Bill preventing activist judges from blocking Trump's agenda backed by White House

F

FastLane

Verified User

Bill preventing activist judges from blocking Trump's agenda backed by White House​


President Donald Trump has shown interest in a House GOP bill that would block federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, two sources familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital.

Top White House aides communicated to senior Capitol Hill staff this week that "the president wants this," the sources said. They said the White House felt that time was of the essence in the matter and that Trump wanted Congress to move swiftly.

It comes after various U.S. district court judges issued more than a dozen nationwide orders at least temporarily blocking Trump's executive orders.

The bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., if it passed Congress and was signed into law, would bar such judges in most cases from blocking Trump policies on a national scale.

Issa's office did not directly confirm whether the exchange occurred but told Fox News Digital, "President Trump knows we need a national solution to this major malfunction in the federal judiciary, and we think we have the momentum to get this done."....

==========================================

Looks like a few activity Article III judges are about to get all of their wings clipped a little. It needs to be done because Article III judges don't really have jurisdiction over Article II responsibilities.

I heard Issa say the bill has "maximum momentum".
 
FastLane said:
They also didn't want 1700 unelected article III judges running the White House.
Click to expand...
Pay attention, stupid: Article 3 of the Constitution is a law/rule that is part of the checks & balances the Founding Fathers put in place as to avoid the very type of monarchial rule they fought against?

Oh, and in case you're just depending upon what Fox Noise tells you, here's something to catch up on: www.constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#article-3-section-2-clause-1
 
FastLane said:

Bill preventing activist judges from blocking Trump's agenda backed by White House​


President Donald Trump has shown interest in a House GOP bill that would block federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, two sources familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital.

Top White House aides communicated to senior Capitol Hill staff this week that "the president wants this," the sources said. They said the White House felt that time was of the essence in the matter and that Trump wanted Congress to move swiftly.

It comes after various U.S. district court judges issued more than a dozen nationwide orders at least temporarily blocking Trump's executive orders.

The bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., if it passed Congress and was signed into law, would bar such judges in most cases from blocking Trump policies on a national scale.

Issa's office did not directly confirm whether the exchange occurred but told Fox News Digital, "President Trump knows we need a national solution to this major malfunction in the federal judiciary, and we think we have the momentum to get this done."....

==========================================

Looks like a few activity Article III judges are about to get all of their wings clipped a little. It needs to be done because Article III judges don't really have jurisdiction over Article II responsibilities.

I heard Issa say the bill has "maximum momentum".
Click to expand...
Translation: Trump is above the law. The only judges that count are those that agree with him.

F3KTRMU.png
 
Taichiliberal said:
Pay attention, stupid: Article 3 of the Constitution is a law/rule that is part of the checks & balances the Founding Fathers put in place as to avoid the very type of monarchial rule they fought against?

Oh, and in case you're just depending upon what Fox Noise tells you, here's something to catch up on: www.constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#article-3-section-2-clause-1
Click to expand...
Article III judges were established by Congress and they are unelected and some liberal activist judge in Washington state should not be able to stymie the agenda that 80 million people voted for. If this bill passes the ability to place a temporary restraining order on the Chief Executive will be limited. As it currently is the ability to put a TRO on the Executive office for duties that are the responsibility of the President is debatable. Should Federal judges restrict the Presidents ability to direct the use of our military?
 
Last edited:
FastLane said:
Take it to the SCOTUS
Click to expand...
That could backfire on Trump. Roberts is already makes noises that Trump is going too far.

Roberts rebukes Trump in latest twist of White House battle with judiciary​

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a clear, if implicit, rebuke of President Trump on Tuesday, intensifying a clash between the White House and the judiciary.

The Trump administration, including the president himself, has repeatedly characterized judges as unfair and even undemocratic when the courts have paused or rebuffed sweeping changes proposed by Trump, Elon Musk and others in the administration.

The battle hit a new level Tuesday morning when Trump contended in an irate social media post that a judge who had sought to halt the deportation of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 should be impeached.

That was apparently a bridge too far for the chief justice, a conservative nominated to the high court by former President George W. Bush.

