Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Loses in Appeals Court

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I addressed most of that. It's Obama and Clinton appointed judges ruling against Trump. I will address the immigration issue you bring up. Here's what one judge used in part in her ruling (she's a Clinton appointee):

    Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton in California included Lazarus' poem on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal in her ruling.
    From Massena's source in post 14.

    I didn't know that the poem on the Statue of Liberty had legal standing as law or precedent, but apparently it does...

    The second ruling was by
    US District Judge George B. Daniels, another Clinton appointee.

    The third was by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson in Washington state, an Obama appointee.
    "There are serious questions going to the merits regarding whether DHS has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in formulating the Public Charge Rule," Peterson wrote
    No legal precedent there. She decided, in essence, that DHS was being mean to illegal immigrants...

    Again, the judges were shopped and ones sympathetic to the plaintiff's cause ruled against Trump on largely nonsense.

    Right now, I hold ZERO faith that our federal court system can produce fair, reasoned, and just decisions on anything brought before a judge appointed by Obama or Clinton when it has to do with the Trump administration.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Rutger View Post
      Great system you got over there. Politicized and polarized to the bone, forever hating each other, and not a thing anyone's doing about it, just plodding along like mules with blinders, with not ever an original thought or normal discussion.
      It's only one side really doing the hating, and that's the Left. But, that's the Left anywhere. It's just more noticeable in the US because of the two-party system we're stuck with.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        It's only one side really doing the hating, and that's the Left. But, that's the Left anywhere. It's just more noticeable in the US because of the two-party system we're stuck with.
        Sure it is.....

        Comment


        • #19
          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

          The third branch of government last week offered an assertive restraint on the power of President Donald Trump. And there's likely to be more bad news for Trump from the federal courts system as the US House's impeachment inquiry progresses.


          Seven separate federal courts dealt major blows to Trump, on everything from his immigration policy to attempts to get his tax returns. The biggest bludgeon came from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that esteemed bench that regularly handles separation of powers questions. The Circuit sided 2-1 with the House over its subpoena for eight years of Trump's accounting records.

          Trump now could ask the Circuit Court for an additional review of the case or go directly to the Supreme Court. He has less than a week until the clock runs out to stop his accounting firm, Mazars USA, from complying with the subpoena.
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Massena View Post
            Trump the loser:

            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

            The third branch of government last week offered an assertive restraint on the power of President Donald Trump. And there's likely to be more
            bad news for Trump from the federal courts system
            as the US House's impeachment inquiry progresses.


            Seven separate federal courts dealt major blows to Trump, on everything from his immigration policy to attempts to get his tax returns. The biggest bludgeon came from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that esteemed bench that regularly handles separation of powers questions. The Circuit sided 2-1 with the
            House over its subpoena for eight years of Trump's accounting records
            .

            Trump now could ask the Circuit Court for an additional review of the case or go directly to the
            Supreme Court
            . He has less than a week until the clock runs out to stop his accounting firm, Mazars USA, from complying with the subpoena.
            And in every case you presented the judges making the opinion, and those ruling against Trump were either appointed by Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. This is consistent pattern of judges appointed by just two Democrat presidents repeatedly and almost unanimously, ruling against Trump. If you want to see what a coup really looks like, this is it.

            I've pointed out in this thread, and others, just how inane some of these judge's rulings have been. That cases brought before them against Trump have been nearly 100% rubber stamped by Clinton and Obama appointees with barely any dissent or objection really does make what's happening in the federal courts towards Trump a coup.

            That CNN is giddily reporting this just shows where they're at.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              And in every case you presented the judges making the opinion, and those ruling against Trump were either appointed by Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. This is consistent pattern of judges appointed by just two Democrat presidents repeatedly and almost unanimously, ruling against Trump. If you want to see what a coup really looks like, this is it.

              I've pointed out in this thread, and others, just how inane some of these judge's rulings have been. That cases brought before them against Trump have been nearly 100% rubber stamped by Clinton and Obama appointees with barely any dissent or objection really does make what's happening in the federal courts towards Trump a coup.

              That CNN is giddily reporting this just shows where they're at.
              And you know this how? Were you present for the cases? Or, as is more probable, you evaluate a judge by who appointed them? And those appointed by Obama and Clinton have no integrity because Obama and Clinton are Democrats? That is nothing but rubbish and another example of partisan politics over country.
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Massena View Post
                Trump the loser:

                https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/polit...ion/index.html

                President Donald Trump on Friday lost his appeal to stop a House subpoena of his tax documents from his longtime accountant Mazars USA

                In a 2-1 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court ruling saying the firm must turn over eight years of accounting records.
                Trump needs to turn over his returns.

                Should Schifty disclose anything from them he needs to be hauled off in handcuffs.


                Thats the law

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post

                  And you know this how? Were you present for the cases? Or, as is more probable, you evaluate a judge by who appointed them? And those appointed by Obama and Clinton have no integrity because Obama and Clinton are Democrats? That is nothing but rubbish and another example of partisan politics over country.
                  I've been posting notes on threads for nearly three years now pointing this out. Have you been in a coma or are you just being obtuse? In fact, I've posted similar stuff in the last few days repeatedly showing the same thing.

                  Here's my issue with this:

                  1. It is almost exclusively Clinton or Obama appointed judges ruling against Trump.

                  2 There are Bush I and II appointees, even Reagan appointees, and Trump appointees on the federal bench. Yet, they seem to never get cases involving Trump, just the Clinton and Obama appointees. I know of one case where a Bush II appointee ruled against Trump, and another where a Reagan appointee did. But, they are a distinct minority even hearing the cases.

                  Point one: What' the odds of that happening? It's like getting 7 every time you roll the dice at a craps table. It simply doesn't happen. The odds against it are high.

                  3. Clinton and Obama judges almost always (well over 95%) rule against Trump.

                  4. Reading their rulings, like the one I posted the other day where the judge used the poem at the Statue of Liberty in her ruling, or the one where the judge used Trump's tweets as the basis of his ruling, I see a pattern where they're not going by statute law and case law but just making $h!+ up as they go because it fits the narrative they want.

                  Point two: That smacks of politics and political activism from the bench rather than considered and appropriate impartial judicial rulings.

                  5. On appeal, and in the end, Clinton and Obama judges have been overturned nearly 100% of the time in these cases.

                  Point three: More objective and impartial judges recognize that the rulings these judges have made are based not on law but on crap they pulled out of their @$$ that can't be used in a ruling. Thus they are overturned.

                  I don't recall this sort of thing from the courts against Bush or Obama, nor Clinton or Reagan. It's a phenomenon of the Trump era and it smacks of a judicial coup against the administration.

                  Why don't you show me where I'm wrong on this rather than throw a bunch of irrelevant appeals to things like authority, and ad hominems at me. Or is it you have no alternative proof and just don't like the conclusions I've reached watching and reading these court cases?

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X