Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Remind us where you received your schooling in U.S. law.To you that may be true. To me I strongly believe the judges must comply with U.S. law.
If I gave you a list of judges and asked you which ones that you would trust to give an opinion on any current matter before the courts then your answer would be 'Any one that rules in favour of the administration'. And we all know that that is your criteria.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.
It's actually just the opposite. Radical judicial activism took a leap in order to try and stop Trump from becoming president. There is real hatred for Trump and whoever associated with Trump, and sadly many district attorney and judges are willing to abandon the lawIf I gave you a list of judges and asked you which ones that you would trust to give an opinion on any current matter before the courts then your answer would be 'Any one that rules in favour of the administration'. And we all know that that is your criteria.
Your opinion on any matter before the courts is then worthless.
Let's get real. If I gave you a complete list of all judges and asked you which ones you'd trust to give an honest verdict then you'd look each one up to check to see if he'd decided for or against Trump at any time.It's actually just the opposite. Radical judicial activism took a leap in order to try and stop Trump from becoming president. There is real hatred for Trump and whoever associated with Trump, and sadly many district attorney and judges are willing to abandon the law
Who were these mythical judges that tried to stop Trump from becoming president? Are then in the room with us?It's actually just the opposite. Radical judicial activism took a leap in order to try and stop Trump from becoming president. There is real hatred for Trump and whoever associated with Trump, and sadly many district attorney and judges are willing to abandon the law
How, exactly? Please give specific details about how the judiciary attempted this.It's actually just the opposite. Radical judicial activism took a leap in order to try and stop Trump from becoming president.
Again, please give specific details about how anyone, judge or DA in any jurisdiction, abandoned the law.There is real hatred for Trump and whoever associated with Trump, and sadly many district attorney and judges are willing to abandon the law
Numerous federal district judges around the country have blocked major portions of Trump’s early agenda — but Supreme Court showdowns loom.
That trend reached a crescendo Friday when U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — blocked a plan by Trump and Elon Musk to put 2,200 USAID employees on leave, part of a rapid-fire effort to dismantle the foreign aid agency. Hours later, a federal judge in New York blocked Musk and his allies from accessing sensitive Treasury records, citing a risk of improper disclosure or hacking. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee, was the most sweeping of its kind so far.
In some cases, judges are voicing distress and even visceral fury as they stand in Trump’s way.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” said U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Seattle-based appointee of Ronald Reagan, as he blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship policy. “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore.”
[Othes:]
- blocked Trump’s effort to implement a blanket freeze on billions of dollars in federal spending.
- halted a government-wide program encouraging thousands of federal workers to resign.
- block Treasury officials from sharing details of the government’s massive payment system — accessed by allies of Musk — with anyone outside the department.
- blocked the implementation of Trump’s order to transfer transgender women inmates to men’s prisons.
- blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
- barred the Trump administration from disclosing the names of FBI agents who worked on Jan. 6 cases
Undoing EOs with EOs is not the topic. The topic is judges ruling against Trump 2.0's actions.
- Trump vowed to remake the government using executive orders he said would quickly undo many of the Obama
More judges out of control. This one, violating the ruling of the Supreme Court.Federal judge issues new nationwide block against Trump’s order seeking to end birthright citizenship
The ruling from [W-appointed] US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.
Ruling from the bench, Laplante granted a request from immigration rights attorneys to certify a nationwide class that “will be comprised only of those deprived of citizenship” and issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking Trump’s Day One order from being enforced against born and unborn babies who would be impacted by the policy.
Let me quote it again for you.More judges out of control. This one, violating the ruling of the Supreme Court.
the Supreme Court... [kept] intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.
I dont believe thats how class action suits are supposed to work.Let me quote it again for you.
Clearer guidance would be welcomed.Whether Laplante’s decision is an “abuse” or exactly what the Supreme Court had in mind will likely wind up back before the justices in short order.
It seems to me as though the judge in this case has properly certified the class. He then issued a temporary injunction on behalf of the class. I fail to see how that qualifies as "abuse," but perhaps you can enlighten me.A class action begins when lead plaintiffs file a complaint in court on behalf of a larger group. This document outlines the facts, names the defendant, defines the proposed class, and details the legal claims. This filing pauses the statute of limitations, or the legal deadline for filing a claim, for all potential class members.
Following the initial filing, the plaintiffs’ attorneys file a motion for class certification. The defendant has the opportunity to oppose this motion, leading to a hearing where both sides present arguments. The judge then issues an order either granting or denying certification.
If the class is certified, a formal notice is sent to all potential class members explaining the lawsuit and their rights. The case then proceeds through discovery, where both sides exchange evidence, and moves toward either a settlement or a trial.
You appear to be incorrect, but your post is a great argument, well done.I dont believe thats how class action suits are supposed to work.
Several conservatives, including Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, warned against courts using class-action litigation to essentially supplant the kind of nationwide injunction the court had just shot down.
“Lax enforcement of the requirements” for certifying a class, Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Thomas, “would create a potentially significant loophole to today’s decision.”
Federal courts, he added, “should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools.”
Whether Laplante’s decision is an “abuse” or exactly what the Supreme Court had in mind will likely wind up back before the justices in short order.
A class action begins when lead plaintiffs file a complaint in court on behalf of a larger group. This document outlines the facts, names the defendant, defines the proposed class, and details the legal claims. This filing pauses the statute of limitations, or the legal deadline for filing a claim, for all potential class members.
Following the initial filing, the plaintiffs’ attorneys file a motion for class certification. The defendant has the opportunity to oppose this motion, leading to a hearing where both sides present arguments. The judge then issues an order either granting or denying certification.
If the class is certified, a formal notice is sent to all potential class members explaining the lawsuit and their rights. The case then proceeds through discovery, where both sides exchange evidence, and moves toward either a settlement or a trial.
The steps didn't happen. The proper procedure didn't happen.Clearer guidance would be welcomed.
It seems to me as though the judge in this case has properly certified the class. He then issued a temporary injunction on behalf of the class. I fail to see how that qualifies as "abuse," but perhaps you can enlighten me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?