***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

289,577 Views | 2902 Replies | Last: 2 min ago by nortex97
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to waitwhat? • 5:04p, 2/18/25
AG
Quote:
It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.
Not really. Three branches are co-equal. POTUS can veto or courts can strike down statutes passed by the legislature, for instance.
Reply Quote
7
waitwhat?
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 aggiehawg • 5:18p, 2/18/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.
Not really. Three branches are co-equal. POTUS can veto or courts can strike down statutes passed by the legislature, for instance.
And the legislature can override the POTUS veto and remove jurisdiction from the judicial branch.
" 'People that read with pictures think that it's simply about a mask' - Dana Loesch" - Ban Cow Gas

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul

Big Tech IS the empire of lies

TEXIT
Reply Quote
Troy91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:44p, 2/18/25
AG
Easy fix for Trump. He just has to insert a reason and she is fired again.

She will then sue about evidence supporting the reason.
Reply Quote
2
Ag with kids
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 waitwhat? • 6:07p, 2/18/25
AG
waitwhat? said:
Ag with kids said:
waitwhat? said:
Ag with kids said:
HTownAg98 said:
Still not sure how the judicial branch has authority to determine who does and does not work for the executive branch.
To be fair, it seems that the relevant law, passed by Congress, says the holder of that position can only be fired for cause. The administration fired her without cause, so that would violate the law.

It's not the judicial branch saying he can't fire her without cause, it's the legislative branch.
Then just change the comment to use legislative instead judicial...

Either that office is under the executive branch or it's not.
It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.
Are they really able to? Or has it just never been litigated to see if it's constitutional?

If the legislative branch can dictate how and when a member of the executive branch is hired/fired, then can the legislative branch say that the executive branch cannot fire them under any circumstance? And/or the executive branch has to hire a specific person put forth by the legislative branch. It's just degrees of difference.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Ag87H2O
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 waitwhat? • 7:09p, 2/18/25
AG
waitwhat? said:
Ag with kids said:
waitwhat? said:
Ag with kids said:
HTownAg98 said:
Still not sure how the judicial branch has authority to determine who does and does not work for the executive branch.
To be fair, it seems that the relevant law, passed by Congress, says the holder of that position can only be fired for cause. The administration fired her without cause, so that would violate the law.

It's not the judicial branch saying he can't fire her without cause, it's the legislative branch.
Then just change the comment to use legislative instead judicial...

Either that office is under the executive branch or it's not.
It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.
Most contracts also allow termination in cases of financial exigency. They could easily say that the federal government is broke and that the position is being either eliminated or reassigned. Send her to El Paso with a requirement for in person work and you'll have her resignation by tomorrow morning.
Reply Quote
2
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:26p, 2/18/25

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
1
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:27p, 2/18/25

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
FireAg
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 will25u • 8:42p, 2/18/25
AG
What does all of this mean in a nutshell?
Reply Quote
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 11:49p, 2/18/25
FireAg said:
What does all of this mean in a nutshell?
Courts battles for months
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:55a, 2/19/25
AG
Good ol' corrupt scumbag Rudy Contreras, there's a name I've not heard for a couple years.

But of course 'he recused himself'…6 days after accepting Gen Flynn's plea.
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:45a, 2/19/25
Thread.


"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:52a, 2/19/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
1
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:04a, 2/19/25
AG
Catholic Charities has sued the administration claiming they are owed 67 million for their human trafficking costs:
Quote:
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, names as defendants the State Department, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration and the Department of Health and Human Services. It says the bishops have partnered with the U.S. government for nearly 50 years, and that the bureau has committed to provide $65 million to the USCCB "for the immediate physical needs and integration of refugees into their new communities."

"But now, after refugees have already arrived and been placed in USCCB's care, the government is attempting to pull the rug out from under USCCB's programs by halting funding."

The suit says the Trump administration hasn't made any payments to the USCCB since Jan. 24 and owes money for services that go back to November.

The impact is "devastating" for the USCCB and the people with whom it works, the suit says. More than 6,700 refugees assigned to the USCCB by the government were still within their "90-day transition period," the suit said.

As a result, the USCCB now has millions of dollars in pending, unpaid reimbursements and "is accruing millions more each week." The conference has started the process of laying off 50 people and "faces irreparable damage to its longstanding refugee resettlement programs and its reputation and relationship with … the refugee populations it serves."
90 day 'transition period' needs to go away. Cry me a river, USAID funded liars.
Reply Quote
6
stetson
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:27a, 2/19/25
AG
Isn't it illegal to abet criminals?
FJB
Reply Quote
3
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 2/19/25
AG
These activist district court judges are going to FAFO.

I think Trump has proven that the gloves are officially off. There will be no GOP candidate that supports the deep state that will win the primaries for POTUS.

These lower level TROs need to top before Trump just tells them all collectively to pound sand. He is playing nice now, which is prudent, but everything is on the table at this point.

With the gloves off, we will start to see Conservative courts issue similar TROs. Its not something that we have done in the past, but it will be on the table soon.

The left has won the last two decades by expanding executive power and wielding it in ways that conservatives would not dare to. Well, they are getting their comeuppance now as Trump/Musk is wielding that power the way the left does.

