We should be able to bash judges. They get **** wrong. Hell there were idiot judges that ruled in favor of the absolutely insane covid vaccine mandate. Those judges deserve being bashed and should be thrown out for being morons. Same with student loan forgiveness to save moochers.
Is Trump intimidating judges and lawyers and, if so, is that OK?
8,879 Views |
183 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by Ellis Wyatt
Good lord, the Google machine is your friend. There are myriad conflicts that have been identified with several of the judges who have ruled against the Executive running the Executive Branch.
Spend 5 minutes researching and come back.
Spend 5 minutes researching and come back.
heteroscedasticity said:
A friendly reminder to those who keep bashing judges and calling for judicial impeachments.
Separation of powers facts for kids
https://kids.kiddle.co/Separation_of_powers
Separation of Powers means that the three branches of government are separated.
The three branches are
- the Legislative- the part that makes laws
- the Executive - the part that carries out (executes) the laws, and
- the Judicial Branch - the courts that decide if the law has been broken.
Separation of Powers helps to make sure people are safe. The executive branch carries out the laws but cannot make laws to make themselves powerful. Also the judiciary is responsible for making sure that criminals are punished so that members of the government or legislature cannot ignore the law as the judiciary can check on them.
Separation of powers is also called a system of checks and balances because the branches can check up on each other and if any of the branches get too strong, that branch will be balanced by the others.
LOL. What does your kiddie site say about ending the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court?
Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
We remember. These judges are attempting to run the Executive Branch.Quote:
Separation of powers facts for kids
https://kids.kiddle.co/Separation_of_powers
Separation of Powers means that the three branches of government are separated.
The three branches are
hth
Rules for thee, not for me. That's the Democrats' motto.
Quote:
Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers' livelihoods
A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights will spend millions this year to expose and try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump's post-election lawsuits, people involved with the effort tell Axios.
Why it matters: The 65 Project plans to begin filing complaints this week and will air ads in battleground states. It hopes to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts to overturn elections including the midterms or 2024.
AxiosQuote:
Some of the attorney targets already have been hit with bar complaints. One going after Georgia attorney Brad Carver for his role as an alternate elector was dismissed for lack of evidence. Carver, in an email to Axios, reiterated his position that his involvement was legally appropriate.Cleta Mitchell, who resigned from Foley & Lardner as she assisted the Trump campaign's post-election legal efforts, characterized The 65 Project's effort as hypocritical
- But The 65 Project is focused on starving any future efforts of legal talent as well as focusing on 2020.
- "This is mostly important for the deterrent effect that it can bring so that you can kill the pool of available legal talent going forward," according to a person involved with the effort, who asked to remain anonymous.
- "I'm betting Marc Elias isn't on the list," she said in a text message, linking to a story about the Democratic attorney's challenge to the results of a House race in Iowa last year and one about his claims of voting machine "irregularities" in another in New York.
- "Ok for Dem lawyers to file election challenges. Of course."
Call it what you want, but if Trump weren't over-reaching his authority he wouldn't be "targeted" by the judges.zephyr88 said:
Call it what you want, but if the judges weren't over-reaching their authority, they wouldn't be "targeted".
Trying to intimidate judges is a very stupid move. It's only going to make other judges resent him and back up their colleagues.
This is a lie.
Quote:
Call it what you want, but if Trump weren't over-reaching his authority he wouldn't be "targeted" by the judges.
Trying to intimidate judges is a very stupid move. It's only going to make other judges resent him and back up their colleagues.
1st, point to those things he has done that are outside the scope of the Executive's authority over his branch.
2nd, please tell me that you vocally opposed Schumer's attempts to intimidate USSC judges.
3rd, these judges care not what Trump has to say. They care about partisanship.
I watched many of the Judiciary Committee nomination hearings for many of these judges. They have no business being on the bench.
Exactly. They sat by and watched as it was done to him.zephyr88 said:
Call it what you want, but if the judges weren't over-reaching their authority, they wouldn't be "targeted".
