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

546,488 Views | 3845 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by nortex97
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 • 9:34p, 7/31/26
AG
Oh, so the stupid graphic everyone was citing about ACB voting for the conservatice position in the post-Dobbs cases was wrong.
Reply Quote
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46p, 7/31/26
"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
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
In reply to Rapier108 • 10:00p, 7/31/26
Wow... Pretty harsh words from Ship.


"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
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
10:01p, 7/31/26
"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
txags92
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 • 10:02p, 7/31/26
AG
Rapier108 said:

Hasn't SCOTUS already said these courts don't have the jurisdiction to challenge TPS decisions? What are the tools SCOTUS has to put a stop to this endless chain of courts trying to usurp executive branch powers?
Reply Quote
9
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 10:04p, 7/31/26
txags92 said:
Rapier108 said:

Hasn't SCOTUS already said these courts don't have the jurisdiction to challenge TPS decisions? What are the tools SCOTUS has to put a stop to this endless chain of courts trying to usurp executive branch powers?

Yes, they ruled TPS cannot be reviewed by the federal courts.

SCOTUS cannot really do anything, other than keep overruling them.

The only real solution is for Congress to remove the judges from office, which they won't do.
"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
Reply Quote
7
txags92
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 • 10:08p, 7/31/26
AG
Rapier108 said:
txags92 said:
Rapier108 said:

Hasn't SCOTUS already said these courts don't have the jurisdiction to challenge TPS decisions? What are the tools SCOTUS has to put a stop to this endless chain of courts trying to usurp executive branch powers?

Yes, they ruled TPS cannot be reviewed by the federal courts.

SCOTUS cannot really do anything, other than keep overruling them.

The only real solution is for Congress to remove the judges from office, which they won't do.

I would love to see Roberts just prepare a form letter that his clerk can send out to these courts overturning their decisions based on that ruling. Put a blank in it for the case name/number and make it really obvious that these courts are wasting their time by having the clerk send it out a few minutes after a district judge issues an injunction against a TPS determination.
Reply Quote
6
Bulldog73
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 • 10:27p, 7/31/26
AG
Rapier108 said:
txags92 said:
Rapier108 said:

Hasn't SCOTUS already said these courts don't have the jurisdiction to challenge TPS decisions? What are the tools SCOTUS has to put a stop to this endless chain of courts trying to usurp executive branch powers?

Yes, they ruled TPS cannot be reviewed by the federal courts.

SCOTUS cannot really do anything, other than keep overruling them.

The only real solution is for Congress to remove the judges from office, which they won't do.

They could block the miscreants from rehearing these cases or hearing new ones regarding this subject matter but I expect they have less interest in that than Congress
Reply Quote
3
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 Bulldog73 • 4:05a, 8/1/26
AG
The answer as Shipwrecked notes (outside of impeachment) is for the circuit to 'immediately' reverse and re-assign on remand.

ETA Ship's further comment;
Quote:
Scanning the Amended Complaint that is the supposed justification for a district judge in Mass. to Administratively Stay the DHS order terminating TPS for Somalia.

The Supreme Court left open the issue of "Constitutional claims" being outside the otherwise comprehensive bar against challenges to DHS Sec. discretion in ending TPS.

So what "constitutional right" have these plaintiffs now set forth in their class action filing???

A 5th Amendment due process right based on a "liberty and property" interest in having a non-arbitrary decision as to whether TPS should be terminated.

This is an APA challenge based on an allegation that the decision to end TPS is "arbitrary" that is then married to a claim that there is a 5th Amendment due process right in liberty and property to have a non-arbitrary decision.

This is sanctionable under Rule 11, and the attorneys should be referred to state authorities for discipline.

The Judge should be removed from the case for even entertaining a faux TRO under the fraudulent justification of an "administrative stay."

There are no rules for these zealots.

Just absurdity on top of zealotry.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
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 • 6:33a, 8/1/26
AG
Early in my practice I learned that there were a number of states where you didn't want to be a corporate defendant in state court - Mississippi, Louisiana, Illinois, California, Hawaii - so you did all you could to get to Federal Court where you could expect "professional" judges to be more even handed (You wanted out of most state courts of course, but there were a few absolutely terrible jurisdictions).

