- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
re: Explain the “Judge blocks Trump on…” thing
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:35 am to burger bearcat
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:35 am to burger bearcat
There are a lot of bad left wing judges. I commented before on a thread about how judges are not really that smart anymore. That being said, usually on climate regs, etc, there were conservative judges pumping the brakes on Biden and Obama. You dont hear about it as much bc of the media bias. It happens. You want to stop a Dem Pres you file in a conservstive court in the Fifth Circuit, want to stop a Rep, you file in liberal court in another district. It used to be the Ninth, but it is many districts in age of Trump.
0
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:45 am to burger bearcat
In 4 years Biden signed 162 EO’s and with one EO Trump revoked 67 of the Biden EO’s.
Trump has signed 225 EO’s in less than a year. Biden averaged 42. Trump has a lot more EO’s to be challenged
Biden’s most notable EO was about Student Loans. It was overturned by the SC
There were over 250 lawsuits against Biden EO’s and a lot have had injunctions or overturned by the courts.
Trump has signed 225 EO’s in less than a year. Biden averaged 42. Trump has a lot more EO’s to be challenged
Biden’s most notable EO was about Student Loans. It was overturned by the SC
There were over 250 lawsuits against Biden EO’s and a lot have had injunctions or overturned by the courts.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 7:52 am
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:46 am to SuperSaint
quote:
ball has to get rolling somehow to finally get it in front of the courts
I was just explaining that angle as to why some have been blocked. OP doesn't seem to understand what you said
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
I’m not talking about anything specifically, it’s more general/overarching.
Congress is effectively not doing and doesn’t care to and then complains when someone else does their job.
They wouldn’t be bitching and moaning so much if they would do their jobs instead of trying to get elected in perpetuity.
Congress is effectively not doing and doesn’t care to and then complains when someone else does their job.
They wouldn’t be bitching and moaning so much if they would do their jobs instead of trying to get elected in perpetuity.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:50 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.
How about this one; At his first Cabinet meeting of 2014, Obama stated, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,”
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:50 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.
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.
There's a lot of truth in this post. Trump HAS pushed to expand executive power—deliberately—more than any other POTUS in my lifetime. You'd have to go back to FDR to get to a POTUS who has done as much to expand it.
Where I disagree is:
1. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. You say, "Democracy might not be for you," and I feel like there's a condemnation assumed on your part in saying that. But if we're going to be a "democracy," you have to accept that a "democracy" is what a "democracy" does, to quote Forrest Gump.
In other words, a democracy can vote itself into being a dictatorship if the people are so inclined, and it can happen perfectly within the mechanism of the democracy.
That's the flaw of a democracy, in fact. So those of you who push pure "DEMOCRACY" and minimize the original idea of this country, which was a constitutional republic based on federalism (which includes people on the right AND left) need to understand that the form of government you advocate for can easily vote itself out of being that kind of government without any violence having been done to the form that it started out as.
Yes, Trump is pushing hard, and any time a POTUS does that there's going to be pushback from the judiciary. Naturally. It only makes sense. The judiciary rules on past precedents and Trump is trying to set new precedents. However...
2. Starting with Obama, the judiciary became the Left's favorite way to bypass the Legislative Branch. They have been aggressively legislating from the bench now for almost two decades. It's a deliberate strategy.
So all of the Democrats clutching their pearls abut the Republicans attempting to bypass Congress by expanding the Executive branch—while correct—are also somehow oblivious to the fact that they have done exactly the same thing, but with the Judicial Branch.
When the bench has been infiltrated for a deliberate political strategy, it is biased and partisan. There is plenty of evidence for that having happened as well.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:52 am to Laugh More
quote:
I’m not talking about anything specifically, it’s more general/overarching.
Congress is effectively not doing and doesn’t care to and then complains when someone else does their job.
They wouldn’t be bitching and moaning so much if they would do their jobs instead of trying to get elected in perpetuity.
I get this, but my point was that the Trump admin is attempting to make this much worse by, instead of relying on all the power delineated clearly by Congress, to both enact EOs/policies without clear statutory authority (and neuter some Congressional authority limiting the executive like the independent agency head statutory language/limitations).
Biden did this, too, but Trump is doing the strategy on steroids so far.
I'm not sure, at the end of the day, how the admin sees their version of the United Executive Theory, or what limits, exactly, are placed on the executive. The admin in many cases is arguing that both the Constitution and statutory language don't inhibit their power, which raises the question of where this power is granted to the executive in their version of this system.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 8:35 am to SlowFlowPro
EOs had already jumped the shark many administrations ago and it will by nature continue to get more absurd like the debt. But congress has no one to blame but themselves for being neutered.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 8:38 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.
frick off.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 9:08 am to burger bearcat
quote:
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.
The Trump administration is a big believer in the Unitary Executive Theory which places a bigger emphasis on governing via the Office of the President than previous administration. As a natural result, Trump is going to assert authority in areas that the President typically had not previously. And in response courts are going to check some of those actions if there's no precedence for them and let it get appealed to the Supreme Court to get a ruling.
I am curious why you feel like this is an attack on Democracy?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
"without clear statutory". Thats the gist of the Trump approach to working out what the rules are. There is complete bullshite in the legislative process, and there is no way to get congress to fix an issue. Trumps approach is to issue an executive order, have a court issue an injunction and off to the appeals court/supreme court to clarify what the rules are. A very understandable approach.
The democrates used a slightly different approach to have a supportive NGO sue the federal government and have the court issue an opinion favorable to both sides.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 9:22 am to Jesterea
quote:Very solid analysis.
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 ….
