Expel Wayward Republicans from the Senate? (1 Viewer)

[RogerCooper]

As predicted; in true TDS fashion you can only attack Trump, you can never question the legitimacy of those attacking Trump. Where does a US District Court judge even have the authority to interfere with Trump's actions? Source?

The Federal judiciary has the authority to interpret the law, not the executive branch. The Supreme Court reminded everyone of that last year in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo when it overturned the Chevron doctrine, much to the consternation of the left.

If the President wants to change a law, he can ask Congress.

When the Surpreme Court struck down Biden's student loan forgiveness, did you question their authority?

 

[AccessBlaster]

When the Surpreme Court struck down Biden's student loan forgiveness, did you question their authority?

No, but Biden did.

LEFT: Joe Scarborough declares presidents like Joe Biden never screamed and yelled about ignoring judges.

RIGHT: Joe Biden screams and yells about ignoring the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/92r9ojxSDy

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) March 18, 2025

 

[Steve R.]

The Federal judiciary has the authority to interpret the law, not the executive branch.

An empty statement that is only superficially valid. Would a judge assigned to a divorce court in some city somewhere have the authority to prevent Trump from doing something at the National level? Again, where does a US District Court judge get their authority to prevent Trump from doing something at the National level. Not only that but the judge was involved with the illegal activities of the FISA court, an abuse of "interpreting law". You are playing the endless question game (bad faith questioning).

 

[Pat Hartman]

Would a judge assigned to a divorce court in some city somewhere have the authority to prevent Trump from doing something at the National level?

What this judge did is akin to preventing any divorce in any court in the country. No matter how self important a judge may be, he doesn't get to usurp the President's job. Can a judge order an invasion? Drop a nuke? Why not?

Not only that but the judge was involved with the illegal activities of the FISA court, an abuse of "interpreting law". You are playing the endless question game (bad faith questioning).

Isn't this the judge whose daughter gets funds from USAID?

 

[moke123]

where does a US District Court judge get their authority

Article III of the constitution.
District courts have original jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

 

[Steve R.]

Article III of the constitution.
District courts have original jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

A half truth, that does not answer the question.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The District Court is an "inferior" court. You did not address the issue concerning the extent of of its authority. Therefore you can't simply say: "District courts have original jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Also the Article reads "... inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour ... " So a judge can get dismissed for bad rulings since that would not be good behavior? Just a thought!

 

[Pat Hartman]

There is also that pesky concept of plenary power.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So a judge can get dismissed for bad rulings since that would not be good behavior?

People make mistakes and judges are people but if the "mistakes" have patterns and those patterns show political bias, I say - throw the book at him.

 

[moke123]

A half truth, that does not answer the question.

go look up "original jurisdiction"

There is also that pesky concept of plenary power.

No, the President of the United States does not have plenary power, meaning absolute authority, as the Constitution outlines specific powers and limitations, and the President's authority is subject to checks and balances from Congress and the judiciary

 

[Steve R.]

go look up "original jurisdiction"

You made an assertion. It is your responsibility to back-up your assertions and cite the source.

 

[Pat Hartman]

"No, the President of the United States does not have plenary power, meaning absolute authority, as the Constitution outlines specific powers and limitations, and the President's authority is subject to checks and balances from Congress and the judiciary"

I was referring to "within the powers granted to him by the Constitution". You know, like running the Executive Branch. I was not implying absolute power to do anything he wanted to like Biden and Obama assumed.

 

[moke123]

You made an assertion. It is your responsibility to back-up your assertions and cite the source.

Like they said in grade school, you don't learn anything if you don't do the work.

 

[Steve R.]

Like they said in grade school, you don't learn anything if you don't do the work.

Since you don't want to demonstrate that you actually know something, one can conclude that you are simply blowing smoke. Therefore, you are not a credible person.

 

[AccessBlaster]

This seems pretty clear to me, but it's all up to interpretation:

"District Courts’ original jurisdiction comes from Congress, not directly from Article III, specifically through statutes like 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants them authority over federal question cases."

"District Courts do have original jurisdiction over such cases, but this authority comes from Congressional legislation (e.g., Judiciary Act of 1789, 28 U.S.C. § 1331), not directly from Article III of the Constitution."

