• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Hands Gavin Newsom Control of National Guard in Blow to Trump

No, that isnt why.

"The primary purpose of a stay is to preserve the status quo between the parties. This keeps the issue of contention ripe for the courts so they can adjudicate it. In other words, the stay helps ensure that any decision rendered by the appellate court will actually make a difference.

Another basis for a stay is demonstrating irreparable harm in its absence. The appellant must show he or she will lose the benefits of appeal if a stay isn’t first ordered. Take, for instance, a land use issue that invokes claims of environmental damage. The plaintiff sues to stop the development of the land by arguing it will hurt the environment. If the plaintiff loses at trial, the defendant will presumably develop the land immediately. Without a stay, the plaintiff might argue, the environment would be irreparably harmed negating the benefit of an appellate win."
So, courts will issue a stay on appeal to cases they assess having no chance of success? Nonsense.
 
What is unique about this situation is the unprecedented attempt by Democrats to use the District courts as a universal veto over every action of the Trump administration.
Weird nonsense.

What is different is that this preside t is breaking with nor.s pu hing the li.its of constitutionality.......so he keeps getting checked.
 
Why should you even try to summon up an argument when you can just offer up a straw man. Attributing the Democrat nonsensical talking point that opposition to the anti Constitutional perversion of the judiciary into a super legislature is support for a lawless President is just incendiary claptrap. Congress has the power to restrain or even remove the President by design.
Lots of bluster, but not much else. Your position is based on the idea the president should not be obstructed in any way regardless of whether there is a legitimate reason to challenge his actions legally, so your premise already starts off on an awkward foot. Rather than picking a position, you just offer a generalized statement and assume

Of course Democrats not only lost in the 2024 elections their policies aren't supportable in the public forum so they are reduced to naysayers screaming Constitution.

The weird world is one where Democrats pervert the role of the judiciary into a gang of some 650 Lilliputians each with the power to dictate their whim on to the President at the behest of Democrat hired lawyers.

Still no intelligent answer as to why besides a partisan political power grab Democrats should be allowed to usurp the election.
The Democrats have no power grab because they have no leverage in Congress. The challenges to some of Trump's executive orders have been due to their shaky legal standing, but the MAGAverse seems to be convinced 49% of the vote means there's a nationwide mandate and "the will of the people" should just be executed by the executive whether it's legal or it isn't. Sorry, that's not how it works.
 
So, courts will issue a stay on appeal to cases they assess having no chance of success? Nonsense.
They issue stays for the reasons i quoted.

They dont pre determine what the outcome of the appeal will be.
 
Lots of bluster, but not much else. Your position is based on the idea the president should not be obstructed in any way regardless of whether there is a legitimate reason to challenge his actions legally, so your premise already starts off on an awkward foot. Rather than picking a position, you just offer a generalized statement and assume
The strawman claim I advocate a lawless Presidency is nothing but crude demagoguery. I have stated unambiguously multiple times my position is that Congress, as empowered by the Constitution is the forum for Democrats to ply their naysaying.

There is no justifing the massive litigation campaign the Democrats are currently engaged in. The mere acknowledgement of the grotesque number of lawsuits compared to all other Presidencies confirms the power grab. Which is why you have to fashion strawman claims.
The Democrats have no power grab because they have no leverage in Congress.
Voila. Thanks for the confirmation of why Democrats have eschewed the Constitutional process. They might have to compromise to get things done but the Orange Man Bad lynch mob only accepts absolute opposition to Trump so let's file lawsuits instead of attempting to govern.
The challenges to some of Trump's executive orders have been due to their shaky legal standing, but the MAGAverse seems to be convinced 49% of the vote means there's a nationwide mandate and "the will of the people" should just be executed by the executive whether it's legal or it isn't. Sorry, that's not how it works.
At nearly 350 lawsuits and counting there is no disguising the Democrat strategy to abuse the judiciary to block every action of the Trump administration. Sorry, perverting the judiciary into a super legislature of partisan naysayers is not how it works.
 
