- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Explain the “Judge blocks Trump on…” thing
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:51 am
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:51 am
I often find myself casually scrolling past a TV at the gym or a newspaper heading at grocery, or opening up a web browser at work and see the headlines or some chyron stating “Federal Judge blocks Trump on X, Y, Z”
It’s almost constant. Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
So how do these left wing judges in random jurisdictions always end up getting to make an injunction on a policy from the Trump administration. Could another random judge somewhere simply over rule that judge’s ruling?
This process seems incredibly confusing and quite frankly, an actual attack on democracy if I’ve ever seen one.
It’s almost constant. Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
So how do these left wing judges in random jurisdictions always end up getting to make an injunction on a policy from the Trump administration. Could another random judge somewhere simply over rule that judge’s ruling?
This process seems incredibly confusing and quite frankly, an actual attack on democracy if I’ve ever seen one.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 7:35 am
15
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:53 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
Tough to slow something down that was barely moving.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:00 am to burger bearcat
They call themselves “the resistance”. Thats a good place to start.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:03 am to burger bearcat
I mean, the simple fact is that the administration has argued that the power of the executive is much larger and sweeping than any previous administration before it. The reason it happens so often is because they are doing unprecedented things. It’s part of the admins’ push on unitary executive theory.
Despite what you may think, several Bush (senior and W) and Reagan appointees have also ruled against his actions. Even his own appointees have, albeit at a lesser rate.
The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on that much. They have simply forestalled on questions they’re afraid the administration would ignore them on if they ruled against.
The Supreme Court probably thinks the admin has been in the wrong more times than they’d like to admit, but are terrified he might ignore them.
The truth is y’all don’t want checks on executive authority if it’s your guy in power. I don’t think that makes you a bad person, but you simply think anyone standing against Trump must be wrong. Democracy might not be for you.
Despite what you may think, several Bush (senior and W) and Reagan appointees have also ruled against his actions. Even his own appointees have, albeit at a lesser rate.
The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on that much. They have simply forestalled on questions they’re afraid the administration would ignore them on if they ruled against.
The Supreme Court probably thinks the admin has been in the wrong more times than they’d like to admit, but are terrified he might ignore them.
The truth is y’all don’t want checks on executive authority if it’s your guy in power. I don’t think that makes you a bad person, but you simply think anyone standing against Trump must be wrong. Democracy might not be for you.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:21 am to Jesterea
quote:
The Supreme Court probably thinks the admin has been in the wrong more times than they’d like to admit, but are terrified he might ignore them.
You know this isn’t true.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:23 am to idlewatcher
I don’t “know,” you’re right about it being speculation. I am pretty confident on the idea though. If they approved every single case against the admin, it would effectively mean we don’t need Congress for anything.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:30 am to burger bearcat
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:35 am to burger bearcat
quote:
So how do these left wing judges in random jurisdictions always end up getting to make an injunction on a policy from the Trump administration.
I think part of it is groups and individuals sit on G and wait on O to file hundreds of lawsuits in different states as soon as a policy becomes official and just play the numbers that one of them will fall on the desk of the right judge who will go along with it. Lawfare 101
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:08 am to burger bearcat
quote:Student loans was the one area I can recall.
Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:11 am to Jesterea
quote:
it would effectively mean we don’t need Congress for anything.
Congress did this to themselves. Instead of doing their jobs, they delegated so much of their power to the President so they can continue to get elected.
If they don’t have to actually do anything, it’s hard to have anything held against them.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:12 am to burger bearcat
They aren't judges, they are political activists.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:12 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
Did you miss the vax mandate being ruled illegal?
Or the student loan forgiveness being ruled illegal?
Or the rulings nerfing his new student loan forgiveness plans?
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 7:13 am
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:16 am to Jesterea
quote:
I mean, the simple fact is that the administration has argued that the power of the executive is much larger and sweeping than any previous administration before it. The reason it happens so often is because they are doing unprecedented things. It’s part of the admins’ push on unitary executive theory.
This is something that needs to be emphasized. Yes, there are a lot of questionable district court rulings, most which are quickly thwarted on appeal, but lots of the things being restrained are from the Trump admin trying to change executive power via the courts. The best example is the attempt to permit the admin to fire independent agency heads. There is clear Constitutional law that doesn't allow this, but they want to challenge this up to the USSC to reverse the precedent. Naturally, until this reversal happens, the lower courts must rule against the admin.
Also the admin is trying to do sweeping policy changes that may not be legal and also require a USSC ruling, like the birthright citizenship stuff. As of now that is patently illegal on its face and will require the USSC to reverse precedent to be legal.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:19 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Back to top I find often myself casually scrolling past a TV at the gym or a newspaper heading at grocery, or opening up a web browser at work and see the headlines or some chyron stating “Federal Judge blocks Trump on X, Y, Z” It’s almost constant. Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
The first observation is that your news sources are obviously biased. Judges have “blocked” republican and democratic administrations on many things that they tried to do.
There are these things called “laws” and “regulations” that set out how some things must be done. You can either do things in accordance with the laws and regulations or you can ignore the laws and regulations and claim to have unrestrained power to do whatever you want however you want.
When you do things that may not be in accord with the laws and regulations, sometimes judges are called upon to compare the action with the laws and regulations. Sometimes they rule that the action is unlawful, and so it must not be done or be done differently.
I hope that helps.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:21 am to Laugh More
quote:
Congress did this to themselves. Instead of doing their jobs, they delegated so much of their power to the President so they can continue to get elected.
If they don’t have to actually do anything, it’s hard to have anything held against them.
In addition to the 2 areas I mentioned in my other post, the admin is also trying to claim Congress delineated powers to the admin when the text of the statute doesn't say this specifically, like with the tariff cases.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:ball has to get rolling somehow to finally get it in front of the courts
Also the admin is trying to do sweeping policy changes that may not be legal and also require a USSC ruling, like the birthright citizenship stuff. As of now that is patently illegal on its face and will require the USSC to reverse precedent to be legal.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:24 am to Jesterea
Its not that and you know it,
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:25 am to Jesterea
Rachel Madcow has an account on TD! Who knew.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:28 am to Jesterea
That is the biggest display of mental gymnastics I have seen in a while. CNN would be proud how you kept a straight face saying it like 5% was even true. Disgusting.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:32 am to Jesterea
quote:
The Supreme Court probably thinks the admin has been in the wrong more times than they’d like to admit, but are terrified he might ignore them.
What world do you live in? Trumps administration follows most of the orders from judges now matter how over-reaching they are. They do it specifically because they dont want Democrats to be able to label them with ignoring a judges orders.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News