***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

354,709 Views | 3235 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by aggiehawg
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Immigration judges are fed up with Article 3 judges making ridiculous politically-driven rulings…but this is one I'd predict the ACLU unfortunately will win on.
Quote:

BOSTON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - The top U.S. immigration judge has told her colleagues that they are not bound by a federal court ruling that declared the Trump administration cannot place thousands of people in mandatory detention without an opportunity to be released on bond.

That directive came in an email Chief Immigration Judge Teresa Riley sent her colleagues on Tuesday that the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts attached to a filing on Friday in Boston federal court in a lawsuit challenging the administration's policy of denying bond hearings.

The ACLU said the email was evidence that "the government has deliberately and systematically instructed every Immigration Judge in the country not to comply with final declaratory judgments."

The civil rights group said the statement directs judges to disregard court rulings by U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes in Riverside, California, and U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston in separate class action lawsuits brought on behalf of people who were already living in the United States when they were detained. Both judges held that denying people bond hearings was unlawful.

Quote:

But Sykes, whose case is a nationwide class action, in a ruling in December said that the administration's interpretation was contrary to law and that, as a result, the board's ruling was "no longer controlling."
Yet Riley in Tuesday's email told her colleagues that because Sykes did not issue an injunction, the board's decision "remains binding precedent on agency adjudicators."

Lawyers with the ACLU said that prior to that email, the immigration court in Massachusetts had begun holding bond hearings again, consistent with Saris' decision.

Yet the lawyers said they received multiple reports on Thursday that an immigration judge was denying detainee requests for bond hearings.


Law fight! Courts defying courts!

I dunno the immigration courts are their own domain. We'll see what happens.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No tariff ruling today. I'm thinking the longer the tariff decision goes, the better the chances are that SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor. But I probably know nothing.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Rocky Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This seems... odd to me...

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tariff case is still pending and Alito, Roberts and Thomas haven't written an opinion yet (4 to go I think, also including the women's sports one).
Aggie Jurist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You have to figure Roberts will author the tariff case.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie Jurist said:

You have to figure Roberts will author the tariff case.

I don't gamble, but I'd put money on that.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YellAg2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stamping back the trans lunacy, gutting the VRA, and ending birthright citizenship potentially all in the same SCOTUS term....the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left would be off the charts.
XpressAg09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is big.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
XpressAg09 said:

This is big.
Yup. Not the Founders' intention.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Leftists are melting down, claiming that federal agents are now allowed to gun down anyone they want.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Back from my van with some good news.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:

Back from my van with some good news.



It's 345-20 at the district court level...

It's closer to 20-345 at the appeals court and SCOTUS level...
dvldog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think Kyle has ever been accused of being fair and balanced with his reporting...
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good news, Bozoberg impeachment is supported by Speaker Johnson. Would be great to see this well-earned action put on the floor agenda, or at least in the Judiciary committee, where he could be compelled to attend and take time away from his politically driven bench decisions.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obama judge strikes again.

will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:



Isn't it always "extortionate" to expect democrats to follow federal law? Of course she is going to grant relief. And of course she will eventually be overturned on appeal.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txags92 said:

will25u said:



Isn't it always "extortionate" to expect democrats to follow federal law? Of course she is going to grant relief. And of course she will eventually be overturned on appeal.

The district court win will get thousands of news stories.

The overturn on appeal will get dozens...most on Fox News...


It's how their propaganda works...
RED AG 98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yup, they are batting .800 at the district court level and .050 on appeal
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RED AG 98 said:

Yup, they are batting .800 at the district court level and .050 on appeal

Do you think, perhaps, this shows that district court judges are either incompetent or partisan hacks???
RED AG 98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag with kids said:

RED AG 98 said:

Yup, they are batting .800 at the district court level and .050 on appeal

Do you think, perhaps, this shows that district court judges are either incompetent or partisan hacks???

Por que no los dos?
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RED AG 98 said:

Ag with kids said:

RED AG 98 said:

Yup, they are batting .800 at the district court level and .050 on appeal

Do you think, perhaps, this shows that district court judges are either incompetent or partisan hacks???

Por que no los dos?

I almost posted that pic with my post...
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag with kids said:

RED AG 98 said:

Yup, they are batting .800 at the district court level and .050 on appeal

Do you think, perhaps, this shows that district court judges are either incompetent or partisan hacks???
It shows that republicans should stop rubber stamping Democrat judicial nominees and not acting on Republican nominees. This is the result.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:




Well, the Dems refuse to confirm any of Trump's appointments here...

And the alternative - having liberal judges picking their choice to present cases in front of them - seems kind of bull*****

So you'd have an Article II employee that was picked by Article III members? Without consent of Article I or II members?

But, at least Trump can ****can them when the judges appoint them, right? So, just keep **** canning them and have the line prosecutors handle everything.

The Dems want to toss the whole rule and structure of law in the toilet, so let them....
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is what happens without a moral and religious people.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?

TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TRM said:



CONflict of interest.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.