Activist judges shouldn’t block the will of the people

[Into the Night]

It appears you haven't read any of the court rulings since you ask this question. Maybe you should educate yourself before you continue to look like a fool.
The AEA requires that the US be at war with a foreign government to deport people from that country. Which country are we currently at war with? When was that war declared?

No such law.

The law is quite clear that a President is supposed to spend the money allocated by the legislature.

No such law.

He can't simply not spend it because he doesn't want to.

He certainly can.

This was decided years ago by the USSC.

No court has any authority to change the Constitution.

The problem is who decided who is a criminal alien.

All illegal aliens are criminals. They are subject to deportation.

The Constitution does not give the President that power.

Yes it does. See Article II.

The 4th, 5th and 14th amendments say no one can be adjudicated a criminal without a trial and the ability to defend themselves.

Irrelevant. All illegal aliens are criminals. They are subject to deportation.

There you go lying again.

It wasn't a strawman since you are clearly making the argument.

Fallacy fallacies.

I see you can't cite a single ruling by a court. I wonder why that is.

No court has any authority to change any constitution.

LOL. You don't even know what the ruling was here.

Irrelevant. No court has any authority to change any constitution.

Then you completely ignore that the appeals court ruled upholding the TRO.

It has no authority to do so.

The Alien Enemies Act can only be invoked amid a declared war or an “invasion” by a foreign nation.

No such law.

This was decided by the USSC during George Bush's administration.

No court has any authority to change the Constitution.

The President can not refuse to spend money allocated for a specific purpose by Congress.

Yes he can.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits federal district courts to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions, and places no limit on federal courts’ power to issue injunctions that require defendants to cease taking action against nonparties.

District courts do not have any authority to overrule the President's authority over the executive branch. No court has that authority. See Articles II and III.

The APA also authorizes nationwide injunctions in cases challenging federal agency action. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), courts are required to “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action it finds to be invalid — language that suggests that when a court finds a rule was promulgated in violation of the procedures laid out in the APA, or is contrary to an agency’s governing statute, then the rule can no longer apply to anyone.

No federal district court has any authority to issue a nationwide injunction. It cannot issue a ruling that affects anyone other than the parties to the case.

Donald Trump is not personally deporting anyone

No one said he was, dumbass.

or personally firing people at agencies.

He is personally firing people at agencies by closing them heavily reducing their size.

The agencies are doing those things and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) requires the court to set aside agency action. You might want to actually read the EOs which tell the agencies to take actions. Presidential EOs can not overturn laws passed by Congress.

Congress has NO authority over the executive branch of government, Poorboy.
Neither does any court.

See Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

Void argument. Paradox.

Mimicking like a little child gets you nowhere Poorboy.

 

[Into the Night]

Judges that rule that laws are unconstitutional are not setting policy or agenda.

Pivot fallacy.

They are upholding the nation's agenda

What 'agenda' is that, Poorboy?

since the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

The Constitution is not an 'agenda'. Redefinition fallacy.

Striking down a law or a rule is not making up a law out of thin air.

Pivot fallacy.

You are making specious arguments.

Fallacy fallacy.

If you think that is happening provide us with actual cases where that has happened. I wonder if you will be able to do that.

RQAA

A false argument. The courts ruling is not that their policy must be followed but rather they rule that the illegal action can not be taken.

Blatant lie (denial, pivot).

 

[FastLane]

Article III doesn't issue anything.
It doesn't authorize any judge to issue any ruling beyond those directly involved in the case.

Federal rule 65 doesn't authorize TROs either.

Any judge exceeding his authority should be impeached and removed from office and disbarred.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That's not what they're doing here. They are making sweeping injunctions and temporary restraining orders with nationwide effect regardless of the parties bringing the case, without regard to the case having class standing, and making those orders without legal citation.


They aren't striking down some law or another, they are simply ruling against Trump and something they don't like that he's doing.

Do you know what the word temporary and preliminary mean? They are following the law. When someone is likely to prevail on the merits of the case then a TRO or PI are required.

These are the federal judges thwarting Donald Trump

Dozens of federal judges have blocked Trump's executive orders in his first few months in office.

www.newsweek.com

Can the President withhold funding from an organization because he doesn't like what they are doing even if it is legal? Do you know what the equal protection clause is?

Judges ruling against Trump’s orders have history with his cases

Here is a look at several judges hearing cases related to Donald Trump's executive actions who have a history with him that goes back years, in some cases.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Are you familiar with the fifth amendment? Trump doesn't get to simply ignore the right that every person has for due process. Then are you familiar with what an appeals court is? They upheld Boasberg's temporary injuction.

Trump is obviously wrong in attacking judges. But he's correct about one thing. | Opinion

More than 15 nationwide injunctions have been issued to Trump's administration. The president is raising valid concern, hidden in outlandish posts.

www.usatoday.com

From your link - The president is loudly running afoul of the law, and his complaints about nationwide injunctions are his scapegoat for his own actions.

