If The Supreme Court Is Going To Ignore The Constitution, Trump Should Ignore The Supreme Court

[Lee Thacket 90]

19 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

There's constant uproar in Israel because their High Court can do away with anything that the Prime Minister or Knesset (parliament) does or says.  Israel has no Constitution, either.

 

Some one said the constitutional wranglings in Israel are due to the lack of a second chamber.

[Lee Thacket 90]

On 4/2/2025 at 10:10 AM, yuna628 said:

All of the minds on SCOTUS are in general particularly decent in their rulings and always interesting in their thoughts, even if some of those thoughts may be a bit out there (looking at Alito)it's nice to see how they may arrive at an argument's ruling. If a court ruled the same way all the time and had no unique thoughts then it would be quite the kangaroo court now wouldn't it? Just because someone approaches a subject or has different feelings on a subject than you do does not make them incompetent to be on the bench. Bright legal minds don't just reside in one political spectrum. I've been reading court decisions since I was very young and each justice, present and past, have their own strengths and weaknesses as it should be. I would say that age can be a significant factor though to always consider. Both sides have considered court packing - and as with anything I often caution what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Court packing is based out of the desire to see the judiciary rule a certain way by default, and not checks and balances. But the executive being held to abide by the judiciary is another check and balance. This thread posits, disturbingly, to the contrary a dangerous and slippery slope.

 

I like reading court judgments as well, though I don't tell usually admit it in public.

 

What is your favorite?

[Dashinka 25,868]

On 4/2/2025 at 9:10 AM, yuna628 said:

All of the minds on SCOTUS are in general particularly decent in their rulings and always interesting in their thoughts, even if some of those thoughts may be a bit out there (looking at Alito)it's nice to see how they may arrive at an argument's ruling. If a court ruled the same way all the time and had no unique thoughts then it would be quite the kangaroo court now wouldn't it? Just because someone approaches a subject or has different feelings on a subject than you do does not make them incompetent to be on the bench. Bright legal minds don't just reside in one political spectrum. I've been reading court decisions since I was very young and each justice, present and past, have their own strengths and weaknesses as it should be. I would say that age can be a significant factor though to always consider. Both sides have considered court packing - and as with anything I often caution what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Court packing is based out of the desire to see the judiciary rule a certain way by default, and not checks and balances. But the executive being held to abide by the judiciary is another check and balance. This thread posits, disturbingly, to the contrary a dangerous and slippery slope.

Completely agree, and it seems we see that even with what is described today as a decidedly conservative court.  All rulings from SCOTUS are not 6-3, so they are not simply rubber stamping a conservative idealism.  I also agree, court packing is not a good move by any stretch.  I could agree with some term limits, but if Congress wants to do that, they need to look at their own branch of the government as well.  I am old enough to remember voters in some states attempting to put term limits on their House and Senate members, and that was fairly rapidly and rightly struck down by SCOTUS at that time as unconstitutional.  What SCOTUS does need to do though with its own branch is bring back jurisdictional control at the District and Appellate levels.

[TBoneTX 47,515]

Activist Judge Caught Red-Handed in Setup Against Trump in Bombshell Revelations

 

A bombshell transcript obtained by conservative journalist Julie Kelly exposes how Judge James Boasberg deliberately positioned himself to target President Trump's administration over deportations of criminal illegal aliens.  The shocking revelations demonstrate how far the activist judiciary will go to obstruct Trump's legal immigration enforcement efforts.

Kelly's analysis of Thursday's hearing transcript reveals Boasberg's calculated moves to interfere with executive authority.  The judge, who claims his assignment to the case was "random," actually knew the case was coming to him.

"I have just received the (purchased) transcript from Thursday's hearing before Jeb Boasberg.  Lots of good stuff especially as I develop a fuller timeline of what went down behind the scenes on March 15," she wrote in a post on X.

Despite the claim that cases are "randomly assigned," what she found in the transcript shows he already knew the case was coming and had planned accordingly.

"He wanted this case.  He wanted to stop the deportations and most importantly—he wanted to set a contempt trap for the Trump administration," Kelly explained in a devastating thread exposing the judge's machinations.  [...]

 

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/04/06/activist-judge-caught-red-handed-in-setup-against-trump-n4938644

[TBoneTX 47,515]

   

Touching:  Amy Coney Barrett Adopts MS-13 Gang Member

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — According to sources, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett adopted an MS-13 gang member as a show of support for the much maligned community of violent illegal aliens in threat of swift deportation under President Trump.

Justice Barrett is now welcoming convicted rapist and murderer Jose Ricardo Dominguez into her home.  Adoption of the notorious MS-13 member was finalized this week at a private court proceeding attended by her husband and seven other children.  [...]

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/touching-amy-coney-barrett-adopts-ms-13-gang-member

[TBoneTX 47,515]

Infuriating.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SCOTUS' Timidity Triggers Constitutional Crisis

 

The Supreme Court has interceded six times in less than three months to rein in federal judges who improperly exceeded their Article III authority and infringed on the Article II authority of President Donald Trump.  Yet the high court continues to issue mealy-mouthed opinions which serve only to exacerbate the ongoing battle between the Executive and Judicial branches of government.  And now there is a constitutional crisis primed to explode this week in a federal court in Maryland over the removal of an El Salvadoran — courtesy of the justices' latest baby-splitting foray on Thursday.