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
heteroscedasticity said:
A friendly reminder to those who keep bashing judges and calling for judicial impeachments.
Separation of powers facts for kids
Since when are Separation of Powers, or checks-and-balances, at risk...when one branch criticizes another?
Separate branches don't mean they can't be critical of each other. In fact, I'd argue it's a direct result of it. We've seen nothing less since the beginning of our country.
It also doesn't provide carte blanche for one branch to over-step their authority. Again, that's the purpose of the checks and balances, and why we have provisions, such as impeachments.
IMO - this post kinda misses the entire point, for our system of government.
I am for whatever makes communists like you squirm and cry harder.rgvag11 said:
IMHO, judges continue to face intense pressure from Trump for opinions he considers unfavorable to him. This is not the first time, but it does appear that it has scaled up and has brushed against the USSC with the chief justice issuing a repudiation of the President's calls to impeach a federal judge. Here are the most recent applicable posts from the President's social media account regarding his disagreement with Judge Boasberg. I find it interesting that his arguments tend to focus on a logical fallacy often used here, the Ad hominem, rather that the legal arguments being discussed in court.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114215433044457113
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114214664818267546
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114214664818267546
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114208486518221446
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114206663969557983
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114200269495299138
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114197257776642416
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114197120302143482
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114190461039179793
In addition to Trump's pressure on judges, he has recently pressured three law firms with EOs directed specifically at them - Covington & Burling, which provided pro bono legal services to former special counsel Jack Smith, who indicted Trump multiple times; Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and worked with an opposition research firm that compiled a discredited dossier against Trump; and Paul Weiss, where a former firm partner, Mark Pomerantz, tried to build a criminal case against Trump while he was working at the Manhattan district attorney's office several years ago. The EOs suspended the security clearances of the firms' employees, barred them from some federal buildings, and they faced cancelation of their federal contracts.
In a leaked email to Paul Weiss law firm employees, Brad Karp, the chair who was criticized for striking a deal with Trump last week, said "The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm." "In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers."
In an executive memorandum issued Saturday, the President instructed the US AG to "review conduct by attorneys or their law firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last 8 years." Based on the Presidents past actions, I think it is reasonable to expect further EOs to be issued against law firms.
If judges and lawyers are put in fear of retaliation for challenging the President, they will be discouraged from performing their proper duties, regardless of the legal merits.
You forget impeachment IS the mechanism of imposing checks and balances on the judicial branch.Quote:
Separation of powers is also called a system of checks and balances because the branches can check up on each other and if any of the branches get too strong, that branch will be balanced by the others.
I wonder why the privilege of security clearance is so valuable it is regarded as a punishment and attack to revoke it when it isn't needed for a clear national and present national security matter?
If you take that view, then it's proper for the House to impeach the president every time the party out of power controls the House.akm91 said:You forget impeachment IS the mechanism of imposing checks and balances on the judicial branch.Quote:
Separation of powers is also called a system of checks and balances because the branches can check up on each other and if any of the branches get too strong, that branch will be balanced by the others.
Legislation and amendment to the constitution are the real checks on the judiciary. If you don't like a ruling, you can pass laws, or amend the constitution, to override it, if it doesn't get reversed on appeal (caveat: some of these rulings are so out of bounds, like turning around planes in flight, that they can just be ignored).
You need to be more worried about how your party is totally collapsing.
There's three branches of government, and I seem to recall members of one calling for Trump's impeachment the day he was inaugurated. While this is just the normal Trump blathering and makes him look stupid, there's no reason he can't express his opinion. As far as the attorneys go, those folks assisted in an attempted coup and have no business being anywhere near federal business. Who would trust them?
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
Yes! **** them!
That is already happening.Quote:
If you take that view, then it's proper for the House to impeach the president every time the party out of power controls the House.
If the judicial branch oversteps it's bounds and ignores constitutional separate of powers, do you think new legislation will curb that?
Every president pushes the envelope as far as they can.
Trump isn't doing anything new except, maybe, helping pave the way for future presidents to be able to wield their power from a better place. Just like every president before him.
