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

[tahuyaman]

Depends on how he is doing it.

There’s nothing illegal about rooting the waste and fraud in every agency of government.

 

[tahuyaman]

Whats wrong with how its being done?

Nothing.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

This is referring to children born of diplomats and other foreign representatives in the U.S., Kleetus.

For example, if a baby is born at the French embassy in the U.S. to the ambassador of France, that baby is a citizen of France.

You are so hopelessly dumb.

Surrender Surprise

Then if a pregnant American woman doesn't want her son to have to fight for his country, she can sneak into the French Embassy, drop her load, and he'll become a French citizen.

 

[BackAgain]

I’ll ask for the 10th time. What’s the definition of jurisdiction?. Answer directly

I already did. At least twice now.

The fact that you’re attempting to get back to ground you feel more comfortable discussing — instead of addressing the actual arguments — shows your desperation.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong, that’s the legal, literal and constitutional meaning

No. That’s just your wishful thinking.

But the actual intent of those who drafted it matters a lot. And your spin doesn’t matter at all.

 

[BackAgain]

What source tells you that jurisdiction means allegiance to our nation ?

If you don’t care to look at the discussion and the sources already presented, why waste time asking for the rehash?

 

[martybegan]

A Rebuttal I posted in another thread:

Kurt Schlichter: We are totally going to crush the Dem's Puny Lawfare Offensive

 

[imawhosure]

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/

LOLOLOLOL, want to bet, and if so, how much! If you need cash to support your position, please call on MACAFLOOZY, IM2, DRAGONCHICK from CANADA, rightwingerhumdinger, and the rest of your crew you want to draw in to your PARTY being embarrassed!

PUT UP, or SHUT up=-)

 

[WEATHER53]

In Loco Parentis

They are under the jurisdiction of whatever country their parents are citizens of.

Thinking would say that but all sorts of false emotion about “the plight of…” had been ruling

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

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.

I already know that you're not smart. I pointed out to you that Trump is going to kill you by destroying the EPA and you just don't care.

You would rather did young and "own the libs". Pitiful MAGA QAnon religious freak.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I already know that you're not smart. I pointed out to you that Trump is going to kill you by destroying the EPA and you just don't care.

You would rather did young and "own the libs". Pitiful MAGA QAnon religious freak.

He isn’t destroying the EPA. He is taking out corruption in the EPA. Keep wearing that mask, sheep.

 

[Slade3200]

Every One of Them Cancels an American Vote

The anchor babies are only under our jurisdiction to immediately deport them and their parents to a country that has natural jurisdiction over them. You're interpreting "jurisdiction" as protection when its only application here is as punishment.

If that’s what the executive decides to do then that’s what happens. But the constitution doesn’t say they need to be deported.

 

[Slade3200]

I already did. At least twice now.

The fact that you’re attempting to get back to ground you feel more comfortable discussing — instead of addressing the actual arguments — shows your desperation.

The definition of the actual language of the amendment is the argument.

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

Surrender Surprise

Then if a pregnant American woman doesn't want her son to have to fight for his country, she can sneak into the French Embassy, drop her load, and he'll become a French citizen.

Doesn't work that way, Kleetus. The American woman has no jurisdiction in the French embassy.

 

[Slade3200]

No. That’s just your wishful thinking.

But the actual intent of those who drafted it matters a lot. And your spin doesn’t matter at all.

Intent is in the language in which they write. The fact that you ignore that language and rely on interpretative alternative meanings shows that you don’t have a solid argument

 

[Slade3200]

If you don’t care to look at the discussion and the sources already presented, why waste time asking for the rehash?

I’ve looked at your sources and last time I checked, an opinion from a congressman doesn’t redefine the meanings of words in the English language. If that’s your only source for the alternative definition of jurisdiction that you’re using then your argument is null and void. Got anything else?

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

He isn’t destroying the EPA. He is taking out corruption in the EPA. Keep wearing that mask, sheep.View attachment 1078868

Sure he is, Kleetus.

And what fucking corruption is in the EPA?? Some scientist paying for hookers? Just shut up with your MAGA bumpkin dumb shit.

Trump is going to kill all the imbecile MAGA gomers that voted for him. All of you are SUCKERS!

 

[BackAgain]

The definition of the actual language of the amendment is the argument.

No. The interpretation is.

 

[BackAgain]

Intent is in the language in which they write. The fact that you ignore that language and rely on interpretative alternative meanings shows that you don’t have a solid argument

You’re simply wrong.

You know not a thing about Constitutional law or the methodology used by the SCOTUS to rule on the issues which arise under the Constitution.

 

[Slade3200]

No. The interpretation is.

I’m well you take the said of the “interpretation” and I’ll take the side of the literal meaning. Can’t wait to use your argument against you in the future