https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1889232914971295847
Democracy in America is being destroyed by judicial coup.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 11, 2025
An activist judge is not a real judge. https://t.co/zRb398NyA0
Nowhere in our Constitution is a single federal judge given absolute power over the President or the people of the United States.
— Rep. Darrell Issa (@repdarrellissa) February 11, 2025
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The reason liberals in America have been so successful the past 40 years in politics is that they have been able to sue federal court in favorable districts and win. People are mad because the government is obviously spending money on liberal causes to make the democrats rich and Trump is shutting that down. Since the US is common law if there is stuff that happened in the past the law can get sorta iffy in the present, which is why the President can ignore the Judges.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nothing I've said is incorrect r-slur. USAID was good when it was targeting foreign countries but it's obviously outlived its usefulness.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's not the way it works. District courts issue temporary injunctions that last until full hearings occurs. In relatively rare cases those end up being permanent they get appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS refusing an application is an explicit denial the district court erred.
The only district that has significant divergence from other districts is the 5th. They have the highest rate of reversal of any district court by a very large margin, its also where the GOP bring all their cases.
Yeah, no. If you spent as much time actually looking at the data and statute as you do jerking it to moids like Elmo on Twitter you wouldn't be as terminally r-slurred as a typical redditor.
ZOMG federal government has subscriptions to newspapers, clearly paying off the Clinton hooker and coke fund.
No r-slur, that's civil law. Common law is when courts consider prior rulings in current cases.
POTUS cannot ignore judges without violating the constitution. The literal function of the judicial branch is to act as a check on executive and congressional reach.
Congress directs spending, agency function and sometimes process. Some authority is delegated to the executive by congress but it's not unlimited.
Take Vance's peepee out of your mouth and stop regurgitating shit you read on Twitter.
You existing reduces our collective IQ. Rope yourself to better mankind.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Civil law is a branch of common law. All common law means is that judges can interpret the law as the see fit, which leads to r-slurred rulings.
I have looked at the data and most of the stuff is obviously r-slurred and is money laundering to charities that don't do much anything and waste money. Sometimes they cause a coup but most of the time they just enrich trust fun babies.
The president enforces the law and so can not enforce it. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln both did it. The only recourse judges have is if Congress impeaches the president for ignoring the law.
Stop being wing cucked and pay attention to more than a single news cycle. The republicans are just as guilty dipping into the grift via the military.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You are confusing the civil court system in the common law system with the civil law system. Common law is bound to prescient, civil law is not. Most of the world uses the civil law system where courts are not bound to prior court rulings, judges also make findings of fact not just law in that system.
No the constitution literally says "faithfully execute the laws" which is POTUS executes the laws congress passes. Agencies like USAid are directly authorized by congress, POTUS has no authority to close USAid. Here is CRS discussing it https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500 most of the EOs being challenged directly violate laws congress have passed, they are not faithful execution of the laws.
Similarly congress have set specific requirements, 44 USC §3541 contains most of them, for federal agencies to give access to sensitive data. This requires things like background checks and security training. POTUS cannot simply choose to give someone access to these data systems as congress haven't provided them authority to bypass those controls.
Could you point out specific parts of USC you believe Trump is attempting to faithfully execute with these EOs?
Courts can't do anything to the president. Courts can hold members of his administration in contempt, non-cabinet positions can include jail for contempt.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Only strags correct a misspelling of precedent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well, if you're going to be that way about it, as a matter of fact
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Thanks bud neck yourself.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
!metashit fedposter being a complete r-slur not knowing anything but still being smug alert
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ill have my wife's boyfriend fight you if you don't stop your transphobic attacks on me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
That's BAU for
@fedposter.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
No, this is completely wrong. SCOTUS refusing an application means nothing. They deny most applications, due to wanting the full process to play out ahead of time, Heller, Roe V Wade, and several other major SCOTUS cases were initially denied until the last step.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's denying emergency relief not an application for certiorari.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, even then the Supreme Court wants the process to play out in emergency relief. They will only intervene that early if there is a chance of some harm to one party if they don't overturn and rule ASAP. Even in emergency injection cases the Supreme Court issuing a denial means nothing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context