Aggie Jurist said:

---

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.

---

Do you have a link to the Trump motion to recuse Boasberg? I cannot find a copy.

akm91 said:

---

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.

---

That is already happening.


If the judicial branch oversteps it's bounds and ignores constitutional separate of powers, do you think new legislation will curb that?

---

How many times has judicial impeachment, as a response to policy differences (as opposed to straight up corruption) worked? Zero.

What is it about some of you folks and your love for empty gestures?

Quote:

---

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.

---

I know these are troll posts - because you can't possibly believe what you are posting.

Many of the rulings about which we complain came from courts without jurisdiction to make them. Every judge is supposed to ask first, "do I have jurisdiction?" Many of the judges who have entered TROs had zero jurisdictional basis to act.

For example - all of the contracts that have been canceled - the appropriate place to seek a remedy is in the Court of Claims. There are ways individual employees can challenge their dismissals - not the blanket reinstatement that have been ordered. These judges are completely overstepping - and those who have some semblance of competence know it. They don't care. It's all about gumming up the works. That's not supposed to be the role of a federal judge.

Serotonin said:

---

NEWS ALERT:

Man subjected to non-stop lawfare by his enemies decides to use lawfare against them.

---

And like the Democrats, begin to cry and scream foul when what they have been doing is used against them.

Judges believe that since they oversee the law that they are immune to the law and they can do anything they want without repercussions.

They are wrong.

I don't remember you calling out Biden for student loan forgiveness or vaccine mandate. Guessing those are overreaching you agreed with.

WE

VOTED

FOR

THIS

No, but if you think it is then yes it is okay. These judges are overstepping their authority similar to some when Biden was President and he dismissed them similarly.

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.

---

That's cute, but as is stated it's for kids.

Adults can have discussions about how it works in the real world, where a supragovernmental cabal has overthrown the will of the people and installed numerous activist zealots in the judiciary

Just a friendly reminder to those possessing the naivete of a child

Someone needs to

I assume the OP thinks that targeting Trump while he was in and between the office of the President was OK.

Soooooo you would also say Biden and his admin were targeting judges as well, right? I'm old enough to remember that Kavanaugh was targeted.

AggiePops said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

Call it what you want, but if the judges weren't over-reaching their authority, they wouldn't be "targeted".

---

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.

---

And the judiciary can't create laws (legislate from the bench) or tell the Chief Executive how to run his co-equal branch of the government. Cuts both ways.

Go away forever. Maybe to El Salvador.

Honestly, this is the best-case scenario for a screw-up of this proportion. Other than the calamity of using a questionable app for high-level sec discussions and casually inviting an editor-in-chief of a liberal rag to the discussion, the op itself went off without a hitch.

However, the guy who invited Goldberg needs to go bye-bye. Definitely need to figure out a better way to comms than an app where you can "mistype" a phone number or contact and violate every US security policy possible known to man.

You should be concerned about the amount of direct power and influence Obama has exercised in the years since he left office.

It's a check and balance between branches of govt

BMX Bandit said:

---

I do not think Trump is attempting to intimidate judges, or lawyers.

This is all PR by him. In addition to the legal aspect of these cases, there is also a political aspect too many of them. The department of justice is fighting the legal battle, Trump has to fight the political battle.

---

Absolutely.

This is not just a legal battle. It's also a political battle.

This is the Left's "Resistance". Lawfare is just their legal tool.

Trump is fighting them on their territory now. And they don't like it. They liked the meek and mild, "Statesman" Republicans that wouldn't fight back.

When is that USAID money drying up again?

If the left doesn't like lawfare they shouldn't have been doing it since Bush 2.

Seems like they just don't like it when they aren't the ones playing the game

And for the OP who spoke about intimidating judges, kindly point me to your posts of outrage when members of congress were encouraging people to threaten SCOTUS judges amd when threats were being made against their lives at the end of Trump first term and when Roe V Wade got overturned.

Otherwise GTFO.

Everything you said in that post is completely ignorantly wrong and the fact that seven people agreed with you is pretty damn frightening.