Appeals court clears way for Trump to fire members of labor and workforce protection boards

President Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board.

www.cbsnews.com

The appeals court allowed them to be fired while the case moves forward in court. One of the standards for injunctions is what damage will occur and whether it will be able to fixed. In the case of firing someone, if they win the case later, they can be reinstated. Because Trump fired most of the board there is no longer a quorum so the board can't act.

Wrong. The judge hands down an order or verdict in a case and then expects it to be followed. To claim an action is "illegal" required citation of law. Judges handing down these nationwide edicts, and that's what they are, are not citing law. Instead, they make vague references to Trump's actions being "unconstitutional" or "illegal" without citation. That doesn't cut it as a legal ruling. That's simply a judge that doesn't like what Trump is doing setting foreign and domestic policy on his or her own.

Clearly you haven't read any of the injunctions or TROs. They do cite law or the Constitution. Boasberg cites the exact words of the Alien Enemies Act which states That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government
This one is pretty obvious. The US has not declared war since only Congress can do that and a criminal gang is not a foreign nation or a foreign government. This one will be interesting to follow because the Trump administration refused to follow a court order and are now trying to argue that they can't reveal why because it is a state secret.

This is from Boasberg's TRO
an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set. As Plaintiffs have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief, the Court accordingly ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' 3 Motion for TRO is GRANTED; 2) Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court; and 3) The parties shall appear for a Zoom hearing on March 17, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/15/2025. (lcjeb1)

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pivot fallacy.

What 'agenda' is that, Poorboy?

The Constitution is not an 'agenda'. Redefinition fallacy.

Pivot fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy.

RQAA

Blatant lie (denial, pivot).

Into the Night to English translation -

Into the Night - RQAA
English - I'm too stupid to actually make an argument.

 

[archives]

Trump won by 57%, anchovies.

Been there, done this, 49% of American voters voted for Trump, 49% is not a majority, not the “will of the people,” FACT

 

[Into the Night]

You don't know what you are talking about.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. I am only quoting from the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you know what the word temporary and preliminary mean? They are following the law. When someone is likely to prevail on the merits of the case then a TRO or PI are required.

No court has any authority over the President's authority of the executive branch. You are AGAIN ignoring Articles II and III.

Can the President withhold funding from an organization because he doesn't like what they are doing even if it is legal?

Yes. RQAA.

Do you know what the equal protection clause is?

Irrelevance fallacy.

Are you familiar with the fifth amendment?

Irrelevance fallacy.

Trump doesn't get to simply ignore the right that every person has for due process.

They have due process, twit.

Then are you familiar with what an appeals court is? They upheld Boasberg's temporary injuction.

No court has any authority over the President's authority over the executive branch. See Articles II and III.

From your link - The president is loudly running afoul of the law, and his complaints about nationwide injunctions are his scapegoat for his own actions.

Trump has broken no law.

The appeals court allowed them to be fired

It has no say in the matter.

while the case moves forward in court. One of the standards for injunctions is what damage will occur and whether it will be able to fixed. In the case of firing someone, if they win the case later, they can be reinstated. Because Trump fired most of the board there is no longer a quorum so the board can't act.

It has no say in the matter.

Clearly you haven't read any of the injunctions or TROs.

No federal district court has any authority to issue a TRO.

They do cite law or the Constitution.

They are violating the Constitution. DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE DOCUMENT YOU DESPISE!

Boasberg cites the exact words of the Alien Enemies Act which states That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government
This one is pretty obvious. The US has not declared war since only Congress can do that and a criminal gang is not a foreign nation or a foreign government. This one will be interesting to follow because the Trump administration refused to follow a court order and are now trying to argue that they can't reveal why because it is a state secret.

War is not required, Poorboy.

This is from Boasberg's TRO
an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set. As Plaintiffs have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief, the Court accordingly ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' 3 Motion for TRO is GRANTED; 2) Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court; and 3) The parties shall appear for a Zoom hearing on March 17, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/15/2025. (lcjeb1)

He has no such authority in the matter.

 

[moon]

You don't know what you are talking about.

No kidding ? ;

These are recent ' Into the Nightsoil's' statements ;

"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "
" There is no such thing as an unwritten Constitution "
" There were WMD in Iraq "
"There is no "weaponization of the dollar"
"Covid does not kill ."
"It is not possible to have a variant of a variant. "(Subvariants do not exist )
"Israel doesn't want to eradicate Palestine "
"The Arctic isn't melting "
"I don't need to seek attention"
"The age of the earth is unknown "
" Genocide Joe is a socialist "
" Trump has committed no crime. "


Dumbass or troll ?
Both.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Do you know what the word temporary and preliminary mean? They are following the law. When someone is likely to prevail on the merits of the case then a TRO or PI are required.

No, they are being issued on a whim. The judge simply sides with the plaintiff because he doesn't like the defendant.

