Here is the post I was responding to:
I think the simplicity of my reply showed restraint and the appropriate level of depth given the context. Maybe not.
At least some judges are willing to stand up to Trump and Musk.
- Thread starter celticdawg
- Start date
I think the simplicity of my reply showed restraint and the appropriate level of depth given the context. Maybe not.
You do realize that you and one other are the biggest Celtic fanboys on this whole site. He literally owns you , proven with every post you chase after him with your immature posting, constantly trying to troll, never participating other than your weak insults. I guess if I’m being fair, Will actually probably owns you even deeper, but this post is regarding Celtic, your uncle of the chat (Will is of course your daddy). Most of the time your post make me chuckle like when the special needs kid does something funny, gets a few laughs, then proceeds to do it all day everyday, for years until it’s not funny anymore, just tired, boring, and almoooost being annoying , but basically just being pathetic and sad. That’s you boz, what a guy .
It is very obvious that the judiciary is overstepping it's authority & will soon be put in it's place! If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the legistlative branch( controled by the republicans) , can simple cut off the federal funding to the judiciary & help them see the light. The Constitution should be interpreted as it was written ( by brilliant men) , not twisted by activist , lefty judges!
Some good points and the President can do a lot and that question is going to be resolved in a number of issues. You say Musk can advise DOGE under Trump's wing. It appears that it has gone further than that (still to be determined under certain appeal). Thus i asked the question can anyone say with a straight face that Musk isn't "running" DOGE. That's an issue that the judge brought up and ruled on which is his duty. Thanks for being the only one I see bringing up a reasonable discussion.
You're right. I should have paid more attention to what you replied to. Please find my posts in other threads on this topic if you want to engage further.
I think we're in generally untread legal ground, at the moment...simply because DOGE is semi-new (but, used an Obama-era office to execute it) But, if you start questioning Musk's "influence" as an advisor, you risk opening up a huge legal can of worms for a number of other unlitigated advisors. Debating "influence" (regardless of position title) is likely to go nowhere. How do you police that in the future? A President has a large amount of power to surround himself with advisors, as he sees fit.
It’s amazing to me that so many Trump supporters don’t value foreign aid, or medical research, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the VA, or Social Security offices, and so much more.
And if you want to make an argument that a lunatic billionaire with zero experience with the federal government can discern what is waste and what isn’t over the course of a couple of weeks, you are on as much ketamine as Elon Musk is, which is a lot.
What? You're literally telling me to shut up and listen to the president. I don't do that.
Absolutely partisan. Never said otherwise. You just don’t want jack smith to be incompetent. Sorry. Again I am still waiting. You were right zinger. You said Jack smith would screw up the only legitimate case. He did have help. You guys tried so hard to get him the real case was allowed to be pushed back. Which lead to the dropping of the case. Let’s be honest. If the case did end up like you wanted, the way Biden’s doc case was handled could have led to much worse imo.
Her rulings were on far-more solid legal ground than the "new" or "unique" interpretations involved in multiple Trump cases. Much of the critiques aimed at her were partisan in nature and void of legal standing.
She also hasn’t had a history of partisan rulings. Not like these other jabronis who don’t even care what anyone things.
It is also one of the most short sighted arguments of all time. The Supreme Court conservative judges don’t vote the party lines all the time. Haven’t seen the lefty appointed supremes ever not vote like they are told to. I don’t even know why there is a person there. Just rubber stamp the farthest left opinion every single time.
Last edited:
I don't think that's a fair critique, as that mischaracterizes what DOGE has actually identified with each item you listed and what is actually happening. Again, if you want to get into specifics, I'm potentially game to engage.
Your second sentence is so pointless...I'm not sure why you even included it. It's akin to the ugaboz posts I critiqued, above.
Sure, zinger. I’ll admit that the same time I admit that Trump actually won the 2020 election and J6 was a day of heroes and patriots.
The 11th Circuit used unusually strong language in overruling her on the issue of the special master appointment as well as her attempt to block the DOJ from using the seized material in the case. Both rulings were determined to hold no legal merit.
Her final ruling that the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel was unconstitutional ignored multiple rulings in other courts on the same topic and was considered highly controversial with a very good chance of being overturned by the 11th circuit.
None of the above falls within the category of “far more solid legal ground”.
That is absolute emotional reaction BS. Don’t value? We value and we don’t want it wasted on frivolous crap that benefits almost no one. There is no oversight and it is fraught with waste and it has been done by both sides. I am not a Trump supporter, but do support some of his policies and actions. I would be happy with either party doing this. The public needs to know where the money is being spent and how it is being spent.
Will take a breath and rest before you post. A 10 year old could tell that some of what has been uncovered is wasteful and totally unnecessary. I respect your opinions a good bit of the time but not this one. This is as bad as defending Bidens mental state.
Haha. I have never stated the 2020 election was stolen. Just the Wild, Wild West. I would never take your security blanket away from you will. 1-6 is your Alamo. It is an obsession. I would never do that to you.