You can no longer count on most federal courts to apply the law evenly. The legitimacy of the federal court system has been absolutely destroyed by the Obama/Biden appointees - and Dick Durbin is one of the biggest reasons why. The Dems have effectively, through the packing of the courts and the administrative state, weaponized the government against any who would deign to oppose their agenda.
Reply Quote
13
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:29p, 8/1/26
"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
Cru
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 • 1:35p, 8/1/26
S
Aggie Jurist said:
Early in my practice I learned that there were a number of states where you didn't want to be a corporate defendant in state court - Mississippi, Louisiana, Illinois, California, Hawaii - so you did all you could to get to Federal Court where you could expect "professional" judges to be more even handed (You wanted out of most state courts of course, but there were a few absolutely terrible jurisdictions).

You can no longer count on most federal courts to apply the law evenly. The legitimacy of the federal court system has been absolutely destroyed by the Obama/Biden appointees - and Dick Durbin is one of the biggest reasons why. The Dems have effectively, through the packing of the courts and the administrative state, weaponized the government against any who would deign to oppose their agenda.


And that's why El Salvador took care of the judges first.
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
5:49p, 8/1/26
"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
6
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:46a, 8/2/26
AG
Impeachment articles to be introduced against Obama judge Burroughs;
Quote:
Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., revealed he plans to introduce articles of impeachment against a judge on Monday.

"SCOTUS made it very clear that lower courts cannot suspend TPS. Yet, an Obama-appointed judge is defying the Court and the Constitution in an attempt to subvert the will of the President," Ogles said in a statement provided to Just the News.

"This judicial activist's obstruction of the people's will must be stopped. Judge Burroughs must be impeached," he added.

Ogles wrote on X that U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs' decision to block Trump from ending Temporary Protected Status for Somalis was unconstitutional.

"On Monday I will file Articles of Impeachment against Judge Allison Burroughs for her unconstitutional act of Judicial Activism!!! Enough is enough, Americans First NOT 3rd world migrants," he wrote.

Good. More should follow, and they should be required to come to DC to testify.
Reply Quote
8
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:51a, 8/4/26
AG
Florida AG calls for the impeachment of Biden Judge Nancy Abudu (Columbia/Tulane).

Another example of a robed partisan, and why no one should ever under any circumstance vote for a Democrat for senate;
Quote:
On February 9, 2023, her nomination was favorably reported by the committee by a party line 1110 vote. Abudu did not receive any Republican support in the committee because Republicans questioned whether her advocacy work would prevent her from being impartial on the bench. On May 15, 2023, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer filed cloture on her nomination. On May 17, 2023, the Senate invoked cloture on her nomination by a 5048 vote. On May 18, 2023, her nomination was confirmed by a 4947 vote, with Senator Joe Manchin being the only Democrat to vote against confirmation

Even Cornyn/Murk/Collins voted against her. Wow.
Reply Quote
7
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:23a, 8/4/26
AG

I'm so sick of these Obama-Biden judges (this one is the former).
Reply Quote
10
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:26p, 8/4/26

"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
txwxman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:16p, 8/4/26
Reply Quote
2
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 txwxman • 6:22p, 8/4/26
That one of those "discovery will be delicious" cases?

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
10:38p, 8/4/26

"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
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 • 3:36a, 8/5/26
AG
Seth Aframe, Biden judge, Sandra Lynch is a Clinton judge, fwiw, on senior status.

ETA: Scotus will resolve the circuit split over detention of illegal aliens in the interior next cycle. I'm pretty optimistic on that one.
Reply Quote
2
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
12:47p, 8/5/26
FINALLY.


"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
10
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
1:04p, 8/5/26
"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
18
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 • 1:18p, 8/5/26
AG
will25u said:



Doesn't go into effect for 7 days to allow time for an appeal:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-court-strikes-major-blow-against-national-firearms-act-in-fpc-backed-lawsuit
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
1
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 • 1:19p, 8/5/26
AG
will25u said:


Does this mean I can run down the street and buy a suppressor now?
Reply Quote
4
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:14a, 8/6/26
AG

What an absolute loser Amit Mehta is. Indian-borne Obama judge, also a FISA court judge.
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 will25u • 6:01a, 8/6/26
AG
Yep, ol' Allison Burroughs is just not happy at all that DHS is 'eschewing a wind down period.'


