In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 1:22 PM

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

Members of the judiciary now view the SCOTUS as corrupt.

We all know the SCOTUS is compromised and needs to be flushed out. All of the reich-wing turds on the SCOTUS need to be flushed.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

www.nbcnews.com

Lutherf · Thursday at 1:25 PM

Right. It's important to blame others when your ****ed up decisions go down in flames.

mrjurrs · Thursday at 1:27 PM

Lutherf said:
Right. It's important to blame others when your ****ed up decisions go down in flames.

SCOTUS demands lower courts use their shadow docket rulings as precedent while SCOTUS ignores precedent?

You are wildly off base.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 1:30 PM

Lutherf said:
Right. It's important to blame others when your ****ed up decisions go down in flames.

This is a poor duck technique, Luther.

The Democrats are not in charge of that office.

Lutherf · Thursday at 1:36 PM

mrjurrs said:
SCOTUS demands lower courts use their shadow docket rulings as precedent while SCOTUS ignores precedent?

You are wildly off base.

Most of the cases these judges are talking about don't have a ton of precedent because until Trump, Judges were smart enough to know when a case has merit and when it doesn't or even when they have jurisdiction.

You've got all kinds of immigration groups and the ACLU working together to cobble up hairball interpretations of statute and then forum shop until they find a judge willing to play ball. The resultant ****ed up ruling goes to SCOTUS where there's an obligation to play by the rules and the lower courts get shot down. That isn't the fault of SCOTUS. It's the fault of activist organizations using activist judges to effect political change through the courts rather than through the ballot box.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 1:40 PM

Lutherf said:
Most of the cases these judges are talking about don't have a ton of precedent because until Trump, Judges were smart enough to know when a case has merit and when it doesn't or even when they have jurisdiction.

You've got all kinds of immigration groups and the ACLU working together to cobble up hairball interpretations of statute and then forum shop until they find a judge willing to play ball. The resultant ****ed up ruling goes to SCOTUS where there's an obligation to play by the rules and the lower courts get shot down. That isn't the fault of SCOTUS. It's the fault of activist organizations using activist judges to effect political change through the courts rather than through the ballot box.

More bullshit dodge tactics.

Stop making excuses for the corrupt and illegitimate SCOTUS.

Mycroft · Thursday at 1:43 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases
WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

Members of the judiciary now view the SCOTUS as corrupt.

We all know the SCOTUS is compromised and needs to be flushed out. All of the reich-wing turds on the SCOTUS need to be flushed.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

www.nbcnews.com

“It is inexcusable,” a judge said of the Supreme Court justices. “They don’t have our backs.”

Stop issuing stupid rulings and those anonymous judges might find the Supremes supporting them.

Just saying...

ModernDiogenes · Thursday at 1:47 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases
WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

Members of the judiciary now view the SCOTUS as corrupt.

We all know the SCOTUS is compromised and needs to be flushed out. All of the reich-wing turds on the SCOTUS need to be flushed.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

www.nbcnews.com

“Undermining”? It’s making a mockery of the federal court system. Making ruling OBVIOUSLY in direct contradiction to our Rule of Law and past precedent. It’s obviously partisan politics and such is supposed to have no business in our courts.

The courts are supposed to exist to be a specific check AGAINST partisan politics having negative impact on the Rule of Law.

mrjurrs · Thursday at 1:47 PM

Lutherf said:
Most of the cases these judges are talking about don't have a ton of precedent because until Trump, Judges were smart enough to know when a case has merit and when it doesn't or even when they have jurisdiction.

You've got all kinds of immigration groups and the ACLU working together to cobble up hairball interpretations of statute and then forum shop until they find a judge willing to play ball. The resultant ****ed up ruling goes to SCOTUS where there's an obligation to play by the rules and the lower courts get shot down. That isn't the fault of SCOTUS. It's the fault of activist organizations using activist judges to effect political change through the courts rather than through the ballot box.

So this is all from a fever dream right?

Integrityrespec · Thursday at 2:52 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases
WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

Members of the judiciary now view the SCOTUS as corrupt.

We all know the SCOTUS is compromised and needs to be flushed out. All of the reich-wing turds on the SCOTUS need to be flushed.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

www.nbcnews.com

Should I assume that most of these judges are democrats?

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 2:53 PM

Integrityrespec said:
Should I assume that most of these judges are democrats?

The article didn't say but you know what they say happens when you assume.

Lutherf · Thursday at 2:56 PM

Integrityrespec said:
Should I assume that most of these judges are democrats?

That's what the articles are saying. I read that at least one is a Trump appointee.

Roadvirus · Thursday at 2:57 PM

Mycroft said:
“It is inexcusable,” a judge said of the Supreme Court justices. “They don’t have our backs.”