Can the President withhold funding from an organization because he doesn't like what they are doing even if it is legal? Do you know what the equal protection clause is?

Yes. He can delay issue of funds or put additional restrictions on their use. If the funds go unused, at the end of the FY they are returned to the general fund. Just because an organization within the executive branch is funded to a certain level doesn't mean they have to spend all of that money.
Yes, normally, in the federal government any agency will spend to the penny everything they are given because if they don't funding might be reduced in future budgets and they don't want that. Doesn't mean they're spending wisely or efficiently, they just spend because the money's there.
Been there, seen that.

Are you familiar with the fifth amendment? Trump doesn't get to simply ignore the right that every person has for due process. Then are you familiar with what an appeals court is? They upheld Boasberg's temporary injuction.

That applies to criminal proceedings not civil or administrative ones. In the case of this El Salvadorian illegal, he got his due process and was adjudicated--found--to be in the US illegally and ordered deported on 17 October 2019 by the COURT system. Biden's administration put that on hold. Trump took the hold off and deported him. NO TRIAL, HEARING, OR PLEADING IN FRONT OF A JUDGE WAS NECESSARY! He had his day in court in 2019 and lost.

From your link - The president is loudly running afoul of the law, and his complaints about nationwide injunctions are his scapegoat for his own actions.

The appeals court allowed them to be fired while the case moves forward in court. One of the standards for injunctions is what damage will occur and whether it will be able to fixed. In the case of firing someone, if they win the case later, they can be reinstated. Because Trump fired most of the board there is no longer a quorum so the board can't act.

So?

Clearly you haven't read any of the injunctions or TROs. They do cite law or the Constitution. Boasberg cites the exact words of the Alien Enemies Act which states That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government
This one is pretty obvious. The US has not declared war since only Congress can do that and a criminal gang is not a foreign nation or a foreign government. This one will be interesting to follow because the Trump administration refused to follow a court order and are now trying to argue that they can't reveal why because it is a state secret.

This is from Boasberg's TRO
an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set. As Plaintiffs have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief, the Court accordingly ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' 3 Motion for TRO is GRANTED; 2) Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court; and 3) The parties shall appear for a Zoom hearing on March 17, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/15/2025. (lcjeb1)

Show me something in these TRO's or injunctions citing an actual law. Not some vague statement that it is unlawful or unconstitutional. There is nothing in the above doing that. As for invasion and threat against the territory of the US, I'd say tens of thousands of thugs, criminals, drug dealers, and the like who are foreign nationals, many of which are from nations hostile to the US, flooding into the US and causing tens of thousands of deaths a year while threatening members of the population is a threat and can be characterized as an invasion. You are trying to use the narrowest definition of that while mine is more expansive. I'd say Trump has ample justification to invoke that act against these gangs.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, they are being issued on a whim. The judge simply sides with the plaintiff because he doesn't like the defendant.

Can you show that in an actual court ruling or are you hoping bullshit will win the day?

Yes. He can delay issue of funds or put additional restrictions on their use. If the funds go unused, at the end of the FY they are returned to the general fund. Just because an organization within the executive branch is funded to a certain level doesn't mean they have to spend all of that money.
Yes, normally, in the federal government any agency will spend to the penny everything they are given because if they don't funding might be reduced in future budgets and they don't want that. Doesn't mean they're spending wisely or efficiently, they just spend because the money's there.
Been there, seen that.

It depends on how the funds have been allocated by Congress. Trump can't decide to simply not pay SS to anyone this year. He can't decide to close down the post office.

That applies to criminal proceedings not civil or administrative ones. In the case of this El Salvadorian illegal, he got his due process and was adjudicated--found--to be in the US illegally and ordered deported on 17 October 2019 by the COURT system. Biden's administration put that on hold. Trump took the hold off and deported him. NO TRIAL, HEARING, OR PLEADING IN FRONT OF A JUDGE WAS NECESSARY! He had his day in court in 2019 and lost.

Care to provide us with this court order from Oct 17 2019? I am curious if you are even aware who was President in 2019 and 2020.

So?

Show me something in these TRO's or injunctions citing an actual law. Not some vague statement that it is unlawful or unconstitutional. There is nothing in the above doing that. As for invasion and threat against the territory of the US, I'd say tens of thousands of thugs, criminals, drug dealers, and the like who are foreign nationals, many of which are from nations hostile to the US, flooding into the US and causing tens of thousands of deaths a year while threatening members of the population is a threat and can be characterized as an invasion. You are trying to use the narrowest definition of that while mine is more expansive. I'd say Trump has ample justification to invoke that act against these gangs.

The law is specific about it needing to be a foreign country or a foreign government. Your list doesn't meet the requirements of the law.
As to your ask that a law must show something is unconstitutional before a judge can declare it unconstitutional, that would be ridiculous since the Constitution trumps any and every law.