President rips federal judge just given '4th Trump case'

[Elderberry]

WND 3/27/2025

'There must be an immediate investigation of this Rigged System, before it is too late!'

During President Donald Trump's first term Democrats and other opponents counted on the made-up claims of "Russia collusion" to delay and deter his agenda.

That's debunked and no longer available, so they're turning to lawfare to obstruct him in his second term.

Dozens and dozens of lawsuit have been filed and have been given to leftist judges who liberally have issued an unprecedented number of injunctions preventing the president from deporting illegal alien criminals, as James Boasberg did, cutting spending, eliminating waste and fraud, securing the nation's border, eliminating the politicized DEI agenda from government and more.

And Trump now has singled out Boasberg, who also recently was given another case against Trump to handle, for a recommendation for an "immediate investigation … before it is too late!"

Democrats, in fact, have been using courts and leftist judges as just about their only opposition to Trump's plans, as the American public largely is lining up in support of the president.

More: https://www.wnd.com/2025/03/president-rips-federal-judge-just-given-4th-trump-case/

[Kamaji]

How do people here think cases get to a specific judge?

[DefiantMassRINO]

Federal District Court shopping to improve the odds of the Federal Judge assignment lottery.

[Kamaji]

Federal District Court shopping to improve the odds of the Federal Judge assignment lottery.

So people should only be allowed to file a case in a court that is most likely to favor the person whom they're suing? 

Y'all do realize that this was one of the "checks" the Founders intentionally designed into the system, do you not?

[DefiantMassRINO]

There should also be check if a judge has jurisdiction and standing to arbitrate the matter before them.

Unfortunately, Federal Judges are issuing executive orders from the Bench before the case has been arbitrated or ajudicated.

The Courts and the Executive are playing tug of war because Congress has been absent for so long.

Congress is great for passing continuting resolutions and budget 'frameworks' that are blank pieces of paper.  They are conducting impeachments about nothing and investigations to nowhere. 

They are not writing legislation, passing genuine bills of appropriations, and holding re-authorization hearings for Federal Executive regulatory bodies.  (The C-Span stuff that helped you fall asleep when you suffer insomnia.)

A Federal agency only has the powers provided it in the US Constitution or delegating legislation passed by Congress.

America's three-legged stool of checks and balances is missing a leg (Congress).

[Kamaji]

There should also be check if a judge has jurisdiction and standing to arbitrate the matter before them.

Unfortunately, Federal Judges are issuing exectuive orders from the Bench before the case has been arbitrated or ajudicated.

No, they aren't.  A preliminary injunction is not an "executive order" - it is a time-honored mechanism common law courts have had since time immemorial to preserve the status quo in order to prevent harm to a party that could not be undone with a favorable judgment in that party's favor.

That is all these judges have been doing.

And making an injunction nationwide has its benefits, too.

Furthermore, in the case in which the judge imposed a preliminary injunction on deporting the alleged tren de aragua members to Venezuela, as the judge noted, nothing in his order prevented the government from keeping these people in custody until such time as a final judgment on the merits was rendered; all it did was prevent the government from sending them to a third country with a prison system that wouldn't meet even basic U.S. standards.

The Courts and the Executive are playing tug of war because Congress has been absent for so long.

Congress is great for passing continuting resolutions and budget 'frameworks' that are blank pieces of paper.  They are conducting impeachments about nothing and investigations to nowhere. 

They are not writing legislation, passing genuine bills of appropriations, and holding re-authorization hearings for Federal Executive regulatory bodies.  (The C-Span stuff that helped you fall asleep when you suffer insomnia.)

A Federal agency only has the powers provided it in the US Constitution or delegating legislation passed by Congress.

The courts are fulfilling the role the Founders intended for them by acting as a check and a balance on the executive.

[MeganC]

No, they aren't.  A preliminary injunction is not an "executive order" - it is a time-honored mechanism common law courts have had since time immemorial to preserve the status quo in order to prevent harm to a party that could not be undone with a favorable judgment in that party's favor.

That is all these judges have been doing.

And making an injunction nationwide has its benefits, too.

Furthermore, in the case in which the judge imposed a preliminary injunction on deporting the alleged tren de aragua members to Venezuela, as the judge noted, nothing in his order prevented the government from keeping these people in custody until such time as a final judgment on the merits was rendered; all it did was prevent the government from sending them to a third country with a prison system that wouldn't meet even basic U.S. standards.