You will be downloaded and insulted at every turn.
Your downvoters apparently lack the wit to understand that the Trump administration KNEW that the lower courts would initially rule against much of what they are doing, precisely BECAUSE so much precedent is on the books against them. If they want to overturn that precedent, they MUST accept initial losses, because the lower courts are REQUIRED to follow that precedent.
The administration engages in some pro forma whining about the lower court rulings, but it is all part of the plan.
And we are seeing very MUCH of it, because that is ALSO "part of the plan." They said from the beginning that they were going to "flood the zone" early with these legally-questionable executive actions, and they are doing THAT to give the cases enough TIME to get through the courts before Trump leaves office.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 9:51 am
Posted on 1/12/26 at 9:23 am to GoblinGuide
While you’re not responding to me, I’ll try to explain my stance in good faith. The reason I feel it is an attack on democracy is the dishonesty and rhetoric coming out of the administration.
Let me just focus on one example: Birthright Citizenship. Whether you think it’s flawed or not, it is constitutionally protected. The administration knows that writing an executive order to dispense with it is unprecedented. There are several examples of them doing similar things, by which I mean challenging long established precedent through executive function.
My problem isn’t that they’re necessarily doing this, but it’s they’re acting like these are just run of the mill things they are doing.
The other side of this is how they react every time a judge rules against them. “Activist, leftist judge,” when is some cases that’s not even true. The stance by the administration is that any ruling against them should not only be questioned, but the integrity of any judge should be as well.
If you’re telling the public that we can do as we please and that any judge who stops us is an activist leftist lunatic who shouldn’t be trusted, then what other conclusion can you come to other than they want unchecked power?
Sorry for any typos. Needed to write this quickly.
Let me just focus on one example: Birthright Citizenship. Whether you think it’s flawed or not, it is constitutionally protected. The administration knows that writing an executive order to dispense with it is unprecedented. There are several examples of them doing similar things, by which I mean challenging long established precedent through executive function.
My problem isn’t that they’re necessarily doing this, but it’s they’re acting like these are just run of the mill things they are doing.
The other side of this is how they react every time a judge rules against them. “Activist, leftist judge,” when is some cases that’s not even true. The stance by the administration is that any ruling against them should not only be questioned, but the integrity of any judge should be as well.
If you’re telling the public that we can do as we please and that any judge who stops us is an activist leftist lunatic who shouldn’t be trusted, then what other conclusion can you come to other than they want unchecked power?
Sorry for any typos. Needed to write this quickly.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 9:24 am
Posted on 1/12/26 at 9:30 am to Trevaylin
quote:
"without clear statutory". Thats the gist of the Trump approach to working out what the rules are. There is complete bullshite in the legislative process, and there is no way to get congress to fix an issue. Trumps approach is to issue an executive order, have a court issue an injunction and off to the appeals court/supreme court to clarify what the rules are. A very understandable approach.
For some policies, but not others.
This is a potentially disastrous strategy with his tariffs, especially when there are other options that would have clearly worked.
For policies he's just testing the water, like birthright citizenship? Sure. Or even the appointment cases. But doing this with actual policies with trillions at stake? Probably not the best strategy for those.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 9:32 am to burger bearcat
quote:
It’s almost constant. Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
Honestly this allows you to avoid placing the blame at the feet of congressional Republicans. The judge gets to be the boogeyman but I can assure you, if it took anything from the House or Senate GOP, you wouldn't get support from them either.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 9:42 am to burger bearcat
quote:
It’s almost constant. Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
Use common sense. If you have two neighbors and one is constantly in and out of jail, has police showing up to his house etc. and your other neighbor never goes to jail and never has police showing up would you be sitting there wondering why the police only show up to one neighbors house? Of course not. You'd understand that the police go where the crime is. The judges are ruling against Trump because he is constantly testing the very outside boundaries of his power. His campaign manager Bannon stated this explicitly. Their goal is to "flood the zone with shite". Trump has signed executive orders that explicitly go against a prior decision by the supreme court such as criminalizing the burning of the flag.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
You seem to be the target of a lot of ire around here. Just curious about why you keep engaging when it’s not likely to change any minds. I often feel like typing out arguments on here to disrupt the echo chamber, but usually pause because it seems pointless.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:01 am to Jesterea
I cannot speak for SFP, but I believe that a rational and objective post that gets even one person to stop and actually THINK is well-worth the time necessary for typing it out … and also worth the multiple childish responses to it.
But you are correct, no post is EVER going to convince the most-ardant Trumpists to even CONSIDER anything not Trump-approved. The extent of hero-worship associated with Trumpism is unprecedented in modern American politics.
But you are correct, no post is EVER going to convince the most-ardant Trumpists to even CONSIDER anything not Trump-approved. The extent of hero-worship associated with Trumpism is unprecedented in modern American politics.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 10:12 am
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:06 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 sounds good, but it falls apart when you look at the actual numbers. Trump has been sued more times than all presidents in the previous 40 years combined.
He is not doing that many unprecedented things. Also, Trump has already won at the SC, but district judges keep violating the orders of the SC.
You literally have democrats saying that the chief executive doesn't have the power to control executive branch agencies. You can't be dumb enough to think that President Trump wanting to control the agencies under his authority is "unprecedented."
Even after Trump wins, the democrats make up another bullshite excuse to sue him again. Only idiots think these lawsuits are legitimate and not lawfare.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:07 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Yet I don’t recall one single federal judge so much as slowing Biden’s administration down one bit.
They struck down the student loan forgiveness bullshite but that is the only time I can recall that they blocked one of his EOs.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News