It’s just another “rinse & repeat” resistance movement of the Deep State and activist POJ judges. It will get overturned at the Supreme Court because President Trump is within his legal rights. It just delays border security and allows the humanitarian crisis & invasion to continue longer.
Sure although I’m not going make a huge investment into research since your question deflecting.
But sure:
- Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC all 9 Justices ruled against the Obama administration.
- United States v. Jones all 9 Justices ruled against the Obama administration (5-4 decision, but all Justices ruled against the Obama administration but for different reasons)
- Sackett v. EPA all 9 Justices ruled against the Obama administration
Since it was 9 Justices, then that included the liberal wing of the SCOTUS.
.
.
.
.^^^^
That is incorrect Allan. We know which appeals courts have which jurisdiction. It is a consideration in judge shopping. For example, which appeals court will hear this case?
“Deflecting”? That hurts. How about comparing? You invested some in defending the liberal position.
All SCOTUS cases?
[quote=“SneakySFDude, post:63, topic:189953”]
That is incorrect Allan. We know which appeals courts have which jurisdiction. It is a consideration in judge shopping. For example, which appeals court will hear this case?
[/quote].
The ninth and if their ruling doesn’t meet 4 SCOTUS justices exacting standards it will be examined there.
Allan
Glad we could agree.
It took 1 Google search of about 4.7 milliseconds to debunk the idea that it is only DEM appointed Judges/Justices that rule against Trump.
I spent about the same amount of time on your question just to be equal. I’m sure there are lower court rulings where DEMs ruled against Obama but since they are farther in the past I don’t intend to spend time on it. A quick search brought up the cases listed that met your questions criteria.
.
.
.
,^^^^
Ok, if you say so. Thank you.
So in this case, anywhere in the US?
Interesting. How so?
The offense is misallocation of federal funds which taxpayers from across the US contribute? The offense isn’t the wall, it’s the funds.
Ah, good point. Where will this ruling stop the work?
Are you talking about washing machines or hair treatment? What are activist POJ judges?
What are the figures of people seeking asylum who fly in?
Federal district judges who preside over a portion of a single state have been able to block President Donald Trump’s actions 30 times through nationwide injunctions—far more than any other administration in history, according to the Justice Department.
The trend has prompted the Trump administration’s Justice Department to seek an end to nationwide injunctions, following a similar argument made by the Obama administration.
And you assume that there is only one possibility… partisan judges. When in fact the other possibility is Trump doesn’t know the law as well as he thinks he does.
2 Likes
The possibility that Donald Trump is attempting to violate the law far more often than previous presidents is absurd. Donald Trump never served a day in the corrupt government. He operated in the realm of business where violating the law always ends up with people going to prison. He absolutely had to follow the law in his private business affairs or he would have been behind bars a long time ago.
Not possible, Trump said it himself he is a very stable genio…therefore partisan judge!
But you are not examining it further. You made an accusation and it is requisite upon you to provide evidence, yet you refuse to even consider the prospect. Show that this judge made a political decision here or has a history of such. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
For that matter, what is wrong with deciding that the president does not have the authority to spend money the way he is trying to do? If he were spending it on something his base didn’t like I bet the song would be different, yet the facts of the case identical.
He has lost over 90 percent of deregulation cases that have gone to court.
1 Like
