How do you think Trump/GOP should combat progressive judges...

9,502 Views | 137 Replies | Last: 7 days ago by Buck Turgidson
hoopla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:33a, 2/10/25
..blocking executive orders?







Through the courts?

Impeach the judges?

Should the administration ignore the orders and tell the US Marshalls to ignore any enforcement?

All the above?
Reply Quote
17
Old May Banker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:34a, 2/10/25
AG
Codify policy thru congress.
Reply Quote
67
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37a, 2/10/25
AG
I would have a Trump ally in a favorable district file a terrible suit against his EO's immediately after issuieng them. Then the friendly judge rules it legal quickly before liberals can file in another district and get it blocked.
Reply Quote
39
DevilD77
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:39a, 2/10/25
AG
Ignore them until SCOTUS makes a final decision.
Reply Quote
123
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:40a, 2/10/25
AG
Just break the law, he is a convicted felon after all.
Reply Quote
36
PCC_80
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:41a, 2/10/25
AG
Quote:
Through the courts?

Impeach the judges?

Should the administration ignore the orders and tell the US Marshalls to ignore any enforcement?

All the above?
Through the courts is the most direct path. An upper court should realize that these are mostly executive actions and are not subject to legal review. The SCOTUS should eventually set some limits on what lower level judges can do but the right case has to work it's way to them. That will take years.

Impeaching a Judge is hard and Dem/Libs are united so probably not possible no matter how incompetent or corrupt the judge is. That is really sad and says a lot about the modern Dem/Lib Party.

Ignoring a judicial order is not a good precedent to set. Hate to go there unless it is really an egregious order.
Reply Quote
2
Ag87H2O
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:46a, 2/10/25
AG
Issue preemptive blanket pardons for himself and anyone involved with DOGE enforcement and keep going full speed.

Biden set the precedent and the Dems applauded so they should be good with it, right?
Reply Quote
36
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:46a, 2/10/25
AG
I think it is disingenuous to lump all of these rulings into one category.

The birthright citizenship thing is a valid controversy for a judge to rule on. The jurisprudence does support a ruling that Trump's order is unconstitutional. But, there is a valid argument that Trump's EO is constitutional, even based on past SCOTUS jurisprudence.

A judge telling Trump's treasury secretary that he can't access the treasury payment system is COMPLETELY unconstitutional.

Lumping all of these cases together is an unhelpful strawman.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
55
Francis Macomber
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:49a, 2/10/25
AG
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.
Reply Quote
22
chase128
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old May Banker • 11:49a, 2/10/25
AG
Old May Banker said:
Codify policy thru congress.


This seems the best general answer. Is it possible to get Congress to move quickly enough?
Reply Quote
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:55a, 2/10/25
Change 1 word on the EO, reissue, and let em play wack-a-mole. Kick the can until USSC overshadows the petty tyrants. Then tell congressional leadership they have cause to begin impeachment proceedings for these "justices."
Reply Quote
7
Street Fighter
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 11:58a, 2/10/25
AG
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.
We already witnessed that in the last one jack wad, payback is a *****.
Reply Quote
69
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag87H2O • 12:04p, 2/10/25
Ag87H2O said:
Issue preemptive blanket pardons for himself and anyone involved with DOGE enforcement and keep going full speed.

Biden set the precedent and the Dems applauded so they should be good with it, right?

What good would a pardon do? Everyone is being sued in their official capacity, and those actions aren't criminal. Joe if you want to talk about defying a judge's order and facing a contempt charge, that might be a different story. I seriously doubt a judge would charge anyone with criminal contempt; they'd do civil contempt instead.
Reply Quote
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 12:04p, 2/10/25
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.


You libs claim Trump wants to be a dictator. Why would he abide by these court orders if that is the case? Especially orders from radical leftist judges?

Also, how exactly is Trump destroying the system? Defunding a generic slush fund doesn't seem like destruction to me. Downsizing departments that are bloated doesn't seem like destruction to me., It seems like its making things much better and not wasting your tax money.
Reply Quote
38
1 edit
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Get Off My Lawn • 12:05p, 2/10/25
Get Off My Lawn said:
Change 1 word on the EO, reissue, and let em play wack-a-mole. Kick the can until USSC overshadows the petty tyrants. Then tell congressional leadership they have cause to begin impeachment proceedings for these "justices."

Want to know how to make a federal judge mad? This is how you make a federal judge mad. They won't think it's cute.
Reply Quote
9
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HTownAg98 • 12:09p, 2/10/25
HTownAg98 said:
Get Off My Lawn said:
Change 1 word on the EO, reissue, and let em play wack-a-mole. Kick the can until USSC overshadows the petty tyrants. Then tell congressional leadership they have cause to begin impeachment proceedings for these "justices."

Want to know how to make a federal judge mad? This is how you make a federal judge mad. They won't think it's cute.

