Asia Studios Massage

update - Judge Boasberg ponders contempt proceedings vs Trump administration

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
34,846
66,913
113
If there's a 2/3 vote requirement for impeaching a judge, they can't get there.

Plus, they'd have to impeach the entire Federal Court bench and replace it with unqualified lackeys.
Oh, removal of a federal judge is basically impossible.
But if they can cause a lot of smoke by impeaching a bunch of them, they can point to it and insist there must be fire.


A Republican lawmaker has introduced a bill to make Trump’s birthday a federal holiday. They refer to Trump as a “founder” and compare him to George Washington.

Isn't it just more ass-licking from the grovellers?
Yes.
Partly it is to show loyalty and suck up to the boss, but remember a fuck ton of what they do is for the media narrative.
After all, they will be blocked from doing it by the perfidious Democrats who are pawns of the Deep State.

Propaganda and pressure does a lot for them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113
Oh, removal of a federal judge is basically impossible.
But if they can cause a lot of smoke by impeaching a bunch of them, they can point to it and insist there must be fire.
They already do that.

Judges don't give a fuck and will continue to beat the shit out of Trump.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mitchell76

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
34,846
66,913
113
They already do that.

Judges don't give a fuck and will continue to beat the shit out of Trump.
We hope so.
But that kind of pressure leads to more and more threats of physical violence these days.
I don't think it is wise to ignore that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113
We hope so.
But that kind of pressure leads to more and more threats of physical violence these days.
I don't think it is wise to ignore that.
You don't know judges like I do.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mitchell76

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
34,846
66,913
113
  • Haha
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113
'Perverse situation': Judge finds Trump action to be 'unconstitutional in multiple ways'


A judge on Sunday found that one of President Donald Trump's executive orders is unconstitutional for multiple reasons.

U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King was previously reported to have blocked Trump with a temporary restraining order targeting his executive order seeking to end all federal funding for hospitals providing gender-affirming care to children.


Now, King has found that the order "is unconstitutional in multiple ways, including usurping Congress' power of the purse," according to Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico.


Cheney added, "The judge says Trump's EO on transgender health care would create a perverse situation in which a cisgender person could get puberty blockers to treat cancer but a transgender person could not get puberty blockers to treat cancer."

Recommended Links:
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113

If you’re not confirmed by the Senate then you have no business meddling in the lives of MILLIONS of Americans

We are suing DOGE for violating the constitution & illegally seizing power

GkB27obWwAEzU0x.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113

Judge Ho steps back to explain why DOJ can’t just dismiss the case itself

A Rule 48 motion requires judicial approval for a reason. It’s “intended as a power to check power.” The bar is high to deny. It must be “clearly contrary to the manifest public interest.”

The quid pro quo deal regarding the Adams charges stinks so badly that the judge steps in and directs the DoJ lawyers and Adams' lawyer to show cause why the DoJ should not be compelled to continue the prosecution under judicial scrutiny and with the prosecutors law licences at stake.

GkGwS2RXkAAW7uZ.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113
Trump's move to end birthright citizenship suffers another setback

US appeals court rejects Trump's emergency bid to... | Daily Mail Online


President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship nationwide as part of his hardline crackdown on immigration and illegal border crossings suffered a setback on Wednesday.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let stand an order blocking Trump from curtailing automatic birthright citizenship despite the Trump administration's request to halt the nationwide injunction.

Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour had issues the injunction halting the president's executive order - which Trump signed on his first day back in the White House on January 20.


It directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither their mother nor father was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Coughenour had declared that the policy unconstitutional, but the Trump administration claimed he went too far by issuing a nationwide injunction at the behest of four Democratic-led states.

On Wednesday, the three-judge panel ruled that the Trump administration had 'not made a "strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits of this appeal."'

U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest, who Trump appointed during his first term, in a concurring opinion said a rapid ruling would risk eroding public confidence in judges who must 'reach their decisions apart from ideology or political preference.'

'Nor do the circumstances themselves demonstrate an obvious emergency where it appears that the exception to birthright citizenship urged by the Government has never been recognized by the judiciary,' she wrote.


President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship nationwide as part of his hardline crackdown on immigration and illegal border crossings suffered a setback on Wednesday
Trump vows to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mitchell76

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,007
2,473
113
Skoob, they're judges.

Most of them are GOP appointees.

What do you think is more likely?......

That all those judges woke up and decided they were going to be "activist socialist judges", or whatever the far right's current fantasy name is?

Or that 1 single person is being an asshole and the judges are all just doing their job?