At nearly 350 lawsuits and counting there is no disguising the Democrat strategy to abuse the judiciary to block every action of the Trump administration. Sorry, perverting the judiciary into a super legislature of partisan naysayers is not how it works.
No, the judiciary stopping Trump's rampant illegal orders is exactly why we gave them this authority in the first place.

This is America. We don't have kings here. Trump is not above the law, no matter how hard you want him to be.
 
The strawman claim I advocate a lawless Presidency is nothing but crude demagoguery. I have stated unambiguously multiple times my position is that Congress, as empowered by the Constitution is the forum for Democrats to ply their naysaying.
That is one of the venues, but the courts are if what a president does via executive order is legally problematic, and the judiciary is where that gets sorted out much in the way the GOP did with some of Biden's EOs.

There is no justifing the massive litigation campaign the Democrats are currently engaged in. The mere acknowledgement of the grotesque number of lawsuits compared to all other Presidencies confirms the power grab. Which is why you have to fashion strawman claims.
Well, that's debatable given the massive executive order campaign this president led with, which was by design. To date, he's signed 163 EOs which is one more than Biden signed in his first term. The flaw in your argument is you're dodging the merit of the challenges themselves and instead are just complaining they've been filed. An EO bypasses Congress, and that's been the point of using them, which regardless of party, is a bad thing because it lets Congress off the hook from doing their job and leaves it to the Executive and Judicial branches to hash things out.

Voila. Thanks for the confirmation of why Democrats have eschewed the Constitutional process. They might have to compromise to get things done but the Orange Man Bad lynch mob only accepts absolute opposition to Trump so let's file lawsuits instead of attempting to govern.
This is silly, and I hope deep down you know that. It's a bit comical that my statement of fact is some admission of anything other than they have no leverage.

At nearly 350 lawsuits and counting there is no disguising the Democrat strategy to abuse the judiciary to block every action of the Trump administration. Sorry, perverting the judiciary into a super legislature of partisan naysayers is not how it works.
Trump decided to go down this road when he opted to push the limits of government.
 
They issue stays for the reasons i quoted.
Right, appeals judges render decisions on stays without assessment of the underlying case. It's a perfect encapsulation of the Democrat campaign of obstruction by lawsuit. Filing the suit no matter the merits or lack thereof is the victory.

They dont pre determine what the outcome of the appeal will be.
Kindly quote where I claimed appeals courts predetermined the outcome of the underlying case when deciding on a motion to stay on appeal. Doesn't exist.
 
They don't seem to understand that the national guard is national in the answer to the Commander in Chief for those courts seeking deploy it that's his job.
NG belongs to each state…only in national emergencies and under the specific rules do they belong to the president.
 
That is one of the venues, but the courts are if what a president does via executive order is legally problematic, and the judiciary is where that gets sorted out much in the way the GOP did with some of Biden's EOs.


Well, that's debatable given the massive executive order campaign this president led with, which was by design. To date, he's signed 163 EOs which is one more than Biden signed in his first term. The flaw in your argument is you're dodging the merit of the challenges themselves and instead are just complaining they've been filed. An EO bypasses Congress, and that's been the point of using them, which regardless of party, is a bad thing because it lets Congress off the hook from doing their job and leaves it to the Executive and Judicial branches to hash things out.
Simple arithmetic, 163 XO versus some 350 Democrat lawsuits. They are not filing lawsuits just to challenge XO. Grant held for review, sue. Information made available for DOGE audits, file a suit. See for yourself.


It's a hyperpartisan campaign of abusing the courts for Democrat obstructionism.
This is silly, and I hope deep down you know that. It's a bit comical that my statement of fact is some admission of anything other than they have no leverage.
Congress hasn't lost one iota of leverage. Their control over the budget, ability to pass legislation even over Presidential veto, and impeachment are intact. It's more than a little bit comical to deny it. Oh wait, DEMOCRATS have very little leverage in Congress. Is that supposed to justify the tantrum of filing lawsuits?
Trump decided to go down this road when he opted to push the limits of government.
Every President at least from FDR on has pushed the limits of their power. A cursory review of history will verify this. The difference is that the opposition didn't throw a barrage of lawsuits against the proverbial wall trying to rewrite the election.
 