On Thursday last, in Noem v. Garcia, the Supreme Court issued a short two-page order on President Trump's application asking the justices to vacate an injunction issued by Maryland federal judge Paula Xinis.  [...]

 

https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/14/scotus-timidity-triggers-constitutional-crisis/

[TBoneTX 47,515]

Federal Judge Travels Back In Time To Overturn Trump's Birth

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — According to newly released court documents, a federal judge invented time travel and transported himself to New York in 1946 so he could overturn President Donald Trump's birth.

According to witness accounts from 1946, Judge Samuel Eldridge surprised doctors when he entered the delivery room and declared, "The D.C. District Court hereby declares Trump's birth null and void."  As a result of the court order, baby Trump was slowly erased from existence, undoing all MAGA policy he would spearhead later in his life.

The medical staff was reportedly outraged by the unilateral court ruling.  "You're supposed to be [...]

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/federal-judge-travels-back-in-time-to-overturn-trumps-birth

[TBoneTX 47,515]

This is quite interesting.  Comments?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John Marshall would say Trump is right

 

All students of constitutional law recall the case of Marbury vs. Madison.

In 1803, the Federalists had been successful in expanding central government powers, but in the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson, a champion of states' rights, was elected president and controlled both houses of Congress.

Outgoing president John Adams, a Federalist, attempted to place as many party loyalists into important civil positions as possible, hence the appointment of the "midnight justices" upon his exit.  But some commissions were accidentally left undelivered.  They were signed by Adams and sealed by his secretary of state, John Marshall, but in the confusion surrounding the appointment of Marshall to the position of chief justice of the Supreme Court, 23 commissions had been misplaced.

When Jefferson learned of this, he ordered delivery of 12 but told his Secretary of State James Madison to hold the other 11, one of whom was the prominent Federalist William Marbury.  Marbury filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court, pointing to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which had purportedly given the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus.  Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to issue such a writ ordering Madison to deliver the commissions immediately.

For years, it had been fiercely debated whether the Supreme Court had the "judicial power" under the young Constitution to declare laws enacted by Congress and the president to be "invalid."  Jefferson and the Democrat-Republicans argued that none of the three branches of government had any more say in the matter than the other two.

Jefferson told Madison not to respond to Marbury's suit and to let the court enter the writ.  Then, they would show the Federalists who the boss was because the Supreme Court had no enforcement mechanism.  (To this day, it still doesn't vis-à-vis the president because he (or she) is the U. S. Marshalls' boss.)

When Madison failed to respond to Marbury's suit, Chief Justice Marshall realized that without cooperation from the president, all he had was a law clerk to send to enforce any writ he issued.  It was shaping up to be an embarrassing exposition of the court's weakness.  [...]

 

https://mustreadalaska.com/ralph-cushman-john-marshall-would-say-trump-is-right/

 

[TBoneTX 47,515]

Jonathan Turley voices what we already think.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The justices must at long last deal with 'chronic injunctivitis'

 

This week, the Supreme Court continued to deliberate over what to do with the growing number of national or universal injunctions issued by federal district courts against the Trump Administration.

The court has long failed to address the problem, and what I call "chronic injunctivitis" is now raging across the court system.  Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents have long argued that federal judges are out of control in issuing national injunctions that freeze the entire executive branch for years on a given policy.  For presidents, you have to effectively sweep the district courts 677-to-0 if you want to be able to carry out controversial measures.  Any one judge can halt the entire government.

Under President Barack Obama, Justice Elena Kagan expressed outrage [...]

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5316962-supreme-court-chronic-injunctions/

[TBoneTX 47,515]

District Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Supreme Court Ruling

 

U.S. — In the wake of the United States Supreme Court ruling that will effectively prevent district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, a district court issued a nationwide injunction against the Supreme Court ruling.

In a stinging rebuke, Federal Judge James Boasberg handed down a nationwide decision against the Supreme Court, which struck down the Supreme Court's ruling that he and other lower court judges had no authority to hand down nationwide decisions.

"This nationwide injunction holds that the Supreme Court's ruling against our nationwide injunctions is unconstitutional," Boasberg said in his ruling.  "The [...]

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/district-court-issues-nationwide-injunction-on-supreme-court-ruling

[TBoneTX 47,515]

This is readable, educational, and like watching a car wreck.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We Still Have An Imperial Judiciary, Yet Trump Continues To Exercise Extreme Restraint

 

"'[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.'  That goes for judges too," the Supreme Court declared last week in holding several lower court judges erred in entering nationwide injunctions in the lawsuits challenging Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order.  The Supreme Court's Friday decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. represents the high court's most recent check on what it branded an "imperial judiciary."  Yet, there appears no end in sight to the lower courts' entry of lawless injunctions against the Trump Administration.  [...]

 

https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/30/we-still-have-an-imperial-judiciary-yet-trump-continues-to-exercise-extreme-restraint/