The exec branch is at war with the judiciary.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They are politically motivated judicial activists. Why is it always just one from these various districts across the country.

The executive and legislative are motivated as well.

You probably get a fairer decision out of the judiciary.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The judges were anything but rogue. They were doing their jobs.

/—-/ Stop lying. The 677 Inferior judges don’t have jurisdiction on the Executive Branch. It would bring the country to a grinding halt.

 

[tahuyaman]

The executive and legislative are motivated as well.

You probably get a fairer decision out of the judiciary.

Their job is political in nature. The judicial branch’s job is not. But you’re a hack and refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Their job is political in nature. The judicial branch’s job is not. But you’re a hack and refuse to acknowledge that.

You are burbling again. The judiciary's job is to adjudicate the law. If you don't like it, that is your issue.

 

[tahuyaman]

You are burbling again. The judiciary's job is to adjudicate the law. If you don't like it, that is your issue.

Their job is not to get involved in partisan politics.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Their job is not to get involved in partisan politics.

You cannot rein the justices.

They adjudicate the law, and it does not matter what you think.

And restraining an unlawful acting Trump administration is a righteous thing.

 

[tahuyaman]

You cannot rein the justices.

They adjudicate the law, and it does not matter what you think.

And restraining an unlawful acting Trump administration is a righteous thing.

They can indeed be reined in. Their authority is not unlimited or beyond being checked. You’re just a hack.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They can indeed be reined in. Their authority is not unlimited or beyond being checked. You’re just a hack.

They are beyond Trump's reach as is he in his official activities.

 

[tahuyaman]

They are beyond Trump's reach as is he in his official activities.

Look you freaking hack. A federal judge doesn’t have unlimited authority. They are part of the weakest branch of government by design. They have no ability to enforce their rulings. They rely on the cooperation of the other branches of government.

Obviously you’re an idiot who never paid attention in civics classes . Americans as dumb as you are an embarrassment.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Look you freaking hack. A federal judge doesn’t have unlimited authority. They are part of the weakest branch of government by design. They have no ability to enforce their rulings. They rely on the cooperation of the other branches of government.

Obviously you’re an idiot who never paid attention in civics classes . Americans as dumb as you are an embarrassment.

Slow down or you fill your pants.

No one said they have unlimited authority. Neither does the President, for that matter. The President has the same pressure to cooperate.

You are gaslighting yourself again, with your little silly rogue rant.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

How many times do I have to tell you to GFY before you get it? Are you retarded?

You need to stay on topic. Why do you think the exec branch can do whatever it wants? Trump has no right to be a tyrant in any sense at all.

He must cooperate with the other two co-equal branches.

Look up checks and balances.

 

[Woodznutz]

We don't.

I dunno. The Ninth Circuit has been the judicial arm of the Democrat party since Carter, and lately Biden has added liberal replacements. Trump has also tried to politicize the SC.

Also, how can a panel of judges look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, mostly following political party lines.

 

[tahuyaman]

You need to stay on topic. Why do you think the exec branch can do whatever it wants? Trump has no right to be a tyrant in any sense at all.

He must cooperate with the other two co-equal branches.

Look up checks and balances.

When did I say the executive branch can do anything it wants? I didn’t you lying hack.

Unlike you, I understand the authority and limitations of the three branches of government.

 

[tahuyaman]

I dunno. The Ninth Circuit has been the judicial arm of the Democrat party since Carter, and lately Biden has added liberal replacements. Trump has also tried to politicize the SC.

Also, how can a panel of judges look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, mostly following political party lines.

check this out.

SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[Rumpole]

Our judicial branch has been contaminated with George Soros funding of far-left, Marxist, radical people. It's so obvious, just look at the latest ruling by Boasberg and his retraction. He is a hand-selected radical and just got shot down by SCOTUS. There are too many of these what I call, traitors, in our judicial system.

What is contaminated is your perverted view of jurisprudence because your claim falls apart the moment facts enter the room.

First, Judge James Boasberg was not “hand-selected” by radicals--he was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. If he’s a “radical Marxist,” then so is the man who appointed him. Your rhetoric doesn’t even survive a basic background check.

Second, the idea that George Soros is “funding” federal judges is flat-out false. Federal judges don’t run campaigns. They’re appointed, not elected, and there is no mechanism by which private donors--Soros or otherwise--install them. This is a conspiracy theory that plays on antisemitic dog whistles, not on evidence.

Third, you claim Boasberg was “shot down by SCOTUS.” That’s a distortion. The Supreme Court did not overturn his ruling on the merits. It ruled, in a narrow 5–4 decision, that the D.C. court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. That’s a procedural determination--not a repudiation of his legal reasoning. In fact, the Court reaffirmed that individuals still have the right to challenge their removal, just in a different jurisdiction. That’s not a defeat for Boasberg’s principles--it’s a matter of venue.

Finally, calling judges “traitors” because they issue rulings you don’t like is the language of authoritarianism, not democracy. Judicial independence is essential to a free society. If you want to critique a ruling, cite the law. Don’t resort to demagoguery. That’s how republics crumble.

If you want to live in a country where judges follow the Constitution rather than mob outrage, then you’re going to have to accept decisions--even unpopular ones--without smearing judges as enemies of the state.

 

[Rumpole]

Whereas it merely takes a parrot to squawk "fascist" all day long...nothing curious about that eh rump?

Better to squawk at tyranny than sit quietly in its lap.