The courts are fulfilling the role the Founders intended for them by acting as a check and a balance on the executive.

When the Federal Courts issue orders instructing the Executive to perform an action then the Federal Courts are assuming a Constitutionally delegated Executive power.

Ordering the government to issue payments that are not contractually obligated is beyond their mandate.
Ordering the government to allow immigration from specific countries (as we saw in Trump's first term) is also beyond their mandate.

The issue of 1,770 Federal judges declaring themselves superior to the President is a question that Congress must take up or else it defaults to the President to confront this abuse and to act as a check and balance on the excesses of the courts.

[Kamaji]

When the Federal Courts issue orders instructing the Executive to perform an action then the Federal Courts are assuming a Constitutionally delegated Executive power.

Ordering the government to issue payments that are not contractually obligated is beyond their mandate.
Ordering the government to allow immigration from specific countries (as we saw in Trump's first term) is also beyond their mandate.

The issue of 1,770 Federal judges declaring themselves superior to the President is a question that Congress must take up or else it defaults to the President to confront this abuse and to act as a check and balance on the excesses of the courts.

No, they aren't.  A preliminary injunction is the power to order a party to an action to take, or not take, a given action in order to prevent irreparable harm to the other parties.  It is a power the common law courts have had since time immemorial, and the federal court power includes the common law powers of law and equity that were in existence at the time of the revolution and the coming into effect of the Constitution, or that have been subsequently developed by the Supreme Court pursuant to its judicial power.

The Founders knew this and they intended this to be part and parcel of the power of the federal courts in the exercise of their duty to act as a check and a balance on the executive and the legislative branches.

You really should study a little Con-law before making such egregiously silly comments.

[MeganC]

No, they aren't.  A preliminary injunction is the power to order a party to an action to take, or not take, a given action in order to prevent irreparable harm to the other parties.  It is a power the common law courts have had since time immemorial, and the federal court power includes the common law powers of law and equity that were in existence at the time of the revolution and the coming into effect of the Constitution, or that have been subsequently developed by the Supreme Court pursuant to its judicial power.

The Founders knew this and they intended this to be part and parcel of the power of the federal courts in the exercise of their duty to act as a check and a balance on the executive and the legislative branches.

You really should study a little Con-law before making such egregiously silly comments.

This goes back to the question that I posed recently:

What can't the courts order anyone to do or not do?

Can they order Trump not to eat at McDonald's?
Can they order Trump to sign a bill into law?
Can they order Congress to pass a law?
Can the courts order funds appropriated for a purpose if Congress and the President did not?
Can the courts issue orders to the military?

I've posed these and similar questions elsewhere and so far no one is giving me a decent answer.

[Kamaji]

This goes back to the question that I posed recently:

What can't the courts order anyone to do or not do?

Can they order Trump not to eat at McDonald's?
Can they order Trump to sign a bill into law?
Can they order Congress to pass a law?
Can the courts order funds appropriated for a purpose if Congress and the President did not?
Can the courts issue orders to the military?

I've posed these and similar questions elsewhere and so far no one is giving me a decent answer.

Tell you what, why don't you go spend a few days reading about the Constitution, over at LII:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Then read some more con-law, including any number of treatises that have been used for decades in law school.

Then, if you want to see the specific basis on which federal courts can grant temporary injunctions, try reading Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65 (you do remember the FRCP, don't you):  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

Then come back and let's start having a rational discussion of Constitutional law and the powers of the federal courts - i.e., the extent of the judicial power of the federal government, which is lodged in the federal courts pursuant to Art. III of the Constitution.

[MeganC]

Tell you what, why don't you go spend a few days reading about the Constitution, over at LII:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Then read some more con-law, including any number of treatises that have been used for decades in law school.

Then, if you want to see the specific basis on which federal courts can grant temporary injunctions, try reading Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65 (you do remember the FRCP, don't you):  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

Then come back and let's start having a rational discussion of Constitutional law and the powers of the federal courts - i.e., the extent of the judicial power of the federal government, which is lodged in the federal courts pursuant to Art. III of the Constitution.

I know quite a bit about the Constitution and I also know that the courts of my lifetime don't seem to be constrained by such trivialities.

[Kamaji]

I know quite a bit about the Constitution and I also know that the courts of my lifetime don't seem to be constrained by such trivialities.

Based on your posts you don't know jack about the Constitution, or about the courts.  WADR.

[MeganC]

Based on your posts you don't know jack about the Constitution, or about the courts.  WADR.

