How to Check an Imperious Judiciary

Ekklesian

Ekklesian

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
1,029
Points
113
Location
Western Hemisphere
www.americanthinker.com

The Imperial Judiciary Of The United States

www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

Using injunctions, a radical leftist cabal is attempting to thwart President Trump from doing the job he was elected to do, which is to enforce and execute the laws of the United States. He should not allow them to do so. Unfortunately, impeachment is not the answer because there is zero chance of getting a conviction, with half the Senate applauding the judge’s actions.​
​
The first thing Trump should do is ignore the order. This will force SCOTUS and/or Congress to act.​
​
The second thing he should do is strongly encourage Congress to act, regardless of what SCOTUS does. (Or doesn’t do given the Manchurians Roberts and ACB.) Congress has the ultimate constitutional power to define the courts’ jurisdiction, whether granting or restricting it. They should eliminate or restrict federal judges’ ability to issue injunctions in general or, at a minimum, prohibit nationwide injunctions.​
 
What do you want to do, eliminate the judicial branch and just have legislative and executive branches? Or just get rid of those pesky lawmakers and judges and create an absolute monarchy? Do tell….
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
What do you want to do, eliminate the judicial branch and just have legislative and executive branches? Or just get rid of those pesky lawmakers and judges and create an absolute monarchy? Do tell….
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:

Just checking the seditious actions of your favored branch. Don't be such a Huckleberry.
 
You mean original like the random pics you post?

LOL. By 'original' here you must mean illegal or unconstitutional.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
What do you want to do, eliminate the judicial branch and just have legislative and executive branches? Or just get rid of those pesky lawmakers and judges and create an absolute monarchy? Do tell….
Click to expand...
the lower federal courts...( also known as federal district courts)... occupied by a solitary judge - and who act alone...... were never intended to have the authority to overrule a president.... that authority rests only with the supreme court which is occupied by 9 judges and who vote on the rulings they make.....( read what thomas jefferson among others said about it...) . ...it should take more than just a single politically appointed judge to over rule a duly elected president... and even then some presidential decisions should not be subject to judicial review..... depending on the matter the president is acting on.....

but what these corrupt leftist lower court judges are doing is a severe over reach of authority and abuse of power. . .... in fact it is an abuse of a power they do not lawfully have and has only been allowed in the past 2 decades because others in the government who sit under them - and act as enforcers of their edicts - either don;t know any better.... or simply don;t care what the consititution says about it..... .. but trump and others who do care and do know better will take it to the court it belongs with and await a proper judgement.....

and then after the supreme court eventually rules on this matter.... the lower court judges abusing their authority ...like this last one is doing and 62 judges before him have done - should be impeached and replaced...... they are the ones who have been acting like kings.... attempting to rule over everything from the federal budget... the federal staff under the executive branch.... and also matters of foreign policy and national security ...and without ever having received a single vote from the american people....... that is the definition of a wanna be king.... not an elected president who signs executive orders because an obstructionist congress won;t act......
 
Last edited:
I’m just asking what would be the recommendation. The SC annually receives roughly 8,000 petitions for review, and only grants oral arguments for about 80. The SC is the only court required by the Constitution.

What I think is the real complaint here is stemming from long before a couple decades ago, and actually goes back to Marbury v. Madison.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I’m asking how YOU would fix it. Not the author.
Click to expand...
LOL. Now, a feller as smart as you should have guessed that I agree with the author. ;)

Smart like that!
(People are)​
Smart like that!
(Bless my stars!)​
Folks 'round here are so danged bright
I don't see how they can sleep at night!
They can spot a lie--
Identify
A fake in nuthin' flat!
What I wouldn't give to be smart like that!
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I’m just asking what would be the recommendation. The SC annually receives roughly 8,000 petitions for review, and only grants oral arguments for about 80. The SC is the only court required by the Constitution.

What I think is the real complaint here is stemming from long before a couple decades ago, and actually goes back to Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...
i believe the circumstances of these current cases involving lower court judges and the risk to national security a few of them pose demand the question of how much authority any particular judge at any given level of the court shoud have be expedited to the supreme court.... immediately..... ... no waiting around on it while a lower court pontiff with a swollen head and a god complex tries to treat the president of the united states and his cabinet members like a gang of truant school children..... there is much more at stake here for the whole country than was posed by marbury vs madison.... .....this has to be brought under control and quickly... ....
 
