So far, at least nine (now ~40) (now ~160) judges, including Trump appointees, have called a halt to Trump executive actions

[Nithavela]

Which is why the judges are obliged to uphold the constitution. See the post above.

Which has zero effect on the separation of powers. Do you really not understand any of this?

Some people seem to think that seperation of powers means that everyone except the president should be seperated from the powers.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Upset about the tariff decision (where a judge he appointed was one of the three), Trump turns on the Federalist Society.

Judge Judy, clear your calendar.

(I promise this is the middle of a long Trump Truth filled with all sorts of wondrous lies, like the non-fact that "trillions of dollars" have poured into the USA from his tariffs.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Appeals court denies Trump administration's request to resume mass firings of federal employees​

In the 2-1 ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the White House's request to freeze the injunction.

"The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the appeals court wrote. "The President enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies." [but it's not unlimited, and appointed officers are different from rank and file employees]

[Congress would have to confer such authority]

 

[Valletta]

Upset about the tariff decision (where a judge he appointed was one of the three), Trump turns on the Federalist Society.

Judge Judy, clear your calendar.

View attachment 365697

(I promise this is the middle of a long Trump Truth filled with all sorts of wondrous lies, like the non-fact that "trillions of dollars" have poured into the USA from his tariffs.)

The 1977 law clearly gives Trump wide authority on tariffs. This is judicial activism--judicial tyranny.

 

[Bradskii]

The 1977 law clearly gives Trump wide authority on tariffs. This is judicial activism--judicial tyranny.

Maybe you need some bumper stickers.

 

[Valletta]

Maybe you need some bumper stickers.

Section 202 gives the president broad authority. And Congress has not disputed this. The court pretends it is a case about separation of powers between the president and Congress even though neither has complained to the court! Congress needs to act faster to abolish courts that violate our Constitution.

 

[Bradskii]

Congress needs to act faster to abolish courts that violate our Constitution.

What an incredibly odd sentence.

 

[Valletta]

What an incredibly odd sentence.

Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, 28 September 1820

Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, 28 September 1820

founders.archives.gov

 

[Bradskii]

Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, 28 September 1820

Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, 28 September 1820

founders.archives.gov

I'll note this comment:

'I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.'

I didn't exactly laugh out loud. It was more a snort. The ignorance that some people have shown in this forum in multiple threads on the separation of powers and the constitution is nothing short of dismal. 'Not enlightened enough?' Ye gods, we have enough of a problem getting them to grasp the concept of due process and the structure of the court system itself.

You be sure to let me know when a system is put in place to ensure that the majority of people reach anywhere what we might describe as an 'enlightened state' and we'll talk again. If Jefferson could see what an almighty clown show your political system has become then he's weep.

I'll also quote from Jarvis's letter which prompted the response from Jefferson:

“In drawing this conclusion, we are naturally led to contemplate the importance of the Judicial authority, established by our constitutions, in its operation as a check upon any unconstitutional exercise of power, by any other branches of the government. Fundamental laws would be useless, and worse than useless, if they might be disregarded or neglected, in the administration of the government: it is therefore within the authority, delegated to our judicial tribunals, to refuse to give effect to any unconstitutional laws or ordinances. The judicial authority, thus constituted, operates continually, to keep the administration of government true to its fundamental laws, and original principles” and “a departure from the true intent and meaning of the laws … will necessarily occur, in every country, where the judges are dependent upon the sovereign, or people; and no guard can be interposed against their recurrence, so effectual, as the complete independence of judges during good behaviour.”

That is the system under which you operate. You are to follow the processes dictated by that system or you change it. And good luck with that...

 

[Desk trauma]

What an incredibly odd sentence.

Just want until that four word fig leaf at the end is no longer needed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The court pretends it is a case about separation of powers between the president and Congress even though neither has complained to the court!

