Loading…
www.reuters.com
Yet Another Judge blocks portions of Trump's anti-DEI Order
- Thread starter EvilEyeFleegle
- Start date
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,603
- 106,841
- 3,645
Speaker suck on Trumps Johnson would create serious problems if he tries eliminating courts because they don't agree with Trump.
Last edited:
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 82,206
- 33,318
- 2,250
With a stroke of a pen? No. So why lie?
Link?
0311
Diamond Member
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 82,206
- 33,318
- 2,250
Actually they can. It's not all that easy but they can.
Moron, the Constitution says Congress decides on the lower courts.
Obviously YOU haven't read it.
- Thread starter
- #31
You are ,of course correct..although the SCOTUS can weigh in and obviate any action by Congress it deems unconstitutional.
But yes, the lower courts are ordained by Congress.
A refresher..for those who need it:
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Independent thinker
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2015
- 31,469
- 27,209
- 2,788
So, you're saying that even the liberal activist judge allowed portions to continue. Got it.Dropping like bombers out of the Sun..the Judicial system craters MAGA hopes.
I gotta admit..I'm kinda enjoying the game thus far~
Labor Agency Barred From Imposing Anti-DEI Order for Grants (1)
A Chicago federal judge on Thursday barred the Department of Labor from enforcing part of a Trump executive order targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.news.bloomberglaw.com
A Chicago federal judge on Thursday barred the Department of Labor from enforcing part of a Trump executive order targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois granted a nationwide temporary restraining order barring enforcement of a provision that requires grant recipients to certify they do not “operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
Though the government “emphasized, both in its brief and at oral argument, that the Certification Provision implicates only illegal DEI programs, it has studiously declined to shed any light on what this means,” Kennelly wrote. “The answer is anything but obvious.”
A nationwide restraining order on that provision “is appropriate to protect grantees who cannot afford the risks inherent in biting the hand that feeds them,” he wrote.
Chicago Women in Trades sued the Trump administration over the anti-DEI orders in February, saying the directives pose an existential threat to a group whose mission is to promote women in the skilled trades.
Their request for a nationwide restraining order came after the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stayed a prior injunction that prohibited the government from acting on certain anti-diversity directives.
The group had also requested a nationwide prohibition on enforcing a different part of the Trump orders, which directed agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants “to the maximum extent allowed by law.”
Kennelly instead imposed a narrower order, barring enforcement of that provision only as it relates to Chicago Women in Trades and any federal grantee through which the group “holds a subcontract or is a subrecipient of federal funds.”
- Thread starter
- #33
Of course the duly appointed Judge allowed the legal stuff to apply..why wouldn't he?
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
One lower court activist judge won't allow you to rule...
- Thread starter
- #35
Uh...OK~
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
You can blow it off all you want. I get it...The first step is realizing that dems lost it, and to date haven't been able to get their shit together since....
Really, at this point, you dems would be better off trying to pick a few items and working with the administration to reach a compromise...
Or, you can continue to act like infighting children, and we'll ignore you.
- Thread starter
- #37
LOL!
Not a Dem dude. Not seeing how the above applies to me at all, in fact.
On some issues I tend Left..other I tend Right--but one thing I've never been is a partisan.
But I do hate Trump--and those MAGA douches he empowers....which is enough..on this site--for fools to lump me in with the crowd.
I think Trump is operating illegally--and guess what--most of the US Judicial system agrees with me~
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
Ok, in this discussion tell us how you even remotely "trend right"?
In fact, as long as I have been on this site I can't recall a conversation where you took the political right side of the conversation....But, I understand your apprehensiveness in admitting that you are a democrat...And, think about that, if they are so embarrassing that you don't want to be "lumped in" with them, but argue with them, that doesn't make you an 'independent', it just makes you dishonest about your ideological stance...IOW, you argue this in bad faith.
- Thread starter
- #40
On this issue..I trend legal.
As to the rest:
I support the 2nd..I'm against birthright citizenship. I support a national voter ID and I support presenting it every time you vote.
All of these I've posted about here.
I would point out..just BTW..that one can be both a Lefty and NOT a Democrat..or a partisan anything.
Just as one can despise MAGA and still be on the Right...and not be a Republican.
But whatever..you see..for your ilk...you need to have labels--and take assumptions for fact--simply because the partisan narratives you espouse require you to do so.
I have never met nor conversed with a Partisan on either side who was adept of seeing nuance--black and white is all they know~
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Even Israel knows deporting people is the way to go
- Started by lennypartiv
- Replies: 1
-
-
The video of Israel slaughtering its own citizens on Oct 7 is trending again on X- Started by Street Juice
- Replies: 1
-
Watch and react to polls or commit to the long-term mission?- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 3