WGAS! **** them!

The idiots are making rulings without reference to law or the constitution!

That's exactly what the left did under Biden and all over the country in the states. The precedent has been set. Here's an example. I'm sure the judge was sooooooooo mad!!!:

Quote:
Following the Supreme Court's decision to strike down New York's concealed carry restriction in 2022, Hochul convened a special session of the Legislature to pass the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, thereby circumventing the immediate impact of the court's ruling by implementing new gun safety regulations. This legislative strategy allowed her to continue enforcing gun laws despite the court's ruling.
Reply Quote
20
1 edit
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 12:12p, 2/10/25
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.



LOL, like the tyrant buffoon Biden that you voted for:

Quote:
Eviction moratorium:
A Supreme Court decision in August 2021 suggested that extending the eviction moratorium would require congressional action, not just executive fiat, after a 6-3 ruling that Biden's extension of the moratorium might exceed his authority.


How Biden Got Around It:
New Moratorium: Despite the ruling, Biden issued a narrower, targeted eviction moratorium, focusing on counties with high transmission rates of COVID-19. This was done under the premise of new data and health concerns, allowing for a temporary continuation of protections while legal battles continued.
Reply Quote
25
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:18p, 2/10/25
Reply Quote
21
1 edit
Greener Acres
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PCC_80 • 1:28p, 2/10/25
AG
PCC_80 said:
Quote:
Through the courts?

Impeach the judges?

Should the administration ignore the orders and tell the US Marshalls to ignore any enforcement?

All the above?
Through the courts is the most direct path. An upper court should realize that these are mostly executive actions and are not subject to legal review. The SCOTUS should eventually set some limits on what lower level judges can do but the right case has to work it's way to them. That will take years.

Impeaching a Judge is hard and Dem/Libs are united so probably not possible no matter how incompetent or corrupt the judge is. That is really sad and says a lot about the modern Dem/Lib Party.

Ignoring a judicial order is not a good precedent to set. Hate to go there unless it is really an egregious order.
Do we have some attorneys that can chime in on the bolded part above? I thought sleepy joe's student loan BS was an executive order and that was challenged.

Is there a theory that executive orders aren't subject to legal review?
Reply Quote
4
Prosperdick
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:30p, 2/10/25
AG
THIS RIGHT HERE!!!!

Quote:
Random federal judges in blue state backwaters have no authority to unilaterally dictate who the President may talk to or what data he can access. John Roberts and SCOTUS have two options here: they can bring these inferior malcontents to heel, or they can get used to the President simply ignoring these inferior courts or Congress eliminating them entirely.

Congress created these inferior courts so the Supreme Court wouldn't have to deal with every federal case by itself. But if these rogue inferior judges are going to routinely issue lawless decisions that the Supreme Court has to deal with anyway, Congress would be well within its rights to just eliminate them.

Roberts and SCOTUS can immediately put these lawless judges in their place, or Roberts can watch his caseload go up 1000x and his court's precious perceived legitimacy crater overnight.

The age of tolerating this nonsense is over.

Reply Quote
45
1 edit
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 1:30p, 2/10/25
AG
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.
It's not working, it's nakedly partisan lawfare.

The American people didn't elect these marxists in robes to rule this country, it elected Trump and gave him a GOP senate and House.
Reply Quote
33
ttu_85
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 1:36p, 2/10/25
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.
So when Biden launched his string of a zillion EO's, where was your outrage ?

Such hypocritical BS
Reply Quote
53
1 edit
91AggieLawyer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 1:39p, 2/10/25
AG
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.

Where the hell were you when Biden and Obama were trying to get all sorts of unconstitutional things through?

Where in the constitution does it say a sole federal district judge has the authority to shut down ANYTHING in the executive branch? That's a gross abuse of separation of powers. Plessy was on the books for decades until it was finally overruled; we have to stop doing things simply because they've been done before. It is one thing for a court to issue an opinion and a circuit court with a PANEL of judges to come behind that and issue an order, including a stay order of some kind. It is entirely a different story for one judge to issue a stay, especially ex parte, which is what has happened in one or more of these cases.

You're up in arms with Trump being a "king," but you seem to have no problem with the judges in this case playing king in deciding, regardless of the law, they're going to overrule a duly elected President. Since we MUST choose one or the other, the choice goes squarely with the elected official: the POTUS.
Reply Quote
61
Tom Fox
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigRobSA • 1:41p, 2/10/25
BigRobSA said:


This is answer. It will make the SC do something quickly.
Reply Quote
16
93MarineHorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HTownAg98 • 1:44p, 2/10/25
HTownAg98 said:
Get Off My Lawn said:
Change 1 word on the EO, reissue, and let em play wack-a-mole. Kick the can until USSC overshadows the petty tyrants. Then tell congressional leadership they have cause to begin impeachment proceedings for these "justices."