The people complaining are the people harmed by the action, who have standing. Just because Congress is too craven to complain that the president has usurped their power doesn't mean he hasn't usurped their power. That is determined by the law, the facts, and adjudication by the courts.

 

[Valletta]

The people complaining are the people harmed by the action, who have standing. Just because Congress is too craven to complain that the president has usurped their power doesn't mean he hasn't usurped their power. That is determined by the law, the facts, and adjudication by the courts.

The people can complain, but the courts have no authority in the matter. Indeed, the law is quite clear and the judges are violating our Constitution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Indeed, the law is quite clear and the judges are violating our Constitution.

Since the Trump administration appears ready to appeal this as far as it can go, we'll see if any higher courts agree with you.

 

[rjs330]

Appeals court denies Trump administration's request to resume mass firings of federal employees​

In the 2-1 ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the White House's request to freeze the injunction.

"The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the appeals court wrote. "The President enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies." [but it's not unlimited, and appointed officers are different from rank and file employees]

[Congress would have to confer such authority]

What's fascinating is the court did not actually provide and constitutional quotes in this ruling that would indicate such a thing. The only thing the constitution says is that rhe power of executive branch rests in the president. There is NOTHING in the constitution that says the president ONLY has authority to dismiss appointed officials. They are making that up.

This is another example of judicial activism that is not grounded in the constitution.

 

[Valletta]

I'll note this comment:

'I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.'

I didn't exactly laugh out loud. It was more a snort. The ignorance that some people have shown in this forum in multiple threads on the separation of powers and the constitution is nothing short of dismal. 'Not enlightened enough?' Ye gods, we have enough of a problem getting them to grasp the concept of due process and the structure of the court system itself.

You be sure to let me know when a system is put in place to ensure that the majority of people reach anywhere what we might describe as an 'enlightened state' and we'll talk again. If Jefferson could see what an almighty clown show your political system has become then he's weep.

I'll also quote from Jarvis's letter which prompted the response from Jefferson:

“In drawing this conclusion, we are naturally led to contemplate the importance of the Judicial authority, established by our constitutions, in its operation as a check upon any unconstitutional exercise of power, by any other branches of the government. Fundamental laws would be useless, and worse than useless, if they might be disregarded or neglected, in the administration of the government: it is therefore within the authority, delegated to our judicial tribunals, to refuse to give effect to any unconstitutional laws or ordinances. The judicial authority, thus constituted, operates continually, to keep the administration of government true to its fundamental laws, and original principles” and “a departure from the true intent and meaning of the laws … will necessarily occur, in every country, where the judges are dependent upon the sovereign, or people; and no guard can be interposed against their recurrence, so effectual, as the complete independence of judges during good behaviour.”

That is the system under which you operate. You are to follow the processes dictated by that system or you change it. And good luck with that...

Thomas Jefferson's fears have come to fruition. We have district courts violating the laws in regard to deportation, law where the courts are specifically banned from interfering. There are roughly 700 district courts, and the most radical judges among those 700 un-elected are being sought out by the left so they can make pronouncements on national issues. These individuals are trying to take over from the powers of the elected representatives of the people and the elected president. This cannot be allowed to go on, and will not. The people will not allow our Republic to be seized.

 

[Belk]

The 1977 law clearly gives Trump wide authority on tariffs. This is judicial activism--judicial tyranny.

Ah yes, that those well known judicial activist appointed by Reagan and Trump.

 

[Valletta]

Ah yes, that those well known judicial activist appointed by Reagan and Trump.

Makes no difference to me what party or who appointed them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The 1977 law clearly gives Trump wide authority on tariffs. This is judicial activism--judicial tyranny.

Link to the law and point out the section that grants that authority.

 

[Belk]

Makes no difference to me what party or who appointed them.

Of course not, the only criteria is if they rule against Trump.

 

[Valletta]

Of course not, the only criteria is if they rule against Trump.

To you that may be true. To me I strongly believe the judges must comply with U.S. law.