Trump isn't doing anything new except, maybe, helping pave the way for future presidents to be able to wield their power from a better place. Just like every president before him.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
And one of those checks and balances is impeachment of judges when they act or decide on a basis other than the law or infringe on the powers of a separate branch of the government. Another is Congress restricting or redefining the authority granted those judges. Each of these processes invite the input of the President of the US and his underlings.heteroscedasticity said:
A friendly reminder to those who keep bashing judges and calling for judicial impeachments.
Separation of powers facts for kids
https://kids.kiddle.co/Separation_of_powers
Separation of Powers means that the three branches of government are separated.
The three branches are
- the Legislative- the part that makes laws
- the Executive - the part that carries out (executes) the laws, and
- the Judicial Branch - the courts that decide if the law has been broken.
Separation of Powers helps to make sure people are safe. The executive branch carries out the laws but cannot make laws to make themselves powerful. Also the judiciary is responsible for making sure that criminals are punished so that members of the government or legislature cannot ignore the law as the judiciary can check on them.
Separation of powers is also called a system of checks and balances because the branches can check up on each other and if any of the branches get too strong, that branch will be balanced by the others.
Thank you for affirming those who are bashing these judges and calling for their impeachment.
In order to remove a judge one really has a very high bar to clear, basically a high crime of such, not a disagreement to his judgment.
Article III, Section One:Burpelson said:
In order to remove a judge one really has a very high bar to clear, basically a high crime of such, not a disagreement to his judgment.
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
Congress can remove a judge via impeachment for any reason it wants to if they can get the votes, if enough of the members believe the judge has not acted with "good behaviour."
Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. If Congress believes a judge has crossed the line with his or her rulings, impeachment is always an option.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Tough call here….who's going to side with lawyers?
Is it the same when Obama scolds justices?
Or is it only a constitutional crisis if his name is Trump?
It's pretty simple. The USSC should take a case and rule if a district judge can impose a national wide injunction
Quote:
The moment came as President Barack Obama was, as the Associated Press puts it, "scolding the high court."
"With all due deference to the separation of powers," said Obama, last week the "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."
Or is it only a constitutional crisis if his name is Trump?
It's pretty simple. The USSC should take a case and rule if a district judge can impose a national wide injunction
yes after what Dems have been doing to conservatives, tesla, trump etc, etc.
I for one hope they are going to be intimidated into not issuing more restraining orders!
If Trump and DOGE weren't over-reaching their authority they wouldn't be targeted. Much of what T and D want can be done but not the way they've been doing it. Congress needs to be consulted and make changes for some of it. Processes are in place that need to be adhered to as well. Inefficient? Anything not a total dictatorship is inefficient at times, and often that is intended, to prevent authoritarian rule. The Constitution established three separate branches of government. POTUS can't just ignore or override the other two.zephyr88 said:
Call it what you want, but if the judges weren't over-reaching their authority, they wouldn't be "targeted".
Bull***** Stop stanning for waste, fraud, and abuse.AggiePops said:If Trump and DOGE weren't over-reaching their authority they wouldn't be targeted.zephyr88 said:
Call it what you want, but if the judges weren't over-reaching their authority, they wouldn't be "targeted".
Now do Biden.
AggiePops said:
If Trump and DOGE weren't over-reaching their authority they wouldn't be targeted.
No basis for that statement.
Rocky you are truly the man with a meme for any matter. Ever amazed.rocky the dog said:
And I have one for you too...Quote:Rocky you are truly the man with a meme for any matter. Ever amazed.Quote:
rocky the dog said:
Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
titan
Joined:
Dec 20, 1999
Posts:
105,123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Featured Stories
See All
17:40
15h ago
7.6k
Saturday (1/10) Portal Storylines: Visitors see Aggie hoops win at Reed
by TexAgs Recruiting
5 Thoughts: Texas A&M 83, Oklahoma 76
by Luke Evangelist
4:59
16h ago
1.5k
Game Highlights: Texas A&M 83, Oklahoma 76
by Matthew Dawson