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

347,280 Views | 3213 Replies | Last: 16 hrs ago by techno-ag
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:25p, 1/28/26
Reply Quote
6
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:30p, 1/30/26
82 year old Clinton judge.

Judge strikes down parts of Trump order on citizenship verification for voting | Fox News
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
10:01p, 1/30/26
Reply Quote
10
techno-ag
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 • 9:39a, 1/31/26
AG
will25u said:
And Heaven rejoices.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
9
nortex97
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 • 9:46a, 1/31/26
AG
Indira Talwani was reversed, what, 3 times on this one, claiming her infanticide friends just had to continue to be funded despite Congress saying otherwise?


She must have gotten some memo's from her higher-ups explaining there would be ramifications if she continue this course of judicial mis-conduct.

PP can try to forum shop elsewhere but if they can't get something to stick even in the 1st circuit I doubt it works well for them the next time. Part of their problem is that they chose a highly partisan fraud to file with here, but she was/is too dumb to come up with clever reasoning to survive the appeals.
Reply Quote
10
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:33a, 1/31/26
AG

Onward, Tom Homan.
Reply Quote
16
Deerdude
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:15a, 1/31/26
Menndez skeered of Homan. Smart fellow.
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
5:00p, 1/31/26

Reply Quote
9
TRM
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 • 5:24p, 1/31/26
AG
Clinton appointee

https://archive.ph/Exljt
Quote:
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans has reversed a federal judge's refusal to suppress gun evidence a second time after he declared that he doesn't read 5th Circuit opinions and stuck to his initial decision.

Reply Quote
8
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 TRM • 5:40p, 1/31/26
Just another piece of **** with no regard for our laws or the Constitution. Democrats are post-American.
Reply Quote
10
jt2hunt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:56p, 1/31/26
AG
Impeach these *******s!
Reply Quote
5
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 will25u • 8:41p, 1/31/26
AG
will25u said:

They knew they were going to lose BIG and didn't want to have it set a legal precedent.
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
7
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 will25u • 9:26p, 1/31/26
AG
will25u said:



Just gonna be over here waiting on Congress to impeach this clown judge. Or any of them.
Reply Quote
6
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
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 FTAG 2000 • 9:48p, 1/31/26
FTAG 2000 said:
will25u said:



Just gonna be over here waiting on Congress to impeach this clown judge. Or any of them.

Have you read this extremely weird order???? It's bizarre as hell and look at the date??

I honestly thought this was fake. As if Babylon Bee thought it'd be funny to write a judicial order.

It has a picture.

And random Bible verses.

I keep looking over my shoulder for a camera, like I'm getting "punked."








"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 12:51a, 2/1/26
AG
At least that clown spelled "dike" as "dike" instead of "dyke" that he probably prefers.
Reply Quote
5
nortex97
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 Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 5:41a, 2/1/26
AG
It's absolutely hilarious, imho.

Add, here's another case of the idiocy of the left. A magistrate judge only ever has the authority delegated to him by…the lowest level of federal judges, the district court judge. Unconfirmed, he/she is really nothing more than an errand runner to process decisions which will be reviewed. A technocrat, basically, and Democrats would have such people viewed as 'the end of the matter.' Absurd, given their lengthy history of lawfare at this point.
Reply Quote
5
Troy91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:45a, 2/1/26
AG
It is simply amazing that there are this many people with a failed understanding of both the constitution and how the federal government has been structured for decades.
Reply Quote
8
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 Troy91 • 8:26a, 2/1/26
But the judges don't have a failed understanding. They're deliberately jamming up the system.
Reply Quote
6
fredfredunderscorefred
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:02a, 2/1/26
AG
another judge disregarding the respect Courts owe to the other branches. They're the ones actually playing "king"

"Statutes authorizing administrative arrest to achieve detention pending deportation proceedings have the sanction of time. It would emphasize the disregard for the presumptive respect the Court owes to the validity of Acts of Congress, especially when confirmed by uncontested historical legitimacy, to bring into question for the first time such a long-sanctioned practice of government at the behest of a party who not only did not challenge the exercise of authority below, but expressly acknowledged its validity."

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960)
Reply Quote
2
nortex97
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 fredfredunderscorefred • 9:13a, 2/1/26
AG
fredfredunderscorefred said:
another judge disregarding the respect Courts owe to the other branches. They're the ones actually playing "king"

"Statutes authorizing administrative arrest to achieve detention pending deportation proceedings have the sanction of time. It would emphasize the disregard for the presumptive respect the Court owes to the validity of Acts of Congress, especially when confirmed by uncontested historical legitimacy, to bring into question for the first time such a long-sanctioned practice of government at the behest of a party who not only did not challenge the exercise of authority below, but expressly acknowledged its validity."

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960)

I think you might be confused, again. This is a narrow case held hotel rooms are less absolute than a personal domicile and there was no forced entry into a personal home; the evidence was admissible; the agents were legally in the hotel (without a warrant).

Quote:
"We have considered the case on the assumption that the conviction must be reversed should we find challenged items of evidence to have been seized in violation of the Constitution and therefore improperly admitted into evidence. We find, however, that the admission of these items was free from any infirmity and we affirm the judgment."

"At 7 o'clock the next morning, June 21, two officers of the I. N. S. and several F. B. I. men gathered in the corridor outside petitioner's room at the Hotel Latham.... Gamber and Blasco were charged with confronting petitioner and soliciting his cooperation with the F. B. I. They had no warrant either to arrest or to search. I

Gamber rapped on petitioner's door. When petitioner released the catch, Gamber pushed open the door and walked into the room, followed by Blasco."

