Clarence Thomas v District Judges

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

falsifying business records in the first degree

 

Those are misdemeanors, for which the statute of limitations had already expired. 

 

If you even count money that was paid to an attorney being recorded as a legal expense as a crime at all.

 

Try again.  Use small words so we simpletons can understand.

 

[gargamon]

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I like to think of him as the Orange Mandela, after nutty leftists tried to jail him for a Voldemort crime. That is, not one single hater here can accurately state what crime his "34 felonies" were for. Trump was nearly a political prisoner. How pathetic

More like an orange Adolf.

[SunnyinBangrak]

Just now, gargamon said:

More like an orange Adolf.

Because he is looking after America 1st, returning freedom and accountability for corrupt govt entities? I really dont think AH had those goals, did he? 

[LosLobo]

 

4 hours ago, theblether said:

 

It's not that simple. They are allocated to a court circuit. They are not allocated national power to override Presidents. 

 

And it won't be the first time that circuit appeal courts have disagreed on issues. 

 

This needs to come to SCOTUS for clarification to the benefit of Democrats and Republican Presidents. 

Your response sidesteps my argument and serves up a mixed salad of logical fallacies:

• False Dichotomy: You’re acting like only SCOTUS can settle national issues, but district and appellate courts have jurisdiction over federal matters. It’s not either/or.

• Appeal to Authority: SCOTUS isn’t the only court with authority. Lower courts handle federal law all the time before SCOTUS gets involved.

• Strawman: I’m not saying a district judge can override the president on everything. They can block unlawful presidential actions, especially if there’s abuse of power or a constitutional violation.

• Slippery Slope: Claiming that district judges ruling on national issues leads to chaos is unfounded fear-mongering.

• Hasty Generalization: Disagreements between circuits don’t invalidate a district judge’s ruling. The system resolves those through appeals, not by breaking down.

In short, federal judges can rule on national matters, and district judges can stop presidential actions if they overstep. You’re making this unnecessarily complicated.

 

[LosLobo]

4 hours ago, theblether said:

 

Article III 

 

The Supreme Court has the power to declare on constitutional issues. District judges are subordinate. 

 

• The judicial branch includes the Supreme Court, which has the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to review the actions of the president and lawmakers, and declare them unconstitutional.

Your nice precis of Article III seems to have omitted most of the relevant facts.

Article III  Judicial Branch

• Section 1 Vesting Clause

  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.
   

  • ArtIII.S1.1  Overview of Judicial Vesting Clause
  • ArtIII.S1.2  Historical Background on Judicial Review
  • ArtIII.S1.3  Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
    
    Read on.......

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-1/

[gargamon]

34 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Because he is looking after America 1st, returning freedom and accountability for corrupt govt entities? I really dont think AH had those goals, did he? 

Everything he's doing is straight from Mein Kampf.

[candide]

44 minutes ago, gargamon said:

More like an orange Adolf.

More like an orange Benito! 🙂

[Elkski]

58 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Because he is looking after America 1st, returning freedom and accountability for corrupt govt entities? I really dont think AH had those goals, did he? 

Sad thing is people like you exist. Unless your joking

[theblether]

4 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

If you want to learn about political court/judge shopping that occurs in federal courts, some of the worst abuses of that occurred by Republican/conservative groups during the Biden administration with a single U.S. District Court judge in Texas who was a Trump appointee, and before that, had worked for the conservative Christian legal organization First Liberty Institute from 2014 to 2019.

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

"Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk ... is an American lawyer who serves as a United States district judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated to the position by President Donald Trump in 2017 and sworn in for the position in 2019.

 

Conservative groups and the Texas Attorney General tend to file cases in Kacsmaryk's jurisdiction so that he is likely to hear those cases, as he reliably rules against Democratic policies and for Republican policies.^[3][4] His court has been hospitable to conservative lawsuits that many lawyers consider meritless.

...