Last edited:
Ekklesian said:
LOL. Now, a feller as smart as you should have guessed that I agree with the author. ;)

Smart like that!
(People are)​
Smart like that!
(Bless my stars!)​
Folks 'round here are so danged bright
I don't see how they can sleep at night!
They can spot a lie--
Identify
A fake in nuthin' flat!
What I wouldn't give to be smart like that!
Click to expand...
Poor guy…OK, stick with your day job (copy & pasting). 🤔
 
aleshanee said:
i believe the circumstances of these current cases involving lower court judges and the risk to national security a few of them pose demand the question of how much authority any partical judge at any given level of the court shoud have be expedited to the supreme court.... immediately..... ... no waiting around on it while a lower court pontiff with a swollen head and a god complex tries to treat the president of the united states and his cabinet members like a gang of truant school children..... there is much at stake here for the whole country than was posed by marbury vs madison.... .....this has to be brought under control and quickly... ....
Click to expand...
When I was asking about a solution, I was trying to bear in mind the overwhelming amount of cases that exist in this country, both federally and locally—which is why I mentioned the fact that only the SC is constitutionally required, but they only entertain a tiny fraction of cases. I’m putting politics aside for the moment and just focusing on the reality of the current system and how, in theory, it could be tweaked. And there are changes that might definitely happen in the future, because again, only the SC is legally required. Big picture, it looks like this now (Ekk might be very familiar with this example): 1742895403901.jpeg
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
When I was asking about a solution, I was trying to bear in mind the overwhelming amount of cases that exist in this country, both federally and locally—which is why I mentioned the fact that only the SC is constitutionally required, but they only entertain a tiny fraction of cases. I’m putting politics aside for the moment and just focusing on the reality of the current system and how, in theory, it could be tweaked. And there are changes that might definitely happen in the future, because again, only the SC is legally required. Big picture, it looks like this now (Ekk might be very familiar with this example): View attachment 6749
Click to expand...
First, the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with the judiciaries in the sovereign states. Second, you're suggesting a restructuring of the lower federal courts, requiring an act of congress, which is exactly what is suggested in the article.

How original. 😜
 
It appears that Congress, under the Exceptions Clause, Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, has the authority to remove immigration cases from review by the appellate courts.

"Congress also possesses significant power to prevent Supreme Court appellate review by limiting the federal courts’ jurisdiction over certain classes of cases, or even specific cases, a practice sometimes called jurisdiction stripping. . . . The [Supreme] Court has upheld legislation that deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction over certain matters, including legislation that removed jurisdiction over a specific pending case."


This authority has already been used by Congress to limit the jurisdiction of appellate courts in immigration matters:

"(1) Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated[; and] (2) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law."

— 8 U.S. Code § 1252, subsection (f), paragraphs (1) and (2) thereof.
 
illinoisguy said:
It appears that Congress, under the Exceptions Clause, Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, has the authority to remove immigration cases from review by the appellate courts.

"Congress also possesses significant power to prevent Supreme Court appellate review by limiting the federal courts’ jurisdiction over certain classes of cases, or even specific cases, a practice sometimes called jurisdiction stripping. . . . The [Supreme] Court has upheld legislation that deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction over certain matters, including legislation that removed jurisdiction over a specific pending case."


This authority has already been used by Congress to limit the jurisdiction of appellate courts in immigration matters:

"(1) Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated[; and] (2) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law."

— 8 U.S. Code § 1252, subsection (f), paragraphs (1) and (2) thereof.
Click to expand...
Citing the law? Couldn't you be more original?

:ROFLMAO:
 
The Prez just invoked the Constitution and told the rogue judge to pound sand...as suggested in the article in the OP.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

BREAKING: Trump DOJ Invokes State Secrets Privilege, Tells Judge Boasberg it will Provide Him No More Info on Deportation Flights | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The Trump administration's invocation of state secrets privilege raises significant legal and ethical questions in the ongoing Alien Enemies Act case. This crucial development could reshape the discourse on national security and transparency.
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com

“The Executive Branch hereby notifies the Court that no further information will be provided in response to the Court’s March 18, 2025 Minute Order based on the state secrets privilege and the concurrently filed declarations of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security,” the DOJ wrote.​
​
US Attorney General Pam Bondi told the judge that President Trump has plenary authority under Article II to remove from the homeland designated terrorists.​
​
“This is a case about the President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II and the mandate of the electorate, and reinforced by longstanding statute, to remove from the homeland designated terrorists participating in a state-sponsored invasion of, and predatory incursion into, the United States. The Court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it. Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address,” the DOJ said.​
 
Ekklesian said:
First, the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with the judiciaries in the sovereign states. Second, you're suggesting a restructuring of the lower federal courts, requiring an act of congress, which is exactly what is suggested in the article.

How original. 😜
Click to expand...
Let me help you out….Are state courts actually required?
 
BTW, this approach can go another, much more antithetical direction as well from how I’m setting it up, which would be a more confederal approach. We can discuss both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top