Just like the first set of 50 or 60 judges in 2020 who all turned down Trump's bullshit about the election being "stolen"?

Were all those 50 or 60 judges "activist socialist judges"?

And if that were the case, why were there no "patriotic all-American judges" who found in Trump's favour?

60:0 is a pretty lopsided score. It suggests that the judges were 100% correct and that there was only 1 lying asshole and all the judges hated on that 1 sneaky lying orange fucker.
Most judges love the status quo above all else. They don't care whether a president is GOP or a Dem. What they WANT most of all is unaccountable power. Preserving the status quo does that for them. Judges are not servants of the people. They prefer to rule the people. That's why the check and balance is the power of the President to make appointments to SCOTUS - to straighten out the petty tyrants below.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113
Most judges love the status quo above all else. They don't care whether a president is GOP or a Dem. What they WANT most of all is unaccountable power. Preserving the status quo does that for them. Judges are not servants of the people. They prefer to rule the people. That's why the check and balance is the power of the President to make appointments to SCOTUS - to straighten out the petty tyrants below.
That's right, Dutchie.

It's a plot and all the judges are in on it. 🤡
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,007
2,473
113
That's right, Dutchie.

It's a plot and all the judges are in on it. 🤡
You don't need a conspiracy for people to simply act in their own self interest. Is it a conspiracy that most people go to a grocery store to buy food? A conspiracy when mass numbers of sports fans use the washroom at the stadium all at the same time? To borrow a term from Frank Zappa, you libs have plooked the crap out of any meaning the word conspiracy ever had.

If you hadn't become a lawyer surely you'd have become the Wizard of Oz - "Don't look behind that curtain!"! LOL!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113
You don't need a conspiracy for people to simply act in their own self interest. Is it a conspiracy that most people go to a grocery store to buy food? A conspiracy when mass numbers of sports fans use the washroom at the stadium all at the same time? To borrow a term from Frank Zappa, you libs have plooked the crap out of any meaning the word conspiracy ever had.

If you hadn't become a lawyer surely you'd have become the Wizard of Oz - "Don't look behind that curtain!"! LOL!
All the judges are in 1 big conspiracy to be mean to your hero, Trump??...... 😹
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,007
2,473
113
  • Like
Reactions: Smallguy

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113


The Associated Press sued three Trump administration officials Friday over access to presidential events, citing freedom of speech in asking a federal judge to stop the blocking of its journalists.

The lawsuit was filed Friday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., 10 days after the White House began restricting access to the news agency.

The AP says its case is about an unconstitutional effort by the White House to control speech — in this case not changing its style from the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America,” as President Donald Trump did last month with an executive order.

“The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government,” the AP said in its lawsuit, which names White House chief of staff Susan Wiles, deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich and press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“This targeted attack on the AP’s editorial independence and ability to gather and report the news strikes at the very core of the First Amendment,” the news agency said. “This court should remedy it immediately.”

Article continues.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
79,066
100,047
113


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily kept on the job the head of the federal agency that protects government whistleblowers, in its first word on the many legal fights over President Donald Trump's second-term agenda.

The justices said in an unsigned order that Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, could remain in his job at least until Wednesday. That's when a lower-court order temporarily protecting him expires.

With a bare majority of five justices, the high court neither granted nor rejected the administration's plea to immediately remove him. Instead, the court held the request in abeyance, noting that the order expires in just a few days.


U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has scheduled a Wednesday hearing over whether to extend her order keeping Dellinger in his post. The justices could return to the case depending on what she decides.

Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito sided with the administration, doubting whether courts have the authority to restore to office someone the president has fired. Acknowledging that some presidentially appointed officials have contested their removal, Gorsuch wrote that “those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement.”

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have rejected the administration's request.

The conservative-dominated court has previously taken a robust view of presidential power, including in last year’s decision that gave presidents immunity from prosecution for actions they take in office.


The Justice Department employed sweeping language in urging the court to allow the termination of the head of an obscure federal agency with limited power. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in court papers that the lower court had crossed “a constitutional red line” by blocking Dellinger’s firing and stopping Trump “from shaping the agenda of an executive-branch agency in the new administration’s critical first days.”

The Office of Special Counsel is responsible for guarding the federal workforce from illegal personnel actions, such as retaliation for whistleblowing. Its leader “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Dellinger was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term in 2024.

“I am glad to be able to continue my work as an independent government watchdog and whistleblower advocate," Dellinger said in a statement. “I am grateful to the judges and justices who have concluded that I should be allowed to remain on the job while the courts decide whether my office can retain a measure of independence from direct partisan and political control.”
 
Toronto Escorts