Conservative groups have strategically chosen to file lawsuits challenging many Biden administration policies in Kacsmaryk's division. Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District; 95% of lawsuits filed there are assigned to him.^[34][3] By March 2023, the Texas Attorney General's Office under Ken Paxton filed 28 lawsuits against the Biden administration in federal district courts in Texas; of those, 18 were filed in single-judge divisions, including Kacsmaryk's division and a single-judge division held by another Trump appointee, Drew B. Tipton.^[35] Kacsmaryk and Tipton have denied various Justice Department motions to change venues.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Kacsmaryk

 

 

 

 

 

My point entirely. It affects both sides of the aisle. 

[theblether]

51 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

Your response sidesteps my argument and serves up a mixed salad of logical fallacies:

• False Dichotomy: You’re acting like only SCOTUS can settle national issues, but district and appellate courts have jurisdiction over federal matters. It’s not either/or.

• Appeal to Authority: SCOTUS isn’t the only court with authority. Lower courts handle federal law all the time before SCOTUS gets involved.

• Strawman: I’m not saying a district judge can override the president on everything. They can block unlawful presidential actions, especially if there’s abuse of power or a constitutional violation.

• Slippery Slope: Claiming that district judges ruling on national issues leads to chaos is unfounded fear-mongering.

• Hasty Generalization: Disagreements between circuits don’t invalidate a district judge’s ruling. The system resolves those through appeals, not by breaking down.

In short, federal judges can rule on national matters, and district judges can stop presidential actions if they overstep. You’re making this unnecessarily complicated.

 

 

Drivel. But pleasing to think you put a lot of effort into that utter waste of space. 

[theblether]

51 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Your nice precis of Article III seems to have omitted most of the relevant facts.

Article III  Judicial Branch

• Section 1 Vesting Clause

  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.
   

  • ArtIII.S1.1  Overview of Judicial Vesting Clause
  • ArtIII.S1.2  Historical Background on Judicial Review
  • ArtIII.S1.3  Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
    
    Read on.......

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-1/

 

Only SCOTUS has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. They can do so by vote or by allowing Appeal Court rulings to stand.

 

District judges are not vested with that power. Hence, Justice Thomas wants and end to judicial activism. 

 

All sane Americans should want that. 

[gamb00ler]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

That is, not one single hater here can accurately state what crime his "34 felonies" were for. Trump was nearly a political prisoner. How pathetic

You have your "pathetic" pistol pointed in the wrong direction.  You're the one that just made an astonishing claim with the only evidence being your low opinion of those who disagree with your political stance.  No wonder the MAGAns have been referred to as a "basket of deplorables".

[theblether]

8 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

You have your "pathetic" pistol pointed in the wrong direction.  You're the one that just made an astonishing claim with the only evidence being your low opinion of those who disagree with your political stance.  No wonder the MAGAns have been referred to as a "basket of deplorables".

 

Those convictions will.never survive an appeal. No chance. 

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Those are misdemeanors, for which the statute of limitations had already expired. 

 

If you even count money that was paid to an attorney being recorded as a legal expense as a crime at all.

 

Try again.  Use small words so we simpletons can understand.

 

It's difficult to explain to someone who thinks a word of three letters is too big.

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's difficult to explain to someone who thinks a word of three letters is too big.

 

There it is again.  You don't have an argument, so you resort to an insult.  Lefty playbook page 1 according to Scott Adams of Dilbert fame.  It's in his great book Loserthink.  In his book, what character do you think you'd play?  Give you a hint.  Starts with L.  And it's not Lacessit.

 

[LosLobo]

38 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Drivel. But pleasing to think you put a lot of effort into that utter waste of space. 

Ah, so this is what we’re doing now? For lack of a logical response, theblether’s projecting his own blether (nonsense) onto others –– Oh, the irony.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

There it is again.  You don't have an argument, so you resort to an insult.  Lefty playbook page 1 according to Scott Adams of Dilbert fame.  It's in his great book Loserthink.  In his book, what character do you think you'd play?  Give you a hint.  Starts with L.  And it's not Lacessit.

