’re using an off topic strawman argument and a whataboutism… no room for that nonsense.

 

[Slade3200]

Yet, where there is solid compelling evidence about the first section of the 14th Amendment, you shrink in mock horror from even engaging in the exploration.

Your hypocrisy is amusing but it leaves you hanging in the breeze when it comes to being at all persuasive.

There is no solid or compelling evidence. You posted a so called interpretation made up by a congressman and then dodge and avoided giving simple definitions to the actual language of the amendment. That isnt compelling or convincing

 

[Slade3200]

The term is “illegal alien.” And we don’t need to put the question to a vote. We need only to stop wrongly seeing the 14th Amendment as a bar to disallowing birthright citizenship for children born here to illegal aliens.

Unfortunately for you the 14th grants citizenship to people you don’t want to give citizenship to. You can’t just make believe your way out of it. The amendment says what it says