 

[Rumpole]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Yes, federal district judges do have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of federal law and the Constitution--that’s black-letter law under 28 U.S. Code § 1331, which grants district courts jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

I suspect you are basing your opinion over a recent ruling by SCOTUS on Boasberg. Well, the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Boasberg case was not about limiting that general jurisdiction. It was a procedural ruling, holding that challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be filed in the jurisdiction where the noncitizen is detained--not in the District of Columbia. That’s a venue-specific limitation, not a global denial of judicial authority.

So, to clarify my earlier statement:

A federal judge has jurisdiction over violations of federal law and the Constitution--provided the case is properly before the court in terms of venue, standing, and procedural posture.

The Supreme Court did not disagree with that general principle. It merely enforced where such challenges must be filed--not whether they can be filed at all.

 

[Rumpole]

Its very odd to me that democrats actually think that people care about what they think. Democrats are a clown show. No one takes you retards seriously anymore. You no longer have a voice in this nation.

You wanna talk clown show? Buckle up, Bozo.

Here are several circus-grade faceplants from Trump and his Republican-controlled government--complete with big shoes, red noses, and honking horns of stupidity:

• Proposed ousting Palestinians from Gaza
• Proposed turning Gaza into a Trump-branded resort
• Proposed a U.S. takeover of Greenland
• Floated making Canada the 51st state
• Blamed Ukraine for Russia's invasion
• Called Zelensky a dictator
• His Secretary of Defense is a moron
• His HHS Director is an anti-vaxxer
• Suggested nuking hurricanes
• His Secretary of Education called AI “A-One”—repeatedly. She’s such an idiot she doesn’t even know this by now.
• Wanted the military to shoot protesters
• Claimed COVID cases could be reduced by testing fewer people--a monumentally epic stupidity

I could go on and on and on, but why bother? You're too much of a fuckwit to grasp that you are the moron for voting for the most corrupt, incompetent, fraudulent, sex-abusing criminal in the history of the United States.

So no, Democrats aren’t the clown show. The clown show is the party run by conspiracy theorists, televangelists, and a guy who tried to overthrow the government--and now sells golden sneakers, meme coins, MAGA Bibles, and soon, no doubt, he’ll be hawking Baubles, Bangles & Beads--until Kismet shows up to pay his legal bills.

 

[Rumpole]

Trump violated nothing. The "judge" did.

Take a civics class to learn why. You are amazingly ignorant how OUR government works.

You say Trump “violated nothing” and the “judge” did? Cute. Almost poetic in its wrongness--if ignorance were art, you’d be hanging in the Louvre.

Let’s set the record straight, since you’re clearly riffing off a headline you didn’t finish reading. The Supreme Court didn’t say Judge Boasberg was wrong about the law. They ruled on venue--a procedural technicality. The issue wasn’t whether Trump’s actions were lawful. It was about where the case should have been filed. In legal terms, that’s geography, not exoneration.

So no, Boasberg didn’t “violate” anything. He issued a temporary restraining order based on the Constitution and credible allegations of unlawful deportations. In fact, when the Trump administration ignored his order, Boasberg considered contempt proceedings. That’s not a judge gone rogue--that’s a judge upholding the law against an executive branch that thinks court orders are optional.

And Trump? “Violated nothing”? That’s rich. The man has been:

• Found liable for sexual abuse and defamation;
• Charged with hoarding classified documents;
• Indicted for a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election;
• Found by a court to have committed fraud to inflate his assets.

And in this very case, even Justice Sotomayor--a sitting Supreme Court Justice--called Trump’s secretive deportations an “extraordinary threat to the rule of law.” So no, your golden idol isn’t squeaky clean--he’s a one-man crime spree in a red tie.

So before you toss around “ignorance” like you’re handing out flyers at a conspiracy rally, maybe you should crack open a civics book--or at least learn what the word jurisdiction means.

And calling Boasberg “judge” in scare quotes? That’s not clever. That’s the rhetorical equivalent of drawing a mustache on the Constitution because you didn’t like what it said.

Grow up. Or at the very least--read up.

 

[Rumpole]

I expect a judiciary that is worthy of the fawning respect that people like you give it

And it aint that now

The dem judges are unelected partisan hacks in black robes totally lacking accountability for their actions

And not even the highest court is above reproach

If there is only one right answer to any legal question then every decision should be tendered 9-0

you want a judiciary that's “worthy of fawning respect,” yet the moment it rules in a way that bruises your feelings, you declare the judges illegitimate, partisan, and unaccountable. That's not a standard--that’s a tantrum in a tricorn hat.

Let’s walk through your greatest hits:

“Dem judges are unelected partisan hacks…”

Yes, Mac. Judges are supposed to be unelected. That’s by design. It’s called judicial independence. We don’t elect referees at football games either, because we expect them to interpret the rules--not pander to whichever fanbase screams the loudest.

And if you're worried about partisanship, maybe take a look at the Federalist Society conveyor belt cranking out Republican judges with ideological purity tests and billionaire sponsors. Your outrage, friend, seems to have a very selective filter.

“If there’s only one right answer, every decision should be 9-0.”

That’s not how the law works, Mac. This isn’t a math test--it’s a system that applies legal reasoning to facts, context, and precedent. Reasonable minds can--and do--disagree. You want unanimous decisions? Move to a regime with one party and one judge. You’ll get your 9-0s. You’ll also get show trials and prison terms for tweeting.

“Not even the highest court is above reproach.”

Correct. And ironically, it’s Democrats who are actually calling out ethical lapses, demanding real accountability--like disclosing lavish gifts from billionaires or recusing from cases involving your spouse’s coup-curious emails. So if your sudden appetite for judicial integrity is real, great--welcome to the party. But maybe don’t enter through the Fox News back door yelling “DEEP STATE!” and expect to be taken seriously.