 

I am not involved in the argument you are having with another poster. However, if you insist with leading with your chin, don't expect people to pass up the opportunity.

[norfolkandchance]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am not involved in the argument you are having with another poster. However, if you insist with leading with your chin, don't expect people to pass up the opportunity.

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Ah, so this is what we’re doing now? For lack of a logical response, theblether’s projecting his own blether (nonsense) onto others –– Oh, the irony.

IIRC it's called circular argument, or begging the question. It's drivel because he says so, without advancing any proof.

[theblether]

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Ah, so this is what we’re doing now? For lack of a logical response, theblether’s projecting his own blether (nonsense) onto others –– Oh, the irony.

 

Drivel. I indicate the thoughts of the longest serving SCOTUS Justice and you say I'm projecting. 

 

I am projecting nothing. You are embarrassing yourself. Dunning Kruger strikes again 

[gargamon]

8 hours ago, candide said:

More like an orange Benito! 🙂

Yeah, Benito wasn't as smart as Adolf.

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, theblether said:

 

Drivel. I indicate the thoughts of the longest serving SCOTUS Justice and you say I'm projecting. 

 

I am projecting nothing. You are embarrassing yourself. Dunning Kruger strikes again 

A couple of your favorite phrases in your post, applied when you have nothing cogent in rebuttal.

 

One of the features of propaganda is the use of emotionally loaded language.

[stevenl]

12 hours ago, theblether said:

 

Only SCOTUS has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. They can do so by vote or by allowing Appeal Court rulings to stand.

 

District judges are not vested with that power. Hence, Justice Thomas wants and end to judicial activism. 

 

All sane Americans should want that. 

Why didn't i hear you about this during the blatent judge shopping against the previous administration?

[Yagoda]

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

You might want to check the contents of what you're boiling in that pot. 

"The lawsuit argues that the president is violating the US Constitution and federal law by attempting to dismantle the agency. "Not a single one of defendants' actions to dismantle USAID were taken pursuant to congressional authorization," it says.

"And pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency.""

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y6701gl60o

Your use of the BBC to explain US constitutional law explains why your posts are usually nonsense. Your quote is an allegation made by someone and not a statement of what the law is.

 

 

[Yagoda]

13 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Because he is looking after America 1st, returning freedom and accountability for corrupt govt entities? I really dont think AH had those goals, did he? 

Adolfs goals were Socialist

[Yagoda]

15 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Read the Judge/jury statements from his guilty trial!

Translation: I dont know

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Your use of the BBC to explain US constitutional law explains why your posts are usually nonsense. Your quote is an allegation made by someone and not a statement of what the law is.

 

 

Your lack of any evidence to counter what the BBC says is typical and shows why your posts are generally worthless. Put up or shut up.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Your lack of any evidence to counter what the BBC says is typical and shows why your posts are generally worthless. Put up or shut up.

What makes your comment particularly moronic is that the piece of the article I used includes a direct quote from the lawsuit. Or you so clueless as to claim that the BBC is making that up, too?

[Yagoda]

12 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

You have your "pathetic" pistol pointed in the wrong direction.  You're the one that just made an astonishing claim with the only evidence being your low opinion of those who disagree with your political stance.  No wonder the MAGAns have been referred to as a "basket of deplorables".

If you think the Trump convictions will survive an appeal, you are ignorant of the law. So just continue your Socialist flaming of the decent hard working Americans who voted for Trump to fix the fup you Socialists have made of the world.

 

Us Trump supporters are getting what we want from OUR government. Sucks to be you, in your obsessed, deranged misery.

[Yagoda]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your lack of any evidence to counter what the BBC says is typical and shows why your posts are generally worthless. Put up or shut up.

You want to brief the issue then? Lets go. You are the propenent of the proposition, show us the cases, like an American lawyer would. 

 

You do know what the issue is, right?