In more, though unrelated good news, the Endangered Species Act is now being modified by the US Fish & Wildlife via administrative rule making (removing the word harm), that is likely to be very good for Americans, though I am sure it will be subject to litigation before Obama/Biden judges in short order.
Quote:
The End of the Endangered Species Act?

Earlier in July the US Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule that, after 15 months of deliberation, rescinds the definition of "harm" that has underpinned the enforcement of the ESA since 1975 and thus narrows the set of actions that violate the ESA.

This rule change could, if it survives challenges in court and subsequent administrations, fundamentally change the ESA and remove the major features that turned it into a land use regulation in the first place.
How can simply removing the definition of one word, and not even replacing it with anything, change the law so much?

Well, the current definition of harm (current until the new rule goes into effect in September) is
Quote:
an act or omission which actually injures or kills wildlife, including acts which annoy it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt essential behavioral patterns … significant environmental modification or degradation which has such effects is included within the meaning of 'harm'

According to the USFWS in their notice for this definition change, the current definition of harm
Quote:
dramatically expanded the plain meaning of ''take,'' to sweep in (and thus prohibit) actions that impair the habitat of protected species." and "transformed section 9 from a prohibition on private citizens hunting, capturing, or otherwise attempting to kill or injure certain specifically protected animals into a sweeping land-useregulation. (emphasis original)

It is very clear that they are trying to undo this transformation of the law into a land-use regulation.

Concretely, they rescind the definition of harm that broadens prohibitions to acts or omissions that disrupt behavior, breeding, or significantly modify habitat. But they don't replace the definition with anything else. Instead, they fall back on the definition of "take" itself, where "harm" was just one of 10 other verbs that take was supposed to include.

Specifically, they mean to follow Justice Scalia's interpretation in his dissent of Babbit v Sweet Home, which they cite and praise several times. Scalia's definition of take is far, far narrower than the previously standing one and would seem to me to exclude nearly all construction and agricultural activities on private land.
Quote:
To "take," when applied to wild animals, means to reduce those animals, by killing or capturing, to human control … hunting, killing and capturing.

It is obvious that "take" in this sense-a term of art deeply embedded in the statutory and common law concerning wildlife-describes a class of acts (not omissions) done directly and intentionally (not indirectly and by accident) to particular animals (not populations of animals).

Essentially, the idea is that this prohibition on take in Section 9 is about poaching. The broader seeming "harm" and "harass" are subordinate to the narrower "pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" in the definition of "take."

This would eliminate the ability of the EPA to force entities the leftists hate, such as SpaceX, to kidnap a seal to study it with headphones on while playing sounds of rocket launches etc. Much more at the link. Always good to see Scalia eventually win out.
Reply Quote
8
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:16a, 8/7/26

"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
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
10:55a, 8/7/26
AG
Quote:
An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump must seek approval from Congress to build his proposed White House ballroom, saying construction must stop.

WASHINGTON (AP) An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump must seek approval from Congress to build his proposed White House ballroom, saying construction must stop.

The U.S. Court of Appeals sided with historic preservationists who sued to stop construction. The court said it would stay its own ruling for two weeks to allow the administration to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help," the court wrote.

"This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom.

"What it does mean," the court continued, "is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court's expeditious litigation without securing Congress's authorization, as the Constitution and laws require."

Whelp, we will see what Scotus, and of course our useless GOP congress does I guess. Breitbart. 'Judges' Millett and Garcia, again. Rao dissents.
Reply Quote
2
fredfredunderscorefred
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:14a, 8/7/26
AG
" Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help," the court wrote."

Yet a third branch of govt has agreed with a non-branch of govt and has made the decision…
Reply Quote
1
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:40a, 8/7/26
AG
Bold call. Would love to see it.

Make Roberts do something, finally.

Judge Rao's dissent was quite on point.
ETA:
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
First Page Refresh
Page 110 of 110 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.