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

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Should I assume that most of these judges are democrats?

No, that would be stupid.

But you will.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

I agree, I think the SCOTUS is being very kind to these activist lower court Judges. IMO that should stop, and SCOTUS should be more severe in slapping this crap down in order to seriously hinder, if not completely prevent this activist nonsense lawfare.

Furthermore, if any particular Federal Judge appears to be heavily active in this kind of lawfare, then perhaps Congressional impeachment and removals may need to commence.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

This type of thread is always entertaining to me.

The reality of the situation is that the Judges who hate what Trump is doing the most are the "Conservative" Judges - the ones who place the most value on "law and order," tradition, norms and precedent.

Scalia, for example, would hate Trump, and everything he stands for. He'd have ruled against Trump in every case that's reached SCOTUS so far.

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kacsmaryk, Oldham, etc. - they aren't "Conservatives." They're right-wingers.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I agree, I think the SCOTUS is being very kind to these activist lower court Judges. IMO that should stop, and SCOTUS should be more severe in slapping this crap down in order to seriously hinder, if not completely prevent this activist nonsense lawfare.

Furthermore, if any particular Federal Judge appears to be heavily active in this kind of lawfare, then perhaps Congressional impeachment and removals may need to commence.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

It's probably stuck that way.

That would be because of all the lies the right-wing tells.

 

[Rogue Valley]

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

Let's cut to the chase. The conservative (and corrupt) Roberts Supreme Court holds Unitary Executive Theory close to their beating/bleating hearts.

Whenever an opportunity presents itself, they will rule in a manner that expands Executive power. Even if that entails tossing precedent into the circular filing cabinet.

 

[dockside]

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.

Most of the cases these judges are talking about don't have a ton of precedent because until Trump, presidents didn't break the law on a daily basis, threaten illegal actions, stomp on the Constitution, were corrupt, and act like mafia bosses.

FIFY

 

[Bullseye]

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

Oh, I read it. And my review stands.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Just remember, if Trump doesn't take us totally into fascism there will be a democratic Court in the future.

This is just another one of those times when Republicans can't look more than two months into the future.

 

[poppopfox]

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.

No!

 

[Lutherf]

Most of the cases these judges are talking about don't have a ton of precedent because until Trump, presidents didn't break the law on a daily basis, threaten illegal actions, stomp on the Constitution, were corrupt, and act like mafia bosses.

FIFY

Wow!

Beginning in 2015 there was the most visceral reaction against Trump I have ever witnessed. Based on little more than pure speculation the fear of Trump turned into accusations and the accusations, generally baseless, into prosecutions. The "Russia, if you're listening" thing was the first sign of the insanity and then the dossier crap and the Mueller "investigation" all of which was not only complete bullshit but KNOWN to be bullshit by the people pushing it. There was the "Muslim ban", more bullshit. There was the absurd theater of the "J6 Committee" and then the lawfare prosecutions. The political left lost their ****ing minds when it came to Trump and jumped fully clothed into a pool of conspiracy from which NONE OF THEM have chosen to remove themselves. It's been all insanity all day for a ****ing decade with you people.

 

[Jetboogieman]

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.

I agree, I think the SCOTUS is being very kind to these activist lower court Judges. IMO that should stop, and SCOTUS should be more severe in slapping this crap down in order to seriously hinder, if not completely prevent this activist nonsense lawfare.

Furthermore, if any particular Federal Judge appears to be heavily active in this kind of lawfare, then perhaps Congressional impeachment and removals may need to commence.

This is such a load of shit.

You are like all the other hypocrites who likes the decisions that support the retard you support and hate all the decisions that don't.

You want Trump to basically be free to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, free of any oversight whatsoever.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh, I read it. And my review stands.

So ignorance..the usual

 

[Gaius46]

This type of thread is always entertaining to me.

The reality of the situation is that the Judges who hate what Trump is doing the most are the "Conservative" Judges - the ones who place the most value on "law and order," tradition, norms and precedent.

Scalia, for example, would hate Trump, and everything he stands for. He'd have ruled against Trump in every case that's reached SCOTUS so far.

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kacsmaryk, Oldham, etc. - they aren't "Conservatives." They're right-wingers.

I'm just finishing up a book of Scalia's opinions and other writings (The Essential Scalia) and I can't tell you how many times I've read something - it seems literally every other page - saw some parallel to what's going on today and thought "old Antonin must be rolling in his grave."

(side note - agree with him or not but the man was a fantastic writer)

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I'm just finishing up a book of Scalia's opinions and other writings (The Essential Scalia) and I can't tell you how many times I've read something - it seems literally every other page - saw some parallel to what's going on today and thought "old Antonin must be rolling in his grave."

(side note - agree with him or not but the man was a fantastic writer)

Fundamentally, I "disagree" with Scalia on almost everything - philosophically, legally, and so on.

But there is no denying that he is one of the better legal writers of his generation. Him and Posner.

 

[Ishm]

Want to know how broken SCOTUS is? Read AC Barrett's new book where she describes one of her controversial votes as "supporting the will of the people". WTF????

So Barrett obviously thinks she is now a law maker, even though she has no direct connection to the people, and her role is very clearly limited to interpreting the constitution and the laws passed by our real lawmakers. Not create new laws by twisting constitutional interpretations, or creating interpretations that are complete nonsense. The real law makers are the ones that actually live among the people they represent and actually know their views. I.e. our representatives in congress.

Read ACB blatantly saying out loud that she is creating law to reflect what she thinks is the will of the people is a sign of how corrupt SCOTUS has become.