blindey said:So Trump has wrested control of the George W. Bush Hurricane Machine back from the Deep State?RoscoePColtrane said:
The left just can't beat this guy at 1600 Pennsylvania
Yesterday the left starts blaming Trump for the Cat 4 hurricane. Overnight the hurricane weakened to a Cat 2 hurricane.
Not really, strictly legal strategy to protect ACP and still communicate with other counsel. As long as they are on the up and up and not Smashing Phones or hiding emails, selling uranium to Russia, or leaking F-35 designs to China, they are in good shape.biobioprof said:
siap
significance, if any?
TurkeyBaconLeg said:
This new Trump Executive Order in regards to Elections looks like a big deal
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/
Imagine that.Tailgate88 said:TurkeyBaconLeg said:
This new Trump Executive Order in regards to Elections looks like a big deal
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/
Interesting timing. And not much press about it.
Quote:
Ex-Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort agrees to plead guilty in deal with special counsel Robert Mueller
Quote:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued litigation guidelines to aid Department of Justice attorneys involved in litigation challenging a federal government program, regulation, order, or law. The litigation guidelines will arm Department litigators handling these cases to present strong and consistent arguments in court against the issuance of nationwide injunctions and to reaffirm the existing constitutional and practical limitations on the authority of judges. The Department opposes the issuance of nationwide injunctions, consistent with the longstanding position of the Executive Branch under previous Administrations from both parties.
Nationwide injunctionssometimes called "non-party injunctions"prevent the federal government from enforcing an Executive Branch law or policy as to any person or organization, across the entire United States, regardless of whether such broad injunctions are necessary to provide relief to the specific plaintiffs involved in the case. In effect, they allow a single unelected federal district judge to set or veto a national policy. The increase in the number of nationwide injunctions in recent years, across Administrations of both parties, highlights the problem of judges acting outside of the bounds of their authority to grant relief to people or organizations that extends beyond the particulars of a specific case.
LINKQuote:
"Increasingly, we are seeing individual federal district judges go beyond the parties before the court to give injunctions or orders that block the entire federal government from enforcing a law or policy throughout the country. This kind of judicial activism did not happen a single time in our first 175 years as a nation, but it has become common in recent years. It has happened to the Trump administration 25 times in less than two years. This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch. These abuses of judicial power are contrary to law, and with these new guidelines, this Department is going to continue to fight them."
Not yet. These are guidelines for US Attorneys to argue against federal judges issuing those types of orders. Doesn't mean some wacko federal judge won't do it anyway and there you have your test case to go up to SCOTUS and they will finally rule on the issue once and for all.Tailgate88 said:
So does this mean one activist wacko judge in Hawaii can't block an Executive Order?
Thanks for Hawgsplaining it!aggiehawg said:Not yet. These are guidelines for US Attorneys to argue against federal judges issuing those types of orders. Doesn't mean some wacko federal judge won't do it anyway and there you have your test case to go up to SCOTUS and they will finally rule on the issue once and for all.Tailgate88 said:
So does this mean one activist wacko judge in Hawaii can't block an Executive Order?
Just like Justice Thomas has requested.
What is amazing to me is that this issue was never squarely presented before now. By that I mean making a record on the limits of federal jurisdiction to be part of an appeal so SCOTUS could rule directly. But no, our DOJ is so stupid that Sessions has to issue guidelines on how to argue federal jurisdiction 101 from first year law.MouthBQ98 said:
No. It does mean that when the DOJ brings a case from now on, it will be careful to present a case including arguments that SHOULD remind a district judge how damaging and unusual a nationwide injunction is, and how arguably unconstitutional they may be, and how they usurp powers of the other branches of government, and how most precedent is to not injunction nationally, or to use injunctions narrowly to handle those involved in a particular case, all with the hope that these judges will have shame and bend to the bulk of precedence of not issuing these broad politicized injunctions.
I went to look at the responses after you posted this and talk about a liberal circle jerk of epic proportions.redline248 said:
The people replying to that tweet are insane. And are all going to be screaming when nothing happens.
No it just says that Paul Manafort's cooperation agreement with the special counsel does not include matters involving the Trump campaign.akm91 said:
Does that tweet insinuates that Manafort is cooperating with Mueller going after Podesta Group?
