Trump Keeps Losing in Court

[berg80]

A federal judge threw out President Donald Trump’s $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, calling it an undignified public relations exercise meant to “rage against an adversary” rather than present a well-reasoned legal case.

“As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective,” U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, said of Trump’s 85-page grievance-laden lawsuit. “A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/donald-trump-new-york-times-lawsuit-order-00573073

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[BackAgain]

This thread is silly. It’s from Syndi, so we can all be sure that it’s silly.

Although President Trump has lost frequently in some (not all) cases brought in the lower courts, some liberals are actually whining about how he has a “string of wins” in the SCOTUS.

See: Barrett spurns Supreme Court bias claims after string of Trump shadow docket wins

1. Trump v. CASA, Inc.
   — The Supreme Court curtailed the power of lower courts to issue universal (nationwide) injunctions blocking enforcement of Trump’s executive order on citizenship, ruling that district courts generally can only enjoin relief as to the specific plaintiffs, not broadly.
2. DOGE / Social Security Access / FOIA Disputes
   — The Court granted emergency relief in a pair of “DOGE” (Department of Government Efficiency) cases, allowing more aggressive access to Social Security data and remanding a lower-court FOIA order back to the appeals court for reconsideration.
3. Foreign Aid Freeze
   — The Court allowed the Trump administration to freeze billions in foreign aid by lifting or staying lower court injunctions blocking the freeze, at least temporarily.
   — (Related: Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition — where the Court intervened on the merits of freezing funds. )
4. Removal of Independent Agency Officials
   — In Trump v. Slaughter, the Trump administration challenged statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court granted a stay, effectively permitting the administration’s effort to remove an FTC commissioner.
5. Immigration / Detention / Border Enforcement
   — The Court has granted relief in several emergency applications concerning immigration enforcement, including detaining or questioning individuals about their legal status and upholding standards for “reasonable suspicion.”
   — Also, the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for deporting Venezuelan detainees was subject to shadow-docket intervention by the Court.
6. Limits on Nationwide Injunctions / Scope of Courts’ Powers
   — In addition to Trump v. CASA, the Court’s shifting attitude toward nationwide injunctions has been a focal point. Some orders have reversed lower courts or narrowed the scope of judicial power in emergent contexts.

So: our lefties claim to enjoy addressing why Trump keeps losing (eg, this silly thread) while they also complain about how and why he keeps winning.

Pick a lane you dumbasses.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

This thread is silly. It’s from Syndi, so we can all be sure that it’s silly.

Although President Trump has lost frequently in some (not all) cases brought in the lower courts, some liberals are actually whining about how he has a “string of wins” in the SCOTUS.

See: Barrett spurns Supreme Court bias claims after string of Trump shadow docket wins

1. Trump v. CASA, Inc.
   — The Supreme Court curtailed the power of lower courts to issue universal (nationwide) injunctions blocking enforcement of Trump’s executive order on citizenship, ruling that district courts generally can only enjoin relief as to the specific plaintiffs, not broadly.
2. DOGE / Social Security Access / FOIA Disputes
   — The Court granted emergency relief in a pair of “DOGE” (Department of Government Efficiency) cases, allowing more aggressive access to Social Security data and remanding a lower-court FOIA order back to the appeals court for reconsideration.
3. Foreign Aid Freeze
   — The Court allowed the Trump administration to freeze billions in foreign aid by lifting or staying lower court injunctions blocking the freeze, at least temporarily.
   — (Related: Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition — where the Court intervened on the merits of freezing funds. )
4. Removal of Independent Agency Officials
   — In Trump v. Slaughter, the Trump administration challenged statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court granted a stay, effectively permitting the administration’s effort to remove an FTC commissioner.
5. Immigration / Detention / Border Enforcement
   — The Court has granted relief in several emergency applications concerning immigration enforcement, including detaining or questioning individuals about their legal status and upholding standards for “reasonable suspicion.”
   — Also, the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for deporting Venezuelan detainees was subject to shadow-docket intervention by the Court.
6. Limits on Nationwide Injunctions / Scope of Courts’ Powers
   — In addition to Trump v. CASA, the Court’s shifting attitude toward nationwide injunctions has been a focal point. Some orders have reversed lower courts or narrowed the scope of judicial power in emergent contexts.

So: our lefties claim to enjoy addressing why Trump keeps losing (eg, this silly thread) while they also complain about how and why he keeps winning.

Pick a lane you dumbasses.

I'm talking about the real courts, not Trump's rubber stamp.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm talking about the real courts, not Trump's rubber stamp.

SCOTUS clearly isn’t a rubber stamp for President Trump.

And SCOTUS is indeed a “real” Court (the only one named in our Constitution, in fact).

Many of the lower court rulings “against” President’s official actions have also been properly rejected by SCOTUS for the very reason that those rulings transgress their limited jurisdictions and also violate the Constitutionally based separation of powers.

Many of the lower court rulings have been temporary obstacles and roadblocks or bumps in the road. But the politicization of the courts (as opposed to appropriate judicial determinations) do give the very misleading appearance of President Trump continuously “losing” in court.

This has worked perfectly for useful idiots such as you, clearly.

 

[Hafar1014]

This has happened so many times, it needs its own thread. It turns out that firing Federal workers and trying to cancel Congressionally-created entities is un-Constitutional and illegal. Which we already knew.

Trump has been winning in the higher courts

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Mac1958]

A federal judge threw out President Donald Trump’s $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, calling it an undignified public relations exercise meant to “rage against an adversary” rather than present a well-reasoned legal case.

Amazingly, even judges who were hand-picked by the Federalist society are taking their positions seriously:

Judges appointed by Trump keep ruling against him. He’s not happy about it.

A small but hopeful bright spot in this disaster.

 

[Synthaholic]

Unbelievable. Look closely at the second page.

(Remember: you can right-click on a graphic in a Twitter post and choose 'open image in new tab'.)

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[g5000]

Trump Keeps Losing in Court​

.
Doesn't matter. King Donald ignores them as he sees fit.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

And so forth.
.

 

[Synthaholic]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[playtime]

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL, I see that democrats are unable to address posts #123 and #126 by BackAgain I wonder why...... snicker...........

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]