Would be helpful if republicans would confirm Trump's nominees. They obviously have no intention of doing so.
***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****
423,607 Views |
3445 Replies |
Last: 18 hrs ago by nortex97
One was confirmed yesterday 51-45, fwiw. Dick Durbin fretting about her partisanship is all I need to know that she will be great.
Ship has a piece out regarding Bozoberg's latest judicial travesty. Not a subscriber but he comes out on the good side, opposed to the clown.
Ship has a piece out regarding Bozoberg's latest judicial travesty. Not a subscriber but he comes out on the good side, opposed to the clown.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 17, 2026
nortex97 said:
One was confirmed yesterday 51-45, fwiw. Dick Durbin fretting about her partisanship is all I need to know that she will be great.
Ship has a piece out regarding Bozoberg's latest judicial travesty. Not a subscriber but he comes out on the good side, opposed to the clown.— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 17, 2026
Am I reading those last two paragraphs correctly? They seem to read like "we must pass it to find out what's in it."
He claims that the DOJ has not offered any evidence that the cost overruns were excessive and/or inappropriate, and uses that to quash the subpoenas. But the DOJ hasn't been able to see any of the documentation that supposedly explains the cost overruns, hence the subpoenas to see that information, that the judge has now quashed.
If so, that is some outstanding circular logic by judge Bozo.
Judge orders sidelined Voice of America employees back to work
Quote:
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered that the near shutdown of Voice of America was illegal and has ordered the government to reinstate more than 1,000 people who were placed on leave from the media organization.
The order by District Judge Royce Lamberth amounted to a sharp rebuke to the administration, which has aggressively sought to shrink and remake VOA through Kari Lake, the ally of President Donald Trump who has served as CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
Lamberth said in a pair of rulings that Lake's moves to close the agency violated federal administrative law and directed that the employees return to work by March 23. He also ordered a resumption of international broadcasting, which the U.S. has used for decades to promote press freedom around the world.
YellAg2004 said:nortex97 said:
One was confirmed yesterday 51-45, fwiw. Dick Durbin fretting about her partisanship is all I need to know that she will be great.
Ship has a piece out regarding Bozoberg's latest judicial travesty. Not a subscriber but he comes out on the good side, opposed to the clown.— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 17, 2026
Am I reading those last two paragraphs correctly? They seem to read like "we must pass it to find out what's in it."
He claims that the DOJ has not offered any evidence that the cost overruns were excessive and/or inappropriate, and uses that to quash the subpoenas. But the DOJ hasn't been able to see any of the documentation that supposedly explains the cost overruns, hence the subpoenas to see that information, that the judge has now quashed.
If so, that is some outstanding circular logic by judge Bozo.
Yeah...
And the judge said there was no evidence that the overruns were excessive, even though HE hasn't seen the information.
Ag with kids said:YellAg2004 said:nortex97 said:
One was confirmed yesterday 51-45, fwiw. Dick Durbin fretting about her partisanship is all I need to know that she will be great.
Ship has a piece out regarding Bozoberg's latest judicial travesty. Not a subscriber but he comes out on the good side, opposed to the clown.— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 17, 2026
Am I reading those last two paragraphs correctly? They seem to read like "we must pass it to find out what's in it."
He claims that the DOJ has not offered any evidence that the cost overruns were excessive and/or inappropriate, and uses that to quash the subpoenas. But the DOJ hasn't been able to see any of the documentation that supposedly explains the cost overruns, hence the subpoenas to see that information, that the judge has now quashed.
If so, that is some outstanding circular logic by judge Bozo.
Yeah...
And the judge said there was no evidence that the overruns were excessive, even though HE hasn't seen the information.
Not his judgement to make before the evidence is before the court.
I am amazed he claims jurisdiction to make that factual determination as to a grand jury investigation at all. The standard of proof is exceptionally low for the GJ to subpoena anything. The whole point of a GJ is to prevent prosecutions that are unwarranted, but to look into the investigation itself seems unprecedented to me.
The challenge is, it's so ridiculous that appealing it is challenging. Advanced judicial-run lawfare, indeed.
The challenge is, it's so ridiculous that appealing it is challenging. Advanced judicial-run lawfare, indeed.
nortex97 said:
I am amazed he claims jurisdiction to make that factual determination as to a grand jury investigation at all. The standard of proof is exceptionally low for the GJ to subpoena anything. The whole point of a GJ is to prevent prosecutions that are unwarranted, but to look into the investigation itself seems unprecedented to me.