Yes he is. And yes it's completely legal/common and he should be doing it even more. This is exactly what two-thirds of Americans voted for.

Owlagdad said:

---

Geez, OP. Get a grip.

---

Gotta earn that USAID ActBlue paycheck

Both can be true.

The judiciary has been legislating from the bench more and more. Tired of that.

The executive has far far far more power than the founders ever intended.

The only branch of the government that has sadly gotten weaker is the legislative. They haven't declared war in nearly a century. Rarely pass meaningful legislation. Don't even agree on a budget. The executive and judiciary operate around them. And their own inaction has caused it.

These marxist judges were appointed by marxist's presidents. This is what you get.

Legally, they have no authority under our Constitution to render these decisions.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Both can be true.

The judiciary has been legislating from the bench more and more. Tired of that.

The executive has far far far more power than the founders ever intended.

The only branch of the government that has sadly gotten weaker is the legislative. They haven't declared war in nearly a century. Rarely pass meaningful legislation. Don't even agree on a budget. The executive and judiciary operate around them. And their own inaction has caused it.

---

This is correct. Part of it seems to be excessively intricate rules and latitude to re-write them on the fly. If there ever is a national "do over" the procedures of the legislature need to be more specified -- not something subject to partisan whims. As it is, they can invent ornate rules to just stall or reshape things at will and reach a kind of splendid impotence that they are all content with because they can continue to get ever richer without doing anything for the country. (USAID showed some of the ways how).

What he did to the law firms is disgusting and dangerous. So obviously intended to silence any opposition. It's extremely concerning. The top firms will be hesitant to challenge this administration. I dont know how anyone can support that. If a democrat was doing this we would all justifiably be up in arms. Its insane.

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.

---

Can we chip in and help fund a different hobby for you?

What did he do?

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I know these are troll posts - because you can't possibly believe what you are posting.

Many of the rulings about which we complain came from courts without jurisdiction to make them. Every judge is supposed to ask first, "do I have jurisdiction?" Many of the judges who have entered TROs had zero jurisdictional basis to act.

For example - all of the contracts that have been canceled - the appropriate place to seek a remedy is in the Court of Claims. There are ways individual employees can challenge their dismissals - not the blanket reinstatement that have been ordered. These judges are completely overstepping - and those who have some semblance of competence know it. They don't care. It's all about gumming up the works. That's not supposed to be the role of a federal judge.

---

Trump 2.0 apparently requires Lawfare 2.0...

pollo hermanos said:

---

What he did to the law firms is disgusting and dangerous. So obviously intended to silence any opposition. It's extremely concerning. The top firms will be hesitant to challenge this administration. I dont know how anyone can support that. If a democrat was doing this we would all justifiably be up in arms. Its insane.

---

Now do the attacks at all the legal firms that might represent Trump...The top "white shoe" firms essentially bowed out of the game due to the leftist attacks...

Intimidation, by definition, is not illegal, save threats of bodily harm from violence, etc. People can allow themselves to be intimidated by body language, perception of inferiority, or many other reasons of doubt and lack of self confidence. It's human nature for men to demonstrate dominance over adversaries and opponents. People look for that in their leaders in every endeavor, and political leaders are no different in that regard.

It's following the dictator handbook, plain and simple

I see you trolling. You need to get better. Learn some good trolling techniques. You are more of a premium board troller. Those aren't good. Do better.

zephyr88 said:

---

Call it what you want, but if the judges weren't over-reaching their authority, they wouldn't be "targeted".

---

What a great immediate answer. Those judges earned whatever scrutiny they received through there own activist actions.

pollo hermanos said:

---

What he did to the law firms is disgusting and dangerous. So obviously intended to silence any opposition. It's extremely concerning. The top firms will be hesitant to challenge this administration. I dont know how anyone can support that. If a democrat was doing this we would all justifiably be up in arms. Its insane.

---

So you are saying the firms that tried to bleed Trump aren't deserving to be bleed back? Ok. Bless your heart.