INS agents walked in and subject to an administrative warrant the arrested him and searched the room for documents regarding his alienage.

"We find the admission of these items was free from any infirmity."

Reply Quote
4
fredfredunderscorefred
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 nortex97 • 9:27a, 2/1/26
AG
not much to be confused about actually. The judge goes on an unhinged rant about the constitutionality of administrative warrants. Administrative warrants have for decades been considered appropriate, as pointed out by the USSC. Other distinctions in that case don't really matter to that point.

on the overarching point, I actually tend to agree somewhat about the fox/henhouse. Especially when it comes to ATF and chevron (limited now thankfully) issues. If one wanted to argue it wrtt this case, it is obviously pointed out that the USSC specifically did not rule not this issue. Instead, it pointed out that administrative warrants have long been considered appropriate. And all 3 branches have apparently generally acknowledged they are appropriate. Then comes this judge citing no authority acting as if this admin is doing something wrong all of a sudden.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:12p, 2/2/26

Reply Quote
2
nortex97
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 • 6:09p, 2/2/26
AG
Collins, Graham and Murk voted for her; 52-45, in a court packing votathon from Schumer in November 2021. She previously wrongly determined Trump couldn't fire Lisa Cook, or deploy the national guard.
Reply Quote
7
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:17p, 2/2/26
Another Biden judge doing what she was appointed to do.

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/judge-blocks-trump-ending-temporary-protections-haitians/3758718/
Reply Quote
1
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
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 Rapier108 • 8:37p, 2/2/26
Rapier108 said:
Another Biden judge doing what she was appointed to do.

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/judge-blocks-trump-ending-temporary-protections-haitians/3758718/

Remember how the left flipped out and screamed at the top of. their lungs when Trump referred to Haiti as a Sh*thole country??? Those same people are now saying sending Haitians back to their home country is a death sentence because of the conditions and the fact that there is no real functional government and gangs control vast areas of the capital and beyond, challenging what little state authority that exists with violence, kidnapping, extortion, and sexual violence, and is in complete anarchy. The textbook definition of a sh*thole country.
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
11
nortex97
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 Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 2:07a, 2/3/26
AG
It's all bullcrap.
Reply Quote
5
Aggie Jurist
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 nortex97 • 7:46a, 2/3/26
AG
Reversal in 3, 2, 1.

Honestly, I'm ashamed to be a part of the system at this point. I used to respect the federal judiciary (with one notable exception in my career). The Dems have, in very short order delegitimized the federal bench - from the District Court, all the way to the USSC. As far as the Dems are concerned, in all aspects the ends justify the means.

Unfortunately, with the system set up the way it is currently, there's no way out of this.
Reply Quote
12
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 Aggie Jurist • 7:49a, 2/3/26
I have a close friend who is an ADA and he says the same thing. He is appalled that educated attorneys knowingly reject the law and the Constitution. They know their rulings and beliefs are not legally correct and they don't care. They care about their own ideology and ultimately power.
Reply Quote
3
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:57a, 2/3/26
AG
Bukele is right. Only way to get the country back is to put all these crooked judges in prison.

Reply Quote
5
ttha_aggie_09
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 FTAG 2000 • 8:08a, 2/3/26
AG
FTAG 2000 said:
Bukele is right. Only way to get the country back is to put all these crooked judges in prison.

completely overdue
Reply Quote
4
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:13a, 2/3/26
The very fact that these Article 3 courts are weighing in on ANYTHING to do with immigration status, asylum protections, or ANYTHING to do with immigration and deportation is completely in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. ANYTHING to do with immigration status or asylum protections fall under the DOJ under Article 2 of the executive branch. The immigration courts hear the cases of noncitizens the government is trying to deport or, in the terminology of immigration law, "remove" from the country. They are separate from the courts that operate within the judicial branch, established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. ALL of these Article 3 courts of the Judicial branch are overreaching their jurisdictional boundaries under the Constitution. Why the current SCOTUS hasn't stepped in and slapped down the Article 3 activist judges is beyond me.

Quote:
art. III, sub sec 1. See also Black's Law Dictionary 1572 (10th ed. 2014) (defining separation of powers as the division of governmental authority into three branches of governmentlegislative, executive, and judicial each with specified duties on which neither of the other branches can encroach ).






https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-2/ALDE_00000031/#:~:text=Id.-,art.,the%20other%20branches%20can%20encroach%20).
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
flown-the-coop
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 Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 8:22a, 2/3/26
AG
Problem is they most assuredly have never read the US Constitution. Hell, most of the dolts claiming to be lawyers on here are woefully inept regarding knowledge of the Constitution, history and justice. They ignernt.
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
8:41a, 2/3/26
Reply Quote
5
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:45a, 2/3/26
AG
Quote:
Problem is they most assuredly have never read the US Constitution. Hell, most of the dolts claiming to be lawyers on here are woefully inept regarding knowledge of the Constitution, history and justice. They ignernt.

That's why Senator Kennedy asked substantive federal and constitutional law questions during confirmation hearings. He was making the point that the individuals nominated during the Biden administration were simply unqualified (and most were unqualified).
Reply Quote
2
TRM
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 nortex97 • 6:02p, 2/3/26
AG
Reply Quote
11
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.