The challenge is, it's so ridiculous that appealing it is challenging. Advanced judicial-run lawfare, indeed.
I'm confused. Is Bozo the GJ's supervising judge?
Yes. Opinion linked at the end of Turley's piece:
Chief Judge James Boasberg delivered a blow to the criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell by tossing out grand jury subpoenas. In my view, he was premature and could face a difficult appeal... https://t.co/7AQuXGm7YO
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 16, 2026
Okay, thanks. That makes more sense to me as a supervising judge does have some discretionary power, not much but some.
These fascist dunces...
https://www.kwtx.com/2026/03/17/inexcusably-reckless-ms-13-member-with-repeated-deportations-walks-free-after-judge-orders-ice-release/
https://www.kwtx.com/2026/03/17/inexcusably-reckless-ms-13-member-with-repeated-deportations-walks-free-after-judge-orders-ice-release/
Quote:
WASHINGTON (KWTX) A federal judge appointed during the Obama administration ordered the release of Carlos Antonio Flores-Miguel, a Salvadoran national and MS-13 gang member, from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed.
ICE arrested Flores-Miguel on Jan. 20, 2026, during a targeted operation in Minnesota. According to DHS, he punched and kicked ICE officers during the arrest and grabbed the gun holster of one of the agents. He was taken into custody and held until the court ordered his release.
Flores-Miguel's criminal record in the United States includes rape, resisting an officer, and illegal re-entry. He was also arrested in El Salvador for robbery.
He first entered the U.S. in September 2016 and was removed in October of that year. He re-entered illegally and was removed again in March 2017. In October 2021, he entered the country a third time and was released in June 2022 under the Biden administration. A judge later granted a final order of removal, finding he could be sent to a country other than El Salvador.
Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said the ruling puts the public at risk.
"This activist, Obama-appointed judge RELEASED Carlos Antonio Flores-Miguel, a criminal illegal alien from El Salvador and MS-13 gang member, from ICE custody," Bis said.
"This gang member was previously RELEASED by the Biden Administration in 2022. Releasing violent criminals is inexcusably reckless and now this criminal will be able to perpetrate more crimes against innocent Americans."
Bis added that the Trump administration intends to continue enforcing immigration law. "President Trump is enforcing the law and arresting illegal aliens who have no right to be in our country. We are applying the law as written. If an immigration judge finds an illegal alien has no right to be in this country, we are going to remove them. Period."
I just don't understand on what basis a judge gets to make that call? Unless I am mistaken, nobody is disputing that he broke the law multiple times. Re entering the country illegally after being deported multiple times should equal a do not pass go deportation even without his other crimes.
txags92 said:
I just don't understand on what basis a judge gets to make that call?
He doesn't. He has no role in this whatsoever. And he doesn't care.
Democrats.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
🚨The Trump admin has filed its reply brief in the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court. It opens:
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) March 19, 2026
The “main object” of the Citizenship Clause was to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had generally been… pic.twitter.com/oUYxcQTFv9
The rest:
Quote:
The Trump admin has filed its reply brief in the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court. It opens:
The "main object" of the Citizenship Clause was to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had generally been established through generations of parental domicile. By contrast, aliens who are just passing through the United States, and those who cross our borders illegally, lack ties of allegiance and do not obtain the "priceless and profound gift" of citizenship for their children.
To receive citizenship under the Clause, a person must be both born "in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof…" That language grants citizenship to children "completely subject" to the United States' "political jurisdiction." Children of temporarily present or illegal aliens do not qualify because their parents are not domiciled in, and thus do not owe the requisite allegiance to, the United States. Temporarily present aliens are by definition not domiciled here, while illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to form such a domicile.
The other point is that Indians (native, not dot) weren't granted citizenship either, until a much later act.
And, we have a fairly staunch originalist Supreme Court right now, so this type of analysis could actually stick.
Nothing in the DOJ's brief is wrong or even controversial. The only counter argument is that, even if the language was originally intended to ensure the rights of freed slaves under all doubt, there is long standing precedent that extended birthright citizenship to illegal aliens that has been in place for decades. However, we haven't had decades of illegal immigration thrown upon us by a corrupt White House that refused to police the border. Now that it is well established that some politicians are purposefully not enforcing our laws to gain political advantage, the issue is ripe for a re-visit.