Simple arithmetic, 163 XO versus some 350 Democrat lawsuits. They are not filing lawsuits just to challenge XO. Grant held for review, sue. Information made available for DOGE audits, file a suit. See for yourself.


It's a hyperpartisan campaign of abusing the courts for Democrat obstructionism.

Congress hasn't lost one iota of leverage. Their control over the budget, ability to pass legislation even over Presidential veto, and impeachment are intact. It's more than a little bit comical to deny it. Oh wait, DEMOCRATS have very little leverage in Congress. Is that supposed to justify the tantrum of filing lawsuits?

Every President at least from FDR on has pushed the limits of their power. A cursory review of history will verify this. The difference is that the opposition didn't throw a barrage of lawsuits against the proverbial wall trying to rewrite the election.

Or...

..... ..... We have had President's of honor before and none have tried to issue so many EO's that violate the law as the current convicted felon in the Oval Office.

Just spit ball'n here.

WW
 
Simple arithmetic, 163 XO versus some 350 Democrat lawsuits. They are not filing lawsuits just to challenge XO. Grant held for review, sue. Information made available for DOGE audits, file a suit. See for yourself.


It's a hyperpartisan campaign of abusing the courts for Democrat obstructionism.
Donnie Boy's been busy, and since he's decided to launch all sorts of attacks against groups and existing precedents, this shouldn't be surprising at all. The real issue here seems to be against the legal pushback, which is the recourse afforded to everyone.

Congress hasn't lost one iota of leverage. Their control over the budget, ability to pass legislation even over Presidential veto, and impeachment are intact. It's more than a little bit comical to deny it. Oh wait, DEMOCRATS have very little leverage in Congress. Is that supposed to justify the tantrum of filing lawsuits?
I don't think you understood what I wrote, since I was referring to Democrats, who in Congress have no real leverage. What Congress has done under the GOP is give up its leverage and basically serve as a foil to the Executive. Be it tariffs or just about anything else, Speaker Johnson leaves an open gate because like you, he seems to think an election win means the winner gets everything they want. Of course the interesting thing is it's not worked out that way even among the GOP with the Big Budget Bomb.

Every President at least from FDR on has pushed the limits of their power. A cursory review of history will verify this. The difference is that the opposition didn't throw a barrage of lawsuits against the proverbial wall trying to rewrite the election.
Sure, and they all have had their pushback, including FDR who is until now, the one to have pushed this the most. FDR's expansion of power was also opposed, where you had the Supreme Court strike down some of the New Deal programs. Lest we forget that conservative Democrats and Republicans united to challenge the New Deal as well.
 
Or...

..... ..... We have had President's of honor before and none have tried to issue so many EO's that violate the law as the current convicted felon in the Oval Office.

Just spit ball'n here.

WW
Just vapid rhetoric apologizing for Democrat abuse of the judiciary.
 
Just vapid rhetoric apologizing for Democrat abuse of the judiciary.
Shumate also argued before Breyer that the president’s decisions are not subject to judicial review.

Trump abusing his power to violate the Constitution.


If Democrats are abusing the system, then why are they winning over 90% of the cases?

You can watch the hearing live at 12 PT

 
Simple arithmetic, 163 XO versus some 350 Democrat lawsuits. They are not filing lawsuits just to challenge XO. Grant held for review, sue. Information made available for DOGE audits, file a suit. See for yourself.


It's a hyperpartisan campaign of abusing the courts for Democrat obstructionism.

Congress hasn't lost one iota of leverage. Their control over the budget, ability to pass legislation even over Presidential veto, and impeachment are intact. It's more than a little bit comical to deny it. Oh wait, DEMOCRATS have very little leverage in Congress. Is that supposed to justify the tantrum of filing lawsuits?

Every President at least from FDR on has pushed the limits of their power. A cursory review of history will verify this. The difference is that the opposition didn't throw a barrage of lawsuits against the proverbial wall trying to rewrite the election.