Want to know how to make a federal judge mad? This is how you make a federal judge mad. They won't think it's cute.
I was about to post this. Pissing off judges is not smart. Court battles were expected and this will continue to play out. It's not a bad thing. What Dems are defending is unpopular, and using the courts to thwart Trump and the will of the people will cost them.
Reply Quote
6
DrEvazanPhD
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 1:49p, 2/10/25
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.
Reply Quote
14
BenFiasco14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 1:52p, 2/10/25
AG
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.


Imagine typing this out, hitting "post", and thinking it made you look informed.
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Reply Quote
53
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PCC_80 • 1:55p, 2/10/25
AG
PCC_80 said:
Quote:
Through the courts?

Impeach the judges?

Should the administration ignore the orders and tell the US Marshalls to ignore any enforcement?

All the above?
Through the courts is the most direct path. An upper court should realize that these are mostly executive actions and are not subject to legal review. The SCOTUS should eventually set some limits on what lower level judges can do but the right case has to work it's way to them. That will take years.

Impeaching a Judge is hard and Dem/Libs are united so probably not possible no matter how incompetent or corrupt the judge is. That is really sad and says a lot about the modern Dem/Lib Party.

Ignoring a judicial order is not a good precedent to set. Hate to go there unless it is really an egregious order.
Why wouldn't Executive Orders be subject to legal review?

If they don't exceed the President's legitimate powers, then they shouldn't be able to overturn them.

If they do exceed the President's powers, then they should certainly be able to overturn them. The President, after all, not the King. His powers are limited by the Constitution.
Reply Quote
5
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag87H2O • 1:58p, 2/10/25
AG
Ag87H2O said:
Issue preemptive blanket pardons for himself and anyone involved with DOGE enforcement and keep going full speed.

Biden set the precedent and the Dems applauded so they should be good with it, right?
Biden was hardly the first President to issue preemptive pardons.

I have no idea who the first was, but one relatively recent example (i.e. within my adult lifetime) was President Ford's preemptive pardon of former President Nixon.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Muktheduck
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 2:21p, 2/10/25
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.


Jokes on you, I do want a king. It'd be an improvement over the nameless faceless shadow government that has been running things, at least we'd know where the buck stops.

It became obvious to everyone last June that the president was not in fact in charge of anything in this country. Some of us were well aware of it beforehand but all plausible deniability went out of the window after that debate. And all anyone could talk about was who the next president would be. We're a country of gullible, overfed sheep and I'm supposed to want a democracy?

I hope Trump does dismantle this whole thing and I don't really care who comes after him because the curtain is getting pulled back and we can see the "will of the people" has nothing to do with how power is actually distributed and maintained.

Is that the answer you were looking for?
Reply Quote
7
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 2:26p, 2/10/25
AG
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.
You do realize, don't you, that everything that Trump is doing he is doing under the authority granted to the executive branch by laws signed by Obama, right?

A low-level federal judge issuing an unconstitutional, country-wide TRO against the president is not a situation where the "system is still working"

If SCOTUS tells him to stop, he should stop. If the Dems want to sue on this, fine. But, the work should continue until SCOTUS weighs in.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
20
1 edit
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Muktheduck • 2:30p, 2/10/25
AG
Muktheduck said:
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.


Jokes on you, I do want a king. It'd be an improvement over the nameless faceless shadow government that has been running things, at least we'd know where the buck stops.

It became obvious to everyone last June that the president was not in fact in charge of anything in this country. Some of us were well aware of it beforehand but all plausible deniability went out of the window after that debate. And all anyone could talk about was who the next president would be. We're a country of gullible, overfed sheep and I'm supposed to want a democracy?

I hope Trump does dismantle this whole thing and I don't really care who comes after him because the curtain is getting pulled back and we can see the "will of the people" has nothing to do with how power is actually distributed and maintained.

Is that the answer you were looking for?
Um, I don't want a king.

I just want the current tyrants dethroned so that they will steal less of my money.

And, we don't live in a democracy.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
13
Cinco Ranch Aggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Francis Macomber • 2:30p, 2/10/25
AG
Francis Macomber said:
We elected a President, not a king like so many of you seem to want. Presidents have to follow the law and are subject to checks and balances which will block or delay them when they try to go against the Constitution.

Congrats, our system is still working despite so many efforts by Trump and his team to destroy it. You will be thankful for these things the next time a popular Democrat takes the Presidency.
Did you sleep during Obama and Biden's terms?
Reply Quote
25
Science Denier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:31p, 2/10/25
AG
Impeach just one of them. They will change their tune once they realize they can actually face consequences.
Reply Quote
18
Science Denier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:33p, 2/10/25
AG
When a judge's "ruling' goes against the constitution and against current law, that judge should be impeached.
Reply Quote
27
Last Page
Page 1 of 4 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.