 

[moke123]

There you go Steve AB knows how to google.

 

[Mike Krailo]

I'll bet that judge thinks he has the power to do whatever he pleases. Good luck with that. He has less power over Trump than the strength in my little finger. Impeding the presidential duties to protect our country and it's people will not be tolerated. We have already been over this before. He may not like it, but he doesn't really have any real power over the president. What's he gonna do, sue him for doing the will of the people?

 

[Mike Krailo]

Complements of Bad Kitty Unleashed over on X
Is there a more compelling case of conflict of interest with this judge or what?

Breaking exposé, the Boasberg twins! Melissa and Margaret are
both the twin sisters of Judge James Both of those gals are
linked to far left orgs and deepstate outta the wazoo! Mellisa worked
with Susan rices brother!

But first, Advisors was sold in 2020 and Concentric Equity
Partners is now the majority owner! And Concentric is also a PARTNER
where MELISSA Boasberg works!

Quote:
"Arabella was his (Eric Kessler) baby until its sale in 2020 to Concentric."
Between the twins combined, we have Bain, Arabella, Atlantic Council,
Booz Allen, Pritzkers, Reid Hoffman, you name it! Whoa!
Let's Wn with Margaret first I want you to notice the Bain and
Atlantic Philanthropies (Atlantic Council) connections with sisters.

Margaret is a partner at Bridgespan group for philanthropy. It also
runs the Bridgespan Social Impact website too. Margaret also worked at
Bain at one time.
Bridgespan was spun out of the global business management
consultancy Bain & Company, which had experience providing pro bono
strategic services to larger nonprofits.

Margaret's husband, Chris Bierly, currently works at Bain.
Bridgespans client list is comprised of nearly every far left org
imaginable.
- Atlantic Philanthropies (Atlantic Council)
- LaRaza
- Ford Foundation
- J.B. and M.K. Pritzker
- Wikimedia
- Omidyar
- United Nations
- Anti Defamation League
- Rockefeller
- Plus more, the list is massive!

Atlantic Philanthropies gave Bridgespan a $4 million dollar, 6 year grant
in 2016. I didn't check for others yet.
Melissa works at Management Leadership for Tomorrow (MLT). Which
was founded by Susan Rices brother, John Rice.
Atlantic Philanthropies (Atlantic Council) was MLT's angel investor.
This partner list is something else.

Partners:
- Bill and Malinda Gates
- Booz Allen Hamilton
- Bain
- Bloomberg (Mellissa's hubby, Eric Schvimmer, works there.)
- Bridgespan (sister works there)
- Concentric equity partners (Arabélla)
- Greylock (Reid Hoffman)
- Plus more
And what do you know here's two of MLT's leaders:
- Will Priester, last 10 years leading financial strategy & operations for
Arabella
- Lloyd Howell, Booz Allen Hamilton

 

[RogerCooper]

A half truth, that does not answer the question.

The District Court is an "inferior" court. You did not address the issue concerning the extent of of its authority. Therefore you can't simply say: "District courts have original jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Also the Article reads "... inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour ... " So a judge can get dismissed for bad rulings since that would not be good behavior? Just a thought!

Except in the rare cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, cases go to the "inferior" court first. The Trump administration can go directly to the Supreme Court to ask them to suspend the actions of district court judge, but it is rare for the Supreme Court to intervene in that fashion. The Supreme Court can reign in a rogue judge if they wish to.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Mississippi v. Johnson (1867)

After the Civil War, Mississippi wanted to stop President Andrew Johnson from enforcing a law they didn’t like.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, saying courts can’t order a sitting President to stop carrying out laws.

This decision reinforced that some government actions (especially by the President) are beyond the courts' control.

 

[RogerCooper]

Mississippi v. Johnson (1867)

After the Civil War, Mississippi wanted to stop President Andrew Johnson from enforcing a law they didn’t like.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, saying courts can’t order a sitting President to stop carrying out laws.

This decision reinforced that some government actions (especially by the President) are beyond the courts' control.

The Supreme Court did hear the case and decided that the President could not be sued personally. And this case involved the President enforcing a law not ignoring a law.