It is always a mistake to use a single point for a conclusion. As an example. Let's say you hear that 80% of airplane crash survivors memorized where the emergency exits were. You make a point of memorizing the location of the emergency exits to increase your odds. Only there is context missing. We don't know what the dead people were doing. We don't know if they also took note of where the exits were. We don't know if they read the emergency information card. All we know is they are dead.

In your case, your single point is that there are a lot of lawsuits and you use that to declare that there is a massive conspiracy to thwart the President. That does not look at those lawsuits, or the merit behind them. Such as each individual who was fired in violation of the law. You remember those when you all said that the President can fire anyone he wants because. Um. This is what he was elected to do? Or my personal favorite the law was totally unconstitutional because the President can do whatever he wants.

Now I really wish you guys would make up your minds on this issue. In one argument you scream that no Judge should be allowed to issue an order that has effect nationwide. In the next you get upset that multiple judges are hearing multiple cases instead of just one. Why not tell the truth. You guys are really mad at anyone who stands by the Constitution instead of Trump.
 
Donnie Boy's been busy, and since he's decided to launch all sorts of attacks against groups and existing precedents, this shouldn't be surprising at all. The real issue here seems to be against the legal pushback, which is the recourse afforded to everyone.
Attacks on groups and precedents is what the Democrats law suit blitz is all about.
I don't think you understood what I wrote, since I was referring to Democrats, who in Congress have no real leverage. What Congress has done under the GOP is give up its leverage and basically serve as a foil to the Executive. Be it tariffs or just about anything else, Speaker Johnson leaves an open gate because like you, he seems to think an election win means the winner gets everything they want. Of course the interesting thing is it's not worked out that way even among the GOP with the Big Budget Bomb.
Democrats put themselves into a position of no leverage in Congress by assuming the extremist Orange Man Bad posture of no compromise extremism. It's a party being led by litigation happy radicals.
Sure, and they all have had their pushback, including FDR who is until now, the one to have pushed this the most. FDR's expansion of power was also opposed, where you had the Supreme Court strike down some of the New Deal programs. Lest we forget that conservative Democrats and Republicans united to challenge the New Deal as well.
New Deal court challenges were to specific abuses unlike the current lawsuit barrage attaching every Trump administration action.
 
It doesn't say what is this it that you say doesn't say is there some sort of governmental body that outranks the president?
He doesn't say that he can decide instead of the governor...he isn't authorized to determine capacity of the governor....there are strict requirements, clearly you don't know what they are.
 
Who?



Yes when the governor is being derelict in the execution of his duties the citizens still have rights.
He isn't being derelict and the president doesn't get to determine what a governor can and cannot do....he has ZERO authority over an elected governor of a state.
 
He isn't being derelict
He has a record of it. Is it being derelict now because the federal government is threatening to make him look bad.

He was brought to heel.
and the president doesn't get to determine what a governor can and cannot do..
It's not that he gets to it's his duty. Newsome was content to let people be deprived of life liberty and property that was already things guaranteed by our federal government.
..he has ZERO authority over an elected governor of a state.
Prior to the civil war you have a point but after that he absolutely does.
 
He has a record of it. Is it being derelict now because the federal government is threatening to make him look bad.

He was brought to heel.

It's not that he gets to it's his duty. Newsome was content to let people be deprived of life liberty and property that was already things guaranteed by our federal government.

Prior to the civil war you have a point but after that he absolutely does.
Nope, he has a record of exactly the opposite...they are the 5th largest economy in the world...they give the feds $80 billion more than they receive.
No one is being deprived of anything...
 
Nope, he has a record of exactly the opposite...they are the 5th largest economy in the world...they give the feds $80 billion more than they receive.
No one is being deprived of anything...
If writers burn down your house and your car and kill you then yes you are being deprived of that and we can see for ourselves LAPD is perfectly capable of stopping this so they haven't for all this done because the government wants to burn them out?
 
Back
Top Bottom