Stop issuing stupid rulings and those anonymous judges might find the Supremes supporting them.

Just saying...

"Stupid rulings" = "Rulings that don't favor Trump"

Lutherf · Thursday at 3:15 PM

Roadvirus said:
"Stupid rulings" = "Rulings that don't favor Trump"

It's more like stupid rulings that try to impose criminal due process on administrative procedures or that impose an injunction under the APA when the case is actually in the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

What you've got is a shitload of activist lawyers that are trying to "flood the zone" with all kinds of hairball decisions that they KNOW will be tossed on appeal but, while in process, will impede the Executive. Those activist lawyers are being facilitated by activist judges and because of all this activism we now have a SCOTUS that's up to its eyeballs in litigation so they're making their opinions very brief out of necessity, not to **** over these crybaby judges that KNOW they're playing politics.

Plasmaball · Thursday at 3:58 PM

Lutherf said:
Right. It's important to blame others when your ****ed up decisions go down in flames.

Oh look Luther once again defending people being corrupt. Shocking

Plasmaball · Thursday at 3:59 PM

Lutherf said:
Most of the cases these judges are talking about don't have a ton of precedent because until Trump, Judges were smart enough to know when a case has merit and when it doesn't or even when they have jurisdiction.

You've got all kinds of immigration groups and the ACLU working together to cobble up hairball interpretations of statute and then forum shop until they find a judge willing to play ball. The resultant ****ed up ruling goes to SCOTUS where there's an obligation to play by the rules and the lower courts get shot down. That isn't the fault of SCOTUS. It's the fault of activist organizations using activist judges to effect political change through the courts rather than through the ballot box.

Now Luther is crying about forum shopping but we all know Luther didn't say a peep when the gop forum shops now and did under biden.

Bad faith arguments shouldnt be entertained people. They should be shamed.

Plasmaball · Thursday at 4:01 PM

Lutherf said:
It's more like stupid rulings that try to impose criminal due process on administrative procedures or that impose an injunction under the APA when the case is actually in the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

What you've got is a shitload of activist lawyers that are trying to "flood the zone" with all kinds of hairball decisions that they KNOW will be tossed on appeal but, while in process, will impede the Executive. Those activist lawyers are being facilitated by activist judges and because of all this activism we now have a SCOTUS that's up to its eyeballs in litigation so they're making their opinions very brief out of necessity, not to **** over these crybaby judges that KNOW they're playing politics.

Weak projection is just weak.
Luther is saying they are the enemy while stealing your money.

Bullseye · Thursday at 4:02 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases
WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.
o
Members of the judiciary now view the SCOTUS as corrupt.

We all know the SCOTUS is compromised and needs to be flushed out. All of the reich-wing turds on the SCOTUS need to be flushed.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

www.nbcnews.com

Appling the law rather than clinging to nonsensical LW garage is doing what they're appointed to do

Gaius46 · Thursday at 4:08 PM

Lutherf said:
Right. It's important to blame others when your ****ed up decisions go down in flames.

The main criticism is that SCOTUS is not explaining a lot of these decisions which leaves lower courts with little or no guidance.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 4:08 PM

Bullseye said:
Appling the law rather than clinging to nonsensical LW garage is doing what they're appointed to do

Wrong as usual.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 4:09 PM

Gaius46 said:
The main criticism is that SCOTUS is not explaining a lot of these decisions which leaves lower courts with little or no guidance.

They are not explaining it because they know they are wrong, and those decisions are designed to kiss Trump's orange ass.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 4:11 PM

Lutherf said:
It's more like stupid rulings that try to impose criminal due process on administrative procedures or that impose an injunction under the APA when the case is actually in the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

What you've got is a shitload of activist lawyers that are trying to "flood the zone" with all kinds of hairball decisions that they KNOW will be tossed on appeal but, while in process, will impede the Executive. Those activist lawyers are being facilitated by activist judges and because of all this activism we now have a SCOTUS that's up to its eyeballs in litigation so they're making their opinions very brief out of necessity, not to **** over these crybaby judges that KNOW they're playing politics.

More baseless bullshit.

Due process has always existed. The law requires a deportation hearing before it occurs.

Trump and his ball-juggling servants did not follow the law.

Stop defending lawlessness and corruption.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 4:11 PM

Lutherf said:
That's what the articles are saying. I read that at least one is a Trump appointee.

My bullshit detector is going off.

Plasmaball · Thursday at 5:30 PM

Bullseye said:
Appling the law rather than clinging to nonsensical LW garage is doing what they're appointed to do

So you didnt read it.. got it
Luther is already trying this. Mayhe something different?

Lutherf · Thursday at 5:36 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
My bullshit detector is going off.

It's probably stuck that way.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

SN/YN US NAVY