The case against birthright citizenship is not unsimilar to the case against Roe v Wade. In Roe v Wade, the court simply made up a constitutional right to privacy that is no-where in the constitution. In the birthright citizenship case, it is very clear that the court created a right to illegal aliens that was simply not intended when the amendment supposedly granting that right was passed. The evidence that this was primarily about freed slaves, especially when that right did not fall to Native Americans, is simply to weighty to ignore.
I have my hopes, but will blame Barrett if it doesn't go through.
Nothing in the DOJ's brief is wrong or even controversial. The only counter argument is that, even if the language was originally intended to ensure the rights of freed slaves under all doubt, there is long standing precedent that extended birthright citizenship to illegal aliens that has been in place for decades. However, we haven't had decades of illegal immigration thrown upon us by a corrupt White House that refused to police the border. Now that it is well established that some politicians are purposefully not enforcing our laws to gain political advantage, the issue is ripe for a re-visit.
The case against birthright citizenship is not unsimilar to the case against Roe v Wade. In Roe v Wade, the court simply made up a constitutional right to privacy that is no-where in the constitution. In the birthright citizenship case, it is very clear that the court created a right to illegal aliens that was simply not intended when the amendment supposedly granting that right was passed. The evidence that this was primarily about freed slaves, especially when that right did not fall to Native Americans, is simply to weighty to ignore.
I have my hopes, but will blame Barrett if it doesn't go through.
I could see SCOTUS splitting the difference and saying that illegals who have lived here long enough to establish residence, get a driver's license, setup bank accounts, etc. have established a domicile here. But also holding that ones who come across the border 6-8 months pregnant or who come in on tourist visas and drop a baby hoping to generate chain migration of their whole family have not.
BusterAg said:
And, we have a fairly staunch originalist Supreme Court right now, so this type of analysis could actually stick.
Nothing in the DOJ's brief is wrong or even controversial. The only counter argument is that, even if the language was originally intended to ensure the rights of freed slaves under all doubt, there is long standing precedent that extended birthright citizenship to illegal aliens that has been in place for decades. However, we haven't had decades of illegal immigration thrown upon us by a corrupt White House that refused to police the border. Now that it is well established that some politicians are purposefully not enforcing our laws to gain political advantage, the issue is ripe for a re-visit.
The case against birthright citizenship is not unsimilar to the case against Roe v Wade. In Roe v Wade, the court simply made up a constitutional right to privacy that is no-where in the constitution. In the birthright citizenship case, it is very clear that the court created a right to illegal aliens that was simply not intended when the amendment supposedly granting that right was passed. The evidence that this was primarily about freed slaves, especially when that right did not fall to Native Americans, is simply to weighty to ignore.
I have my hopes, but will blame Barrett if it doesn't go through.
The case that is often cited as creating the birthright citizenship, US v Wong Kim Ark, even states the following:
Quote:
"a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
Illegal aliens do NOT have a permanent domicile, nor are they here carrying on business (because it's illegal for them to do so).
This is the part that I would attack the hardest.
Ag with kids said:BusterAg said:
And, we have a fairly staunch originalist Supreme Court right now, so this type of analysis could actually stick.
Nothing in the DOJ's brief is wrong or even controversial. The only counter argument is that, even if the language was originally intended to ensure the rights of freed slaves under all doubt, there is long standing precedent that extended birthright citizenship to illegal aliens that has been in place for decades. However, we haven't had decades of illegal immigration thrown upon us by a corrupt White House that refused to police the border. Now that it is well established that some politicians are purposefully not enforcing our laws to gain political advantage, the issue is ripe for a re-visit.
The case against birthright citizenship is not unsimilar to the case against Roe v Wade. In Roe v Wade, the court simply made up a constitutional right to privacy that is no-where in the constitution. In the birthright citizenship case, it is very clear that the court created a right to illegal aliens that was simply not intended when the amendment supposedly granting that right was passed. The evidence that this was primarily about freed slaves, especially when that right did not fall to Native Americans, is simply to weighty to ignore.
I have my hopes, but will blame Barrett if it doesn't go through.
The case that is often cited as creating the birthright citizenship, US v Wong Kim Ark, even states the following:Quote:
"a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
Illegal aliens do NOT have a permanent domicile, nor are they here carrying on business (because it's illegal for them to do so).
This is the part that I would attack the hardest.