The same will happen with the judicial branch if they really do FAFO.
Reply Quote
4
Iraq2xVeteran
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:25a, 2/19/25
AG
These liberal judges are trying to stall President Trump's executive orders. They will learn this lesson the hard way: play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:45p, 2/19/25
AG
That really is a double edged sword for the dems. Trump will surely contest any of the lower court dem wins up to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS rules for Trump, then dems lose their big slush funds and all the agencies get purged of hard core lefties in the leadership ranks. If the SCOTUS rules in dem's favor, then they have successfully set a SCOTUS precedent that limits executive power to act by EO that will be applied to EO actions by any future dem president.
Reply Quote
5
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:24a, 2/20/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
1
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:07p, 2/20/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
7
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:07p, 2/20/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
8
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 3:09p, 2/20/25
Quote:
With the gloves off, we will start to see Conservative courts issue similar TROs. Its not something that we have done in the past, but it will be on the table soon.


Were you asleep during the Biden admin?

Conservative judges entered plenty of TROs against Biden!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:37p, 2/20/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
4
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 5:12a, 2/21/25
AG
An Obama judge, at that;

Quote:
Quote:
A federal judge on Thursday declined to issue a temporary restraining order pausing President Donald Trump's moves to fire thousands of employees who are on probationary status or deemed nonessential, clearing a roadblock for the new administration as it attempts sweeping changes to downsize the federal government.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled against the National Treasury Employees Union and four other labor organizations that requested a temporary halt to the mass firings. More than half a million federal workers could lose their jobs through the Trump administration's firings and a separate program of deferred resignations, or buyouts, the unions said in legal filings.
Judge Cooper said the unions would have to take their complaints first to the federal agency that handles such things:
Quote:
Judge Cooper said that he was denying the unions' request that he block the Trump administration from continuing its downsizing efforts because the matter should be first addressed with the agency that adjudicates labor disputes between federal employee unions and management, known as the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Judge Cooper noted that if the unions lose in that venue, they could resume their court battle through the federal court of appeals.

Reply Quote
2
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 2/21/25
Reply Quote
will25u
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 HTownAg98 • 1:34p, 2/21/25
That seems pretty ridiculous.

DOJ wants to Dismiss w/o prejudice. Of course Defendant wants to dismiss.
Judge has hearing on why DOJ wants to dismiss.
Bove appeared in court and explained why it should be dismissed.
Now the judge is allowing amicus briefs on why it should not be dismissed?

If the prosecuting agency doesn't want to pursue, how can a judge make them try the case? lol

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 1:40p, 2/21/25
AG
Quote:
DOJ wants to Dismiss w/o prejudice. Of course Defendant wants to dismiss.
Judge has hearing on why DOJ wants to dismiss.
Bove appeared in court and explained why it should be dismissed.
Now the judge is allowing amicus briefs on why it should not be dismissed?

If the prosecuting agency doesn't want to pursue, how can a judge make them try the case? lol
Similar to the end of the Michael Flynn case. Judge Sullivan actively invited amici against his dismissal after Barr filed the motion to dismiss the case. Took the DC Circuit Court twice telling Sullivan to back down and dismiss it.
Reply Quote
5
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:41p, 2/21/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
2
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:47p, 2/21/25
AG
If they won't let them dismiss the case, then the prosecution should go ahead to trial.

The first statement of the trial from the prosecution should be...

You honor, the state rests.
Reply Quote
6
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:01p, 2/21/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:01p, 2/21/25
I would bet dollars to donuts that Clement is going to tell the judge that his only two options are to dismiss with or without prejudice. Normally, a defendant would oppose a dismissal without prejudice. So the judge is inviting amici to chime in.
Reply Quote
will25u
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 HTownAg98 • 2:05p, 2/21/25
The defendant is fine with it being dropped without prejudice.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
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 • 2:09p, 2/21/25
AG
HTownAg98 said:
I would bet dollars to donuts that Clement is going to tell the judge that his only two options are to dismiss with or without prejudice. Normally, a defendant would oppose a dismissal without prejudice. So the judge is inviting amici to chime in.
The judge should know that without an amicus brief. Not exactly a tough nor complicated concept. LOL.I laugh because it is just so damn stupid.
Reply Quote
1
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to waitwhat? • 2:09p, 2/21/25
Quote:
Quote:
Then just change the comment to use legislative instead judicial...

Either that office is under the executive branch or it's not.
It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.
False. The Legislative Branch cannot pass laws that bind the Executive's powers per the Constitution. The President IS the Executive Branch. He alone can determine who the **** he wants to fire.

The branches' powers are derived from the Constitution and nowhere else. If the Constitution doesn't grant a power to a branch, Congress cannot magically do so.

This is lawfare meant to thwart the will of the American voter. Nothing more.
Reply Quote
3
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 will25u • 2:15p, 2/21/25
will25u said:
The defendant is fine with it being dropped without prejudice.

And that's the problem. Normally a defendant would fight that to get a dismissal with prejudice. No sane defendant would be ok with this.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
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 • 2:27p, 2/21/25
AG
HTownAg98 said:
will25u said:
The defendant is fine with it being dropped without prejudice.

And that's the problem. Normally a defendant would fight that to get a dismissal with prejudice. No sane defendant would be ok with this.
Not the judge's problem, though. He can ask if the defendant fully understands the differences between with prejudice and without prejudice and if the defendant says yes, that's all the judge can do.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.