In an unusual statement, Roberts noted, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

He added, “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
 
FastLane said:
Artile III judges were established by Congress and they are unelected and some liberal activist judge in Washington state should not be able to stymie the agenda that 80 million people voted for. If this bill passes the ability to place a temporary restraining order on the Chief Executive will be limited.
Click to expand...
You keep repeating a stupid line that AVOIDS THE FACTS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION! That's the problem with you stupid ass MAGA trolls ... you follow the stupidity of your Cheeto Jeezus (who has NO working knowledge as to how the Constitution dictates his office) who wants to just sweep away parts of the Constitution he doesn't like in order to be an authoritarian.

The "bill" is just more deflection from the MAGA mooks in Congress to keep the people on focusing on the financial havoc this administration is waging against the honest working American who is NOT wealthy or a top bracket investor in on Wal St. (THAT'S YOU, STUPID!).

But here's the sheer stupidity of your stance: fools like you are okay with an unelected, unvetted CIVILIAN being given near carte blanche power to affect YOUR financial/social situation in America ... despite massive conflict of interest and hypocrisy and NOT supported by the Constitution ..... and you're okay with that. But a judge ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POWERS GRANTED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUION has your panties in a twist. You do know that LONG before you or I were born that there are APPOINTED BY THE POTUS judges within the federal judicial system, right? And before you bitch about Obama or Clinton "stacking the courts", note that a SCOTUS judge APPOINTED BY YOUR CHEETO JEEZUS publicly told him to knock it off.

Now, repeat the rhetoric as expected in some various form....it's all you've got.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
You keep repeating a stupid line that AVOIDS THE FACTS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION! That's the problem with you stupid ass MAGA trolls ... you follow the stupidity of your Cheeto Jeezus (who has NO working knowledge as to how the Constitution dictates his office) who wants to just sweep away parts of the Constitution he doesn't like in order to be an authoritarian.

The "bill" is just more deflection from the MAGA mooks in Congress to keep the people on focusing on the financial havoc this administration is waging against the honest working American who is NOT wealthy or a top bracket investor in on Wal St. (THAT'S YOU, STUPID!).

But here's the sheer stupidity of your stance: fools like you are okay with an unelected, unvetted CIVILIAN being given near carte blanche power to affect YOUR financial/social situation in America ... despite massive conflict of interest and hypocrisy and NOT supported by the Constitution ..... and you're okay with that. But a judge ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POWERS GRANTED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUION has your panties in a twist. You do know that LONG before you or I were born that there are APPOINTED BY THE POTUS judges within the federal judicial system, right? And before you bitch about Obama or Clinton "stacking the courts", note that a SCOTUS judge APPOINTED BY YOUR CHEETO JEEZUS publicly told him to knock it off.

Now, repeat the rhetoric as expected in some various form....it's all you've got.
Click to expand...
Your babbling does not change the fact that the above bill in Congress is about to clip the wings of activist judges. Checkmate.
 
BartenderElite said:
And just to add: a "rogue" judge is defined as a judge who will not allow every single thing Trump wants.
Click to expand...

MAGATs are too stupid to realize the implications of this. If the judiciary is no longer able to block presidential actions, it applies to a (D) POTUS as well. The next (D) president can restore DEI, affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, block anti-abortion laws in the states that have them, restore rights to LGBTQ ppl, actually institute the "open borders" that the idiotic MAGATs insist exist, grant citizenship to every single "illegal" in the nation, restore teachers' ability to discuss whatever in their classrooms, etc. etc. etc.

Yep, every single thing that the MAGATs abhor can be put in place by a (D) president. I doubt this will pass. But it's definitely categorized as "Be careful what you wish for."
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
MAGATs are too stupid to realize the implications of this. If the judiciary is no longer able to block presidential actions, it applies to a (D) POTUS as well. The next (D) president can restore DEI, affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, block anti-abortion laws in the states that have them, restore rights to LGBTQ ppl, actually institute the "open borders" that the idiotic MAGATs insist exist, grant citizenship to every single "illegal" in the nation, restore teachers' ability to discuss whatever in their classrooms, etc. etc. etc.

Yep, every single thing that the MAGATs abhor can be put in place by a (D) president. I doubt this will pass. But it's definitely categorized as "Be careful what you wish for."
Click to expand...
Liberal activist judges are about to decrease the power of ALL judges because the activist judges are abusing their power. Congress, which Republicans control, will be codifying a lot of Trump's E.O.s so no the next (D) President will not be able to restore DEI etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top