I agree with your ultimate view, but to play contrarian, many states have specifically setup ways for illegals to get official IDs, receive welfare, get bank loans to buy homes, etc. and the feds have gone out of their way for a long time to not use the tools at their disposal (such as connecting tax records and SSN database) to prevent illegals from working. So one could argue that if they are here living in a house on a long-term lease or mortgage, collecting welfare, or working a job, that they have indeed satisfied the traditional definition of setting up a permanent domicile, even if it is technically illegal for them to do so. The long-term official state and federal knowledge that they were doing so, without any effort to prevent them from doing it, could establish the rough equivalent of squatter's rights.
Ag with kids said:BusterAg said:
And, we have a fairly staunch originalist Supreme Court right now, so this type of analysis could actually stick.
Nothing in the DOJ's brief is wrong or even controversial. The only counter argument is that, even if the language was originally intended to ensure the rights of freed slaves under all doubt, there is long standing precedent that extended birthright citizenship to illegal aliens that has been in place for decades. However, we haven't had decades of illegal immigration thrown upon us by a corrupt White House that refused to police the border. Now that it is well established that some politicians are purposefully not enforcing our laws to gain political advantage, the issue is ripe for a re-visit.
The case against birthright citizenship is not unsimilar to the case against Roe v Wade. In Roe v Wade, the court simply made up a constitutional right to privacy that is no-where in the constitution. In the birthright citizenship case, it is very clear that the court created a right to illegal aliens that was simply not intended when the amendment supposedly granting that right was passed. The evidence that this was primarily about freed slaves, especially when that right did not fall to Native Americans, is simply to weighty to ignore.
I have my hopes, but will blame Barrett if it doesn't go through.
The case that is often cited as creating the birthright citizenship, US v Wong Kim Ark, even states the following:Quote:
"a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
Illegal aliens do NOT have a permanent domicile, nor are they here carrying on business (because it's illegal for them to do so).
This is the part that I would attack the hardest.
One important thing to consider here is that Ark was born in the US before the first Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. You can't argue that Ark's parents were in the US illegally when Ark was born, because there was no law restricting immigration into the US until after Ark was born, with the exception of laws against deporting citizens of enemy countries. So, the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't even have the vocabulary of "illegal immigrant" to reference, just "foreign invader". Therefore, you can't say that Ark spoke about illegal immigrant anchor babies, because that issue didn't exist for Ark when he was born, and SCOTUS has yet to take up the issue.
This thing is ripe to go down on the legal analysis if the court sticks to just the legal analysis. Of course, too many women on the court are focused on the political and societal ramifications of SCOTUS decisions.
txags92 said:Ag with kids said:BusterAg said:
And, we have a fairly staunch originalist Supreme Court right now, so this type of analysis could actually stick.
Nothing in the DOJ's brief is wrong or even controversial. The only counter argument is that, even if the language was originally intended to ensure the rights of freed slaves under all doubt, there is long standing precedent that extended birthright citizenship to illegal aliens that has been in place for decades. However, we haven't had decades of illegal immigration thrown upon us by a corrupt White House that refused to police the border. Now that it is well established that some politicians are purposefully not enforcing our laws to gain political advantage, the issue is ripe for a re-visit.
The case against birthright citizenship is not unsimilar to the case against Roe v Wade. In Roe v Wade, the court simply made up a constitutional right to privacy that is no-where in the constitution. In the birthright citizenship case, it is very clear that the court created a right to illegal aliens that was simply not intended when the amendment supposedly granting that right was passed. The evidence that this was primarily about freed slaves, especially when that right did not fall to Native Americans, is simply to weighty to ignore.
I have my hopes, but will blame Barrett if it doesn't go through.
The case that is often cited as creating the birthright citizenship, US v Wong Kim Ark, even states the following:Quote:
"a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
Illegal aliens do NOT have a permanent domicile, nor are they here carrying on business (because it's illegal for them to do so).
This is the part that I would attack the hardest.
I agree with your ultimate view, but to play contrarian, many states have specifically setup ways for illegals to get official IDs, receive welfare, get bank loans to buy homes, etc. and the feds have gone out of their way for a long time to not use the tools at their disposal (such as connecting tax records and SSN database) to prevent illegals from working. So one could argue that if they are here living in a house on a long-term lease or mortgage, collecting welfare, or working a job, that they have indeed satisfied the traditional definition of setting up a permanent domicile, even if it is technically illegal for them to do so. The long-term official state and federal knowledge that they were doing so, without any effort to prevent them from doing it, could establish the rough equivalent of squatter's rights.