Explain to me Chief Justice Robert's arbitrary conversion of an unconstitutional mandate to buy healthcare into a tax in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

[DCPatriot]

Explain to me Chief Justice Robert's arbitrary conversion of an unconstitutional mandate to buy healthcare into a tax in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

Alex!  What is... Secretive video of him diddling an underage, drugged slut on Epstein's Island?

[bigheadfred]

The Babylon Bee
@TheBabylonBee
·
1h
Trump Leaves Presidency To Become Even More Powerful District Court Judge

https://buff.ly/ObmonGS

[DefiantMassRINO]

Common Law is imaginary mumbo jumbo made up by lawyers.  When was it passed by US Congress and signed by the US President?  It wasn't.

Precedent and tradition are not law.

Law is supposed to be codified ... written on paper for all to see.

If something is not in the US Code of laws, it is not a codified Federal law.

Which Common Law are we to follow?  American Common Law?  English Common Law?  Scottish Common Law?  Dane Law?  Napoleonic Code?

Does the US State Department have the statutory authority to withdraw a visa of a foreign national to remain in the US, and does ICE have statutory authority to deport persons in the US illegally?

The US State Department can delcare foreign embassy personnel as 'persona non grata' and expel them from the United States.

We are talking about foreign nationals on visa engaging in and coordinating mass civil unrest to further the cause of a terrorist organization, Hamas.

We are talking about foreign nationals on visa who are infringing and impeding upon the 1st Amendment Right of persons to worship freely.

[MeganC]

Alex!  What is... Secretive video of him diddling an underage, drugged slut on Epstein's Island?

 

[Cyber Liberty]

How do people here think cases get to a specific judge?

I thought it was supposed to be random selection, no?

[MeganC]

I thought it was supposed to be random selection, no?

If one shops a case to a specific Federal district loaded with judges who favor your position then your odds of getting a specific type of judge are improved.

I've also read of so-called junk cases being filed in certain courts to fill up the dockets of judges who are subject matter experts so a specific hot button case can then be defaulted to the desired judge. The junk cases are then withdrawn.

[DefiantMassRINO]

... I forgot Salic Law.

[bigheadfred]

... I forgot Salic Law.

Is that anything like Taco Tuesday?

[jmyrlefuller]

Federal District Court shopping to improve the odds of the Federal Judge assignment lottery.

The problem is, this pattern is proof the lottery is being bypassed.

[Hoodat]

Tell you what, why don't you go spend a few days reading about the Constitution, over at LII:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Article II, Section 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

[Hoodat]

I thought it was supposed to be random selection, no?

Silly man.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1905737083425305020

[MeganC]

Article II, Section 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

 

[Kamaji]

Article II, Section 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

[MeganC]

Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

- Thomas Jefferson

[Wingnut]

That judge should play the Powerball lotto.  Cuz he is one lucky Sumbitch.

[Fishrrman]

Methinks that Kamaji doth protest too much on this issue...

[Kamaji]

“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

- Thomas Jefferson

In the context of a particular case or controversy, Jefferson was simply wrong.  It is precisely the provenance of the courts to say what the law is, to apply that law to the facts before them, and to draw out the consequences of that application. 

Tough shit.  Maybe you should learn a little bit about the Constitution and the law. 

[Cyber Liberty]

 

[MeganC]

In the context of a particular case or controversy, Jefferson was simply wrong.  It is precisely the provenance of the courts to say what the law is, to apply that law to the facts before them, and to draw out the consequences of that application. 

Tough shit.  Maybe you should learn a little bit about the Constitution and the law.

You know more about the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson did?

 

[Kamaji]

You know more about the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson did?

 

Nobody is infallible, not even you.

[Bigun]

Methinks that Kamaji doth protest too much on this issue...

He's a member of the brotherhood of the bar so why would you expect anything else?

[Wingnut]

He's a member of the brotherhood of the bar so why would you expect anything else?

What? SO he worked as a bartender like AOC?

[MeganC]

Nobody is infallible, not even you.

I'm not claiming to be smarter than Thomas Jefferson who was arguably the smartest American who ever lived.

Extract from John F. Kennedy’s Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Prize Winners of the Western Hemisphere
April 29, 1962:

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet."

[Fishrrman]

Bigun wrote (about another member):
"He's a member of the brotherhood of the bar so why would you expect anything else?"

I've always suspected that, but don't recall him ever having said as much.
I was going to mention it as a part of my post, but didn't want to make an unsubstantiated accusation.