There is no such thing as being a citizen of the State of California, and all citizenship laws are federal in nature. Just because some states are going rogue and recognizing the right of illegal aliens to be in the US, that doesn't mean that they are establishing a permanent domicile recognized by the federal government. One exception of this is obviously green card holders, for example, which are recognized by the federal government. But, the argument about anchor babies isn't about green card holders, it is about people that are in the US illegally.
We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal. https://t.co/62G60P9CPx
— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW) March 20, 2026
Older than dirt Clinton judge.
Assume the first amendment violation has to freedom of religion, because nothing else would apply.
Is the judge saying the MSM must exercise its divine right to spread false witness about POTUS?!
Only thing I can see.
Is the judge saying the MSM must exercise its divine right to spread false witness about POTUS?!
Only thing I can see.
flown-the-coop said:
Assume the first amendment violation has to freedom of religion, because nothing else would apply.
Is the judge saying the MSM must exercise its divine right to spread false witness about POTUS?!
Only thing I can see.
TDS is a religion for the left these days.
BREAKING: Supreme Court reverses lower court, ruling that Vermont police sergeant who forcibly arrested sit-in protester is entitled to qualified immunity https://t.co/lQ76owPWcf
— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) March 23, 2026
...In Zorn v. Linton, the Court voted 6-3 that officers are generally shielded from civil liability unless prior case law put the unlawfulness of an action "beyond debate." While a civil case, the Court has shown the same deference in criminal cases...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 23, 2026
...Here is the per curiam decision. https://t.co/d2fHPpcA6A
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 23, 2026
Laughter erupts in the Supreme Court when the attorney arguing against mail-in balloting suggests there could NEVER be voter fraud in Chicago. pic.twitter.com/7lCN8JZDSQ
— Libby Emmons (@libbyemmons) March 23, 2026
The possibility…
I mean the Dems stance on MIBs and voter ID just defies all logic and common sense and historical facts knowing voter fraud happens.
Our 250th year may we restore voter integrity.
Our 250th year may we restore voter integrity.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear two cases on an accelerated schedule on Trump's right to terminate "Temporary Protective Status" for a number of countries' aliens.
— Maxwell Meyer (@mualphaxi) March 24, 2026
Good! Federal judges forcing *temporary* programs to last *permanently* are causing chaos. Easy case. pic.twitter.com/MpsQ7whdkt
NEW: A judge will allow a lawsuit to go forward in part that accuses Elon Musk of unconstitutionally exercising executive power during his time in the Trump admin last year (yes that's right, *more* DOGE court action today)https://t.co/HmXz2m83SR
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) March 23, 2026
Ruling: https://t.co/rfRKHYrAZh pic.twitter.com/PQ0QQDWQr7
Breaking News: A majority of the Supreme Court seemed open to allowing the U.S. to turn away asylum seekers at the Mexico border. https://t.co/DbUkfWT1pk
— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 24, 2026
will25u said:NEW: A judge will allow a lawsuit to go forward in part that accuses Elon Musk of unconstitutionally exercising executive power during his time in the Trump admin last year (yes that's right, *more* DOGE court action today)https://t.co/HmXz2m83SR
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) March 23, 2026
Ruling: https://t.co/rfRKHYrAZh pic.twitter.com/PQ0QQDWQr7
Sounds like the VA guy who was upset on the 5 point friday emails is finally getting justice.
Trump DoJ finally going after Brennan?
Stay tuned https://t.co/hBG9TYeOIx
— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@HarmeetKDhillon) March 24, 2026
The lawsuit claims that the federal government reneged on its promise to cooperate with state investigations after the surge of federal law enforcement in Minneapolis.
— WTVY News 4 (@WTVYNews4) March 24, 2026
READ MORE: https://t.co/P24ZMCdZX1 pic.twitter.com/eUSsmZ9bsm
Featured Stories
See All
17:58
31m ago
715
11:09
12h ago
6.2k
Youth movement helps No. 10 A&M hang 10 on Houston
by Richard Zane
7:33
19h ago
2.0k
Take Five: Jordan Lockhart's go-to spots, favorite movies & more
by Richard Zane
Bullpen Chias
What do the numbers of baseballs in this icon represent
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
25
Average Joe
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: No. 10 Texas A&M 10, Houston 2
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
19