The 11th Circuit did assert that Cannon's rulings lacked merit. But, her reliance on equitable jurisdiction (see United States v. Morgan, 307 U.S. 183), provided a reasonable basis given the complex executive privilege issues.
But, I think their criticism was overstated, potentially reflecting bias. They have shown a pattern of this, evident in Trump v. Thompson. Simply put, wait until if/when it reaches the Supreme Court if the 11th is involved in anything re: Trump.
Cannon's determination that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional engaged directly with Justice Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Trump v. United States, offering a logical challenge to the untested framework of special counsel regulations.
Cannon’s rulings, locked into solid constitutional ground, hold up far better than most of the off-the-wall or unique takes in other Trump cases.
But, what do I know? I'm just a simple man. Made of Lava.
Last edited:
I think you’re giving Cannon way too much credit and the 11th Circuit too little. Their criticism wasn’t overstated—it was necessary. Her use of *United States v. Morgan* doesn’t hold up because that case dealt with *habeas corpus relief*, which is a completely different animal from intervening in a pre-indictment criminal investigation. There’s just no precedent for what she did, and the 11th Circuit rightly called her out on it. Plus, let’s not pretend this was some partisan hit job—this was a unanimous ruling, including judges appointed by both parties.
As for *Trump v. Thompson*, that wasn’t even an 11th Circuit case. That was the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court declined to step in. If anything, that just proves that multiple courts—not just the 11th—have been rejecting Trump’s legal arguments.
Now, on Cannon’s take about the special counsel—yeah, she referenced Scalia’s dissent in *Morrison v. Olson* and Thomas’s concurrence in *Trump v. United States*, but here’s the thing: those aren’t *binding* precedents. The Supreme Court has never ruled that special counsels like Jack Smith are unconstitutional. If anything, *Morrison* upheld a similar structure. So, what she did wasn’t some bold constitutional stand; it was a stretch that contradicts the law as it actually stands right now.
You also said Cannon’s rulings are stronger than a lot of the “off-the-wall” takes in other Trump cases, but the reality is, hers have been some of the *weakest*. She’s been overturned multiple times, and not just in close calls—these have been unanimous smackdowns. If her reasoning was solid, you’d expect at least some of it to hold up on appeal, but it hasn’t.
And as for “wait until the Supreme Court decides”—come on. The whole judicial system doesn’t just freeze until SCOTUS weighs in. The appeals courts exist to correct errors, and that’s exactly what’s happening here. Cannon didn’t have a solid constitutional argument; she overstepped, and the 11th Circuit did its job in shutting it down.
Tyranny of the minority: Liberal law profs urge Biden to defy the courts and the public
They are calling for Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval. In other words, they want a…
thehill.com
Too bad the left thinks this should only be available to Biden.
You overstate the 11th Circuit and undersell Cannon. Morgan’s principle fits pre-indictment overreach, not just habeas, and unanimity doesn’t make the Circuit infallible. Trump v. Thompson shows broader judicial trends, not Cannon’s failure. Her special counsel take, while not binding, engages real constitutional debates. Morrison isn’t untouchable. Her rulings aren’t the “weakest” the overturns reflect procedural calls, not nonsense. SCOTUS may clarify, but her stance isn’t baseless, just divisive if you're laser-focused on "get Trump!".
Typical Turley hackery.Tyranny of the minority: Liberal law profs urge Biden to defy the courts and the public
They are calling for Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval. In other words, they want a…thehill.com
Too bad the left thinks this should only be available to Biden.
According to you, the entire Left of the political spectrum is represented by two liberal Law school professors.
Do you really require me to explain the difference between the opinion of two professors who never played a role in an administration compared to the POTUS and the second most powerful person in the government, who also happens to be the (formerly) wealthiest person on the planet and a man who has promised to spend whatever is required to politically punish anyone who opposes his efforts?
There’s a reason the conservative Chief Justice hadn’t felt compelled before yesterday to release a statement condemning calls for judicial impeachments.
There is a difference. Musk is transparent. He has an agenda but it isn’t hidden. Soros goes to great lengths to hide his money trail.
Just because Soros doesn’t tweet all day every day and get on stage swinging a chainsaw like a lunatic doesn’t mean he isn’t transparent in his philanthropy.
How the Open Society Foundations Fund
Every year, we give thousands of grants to groups and individuals that work on the issues we care about: promoting democracy, transparency, and freedom of speech.
www.opensocietyfoundations.org
Very well stated. Most all of us want to eliminate fraud and waste, but there is a right way to do it. Likewise, we all want criminals who illegally came into the country deported, but it needs to be done with due process and complying with the rule of law. Trump wants to say they are bad people and need to go, but if we skip the due process and rule of law part with them, who says the next time Trump wants to skip the due process and rule of law part that someone we care about is not the victim. This country has worked pretty darn well for 250 years playing by the rules. I say let's stick to that.
Transparent - I call BS to that statement.Just because Soros doesn’t tweet all day every day and get on stage swinging a chainsaw like a lunatic doesn’t mean he isn’t transparent in his philanthropy.
How the Open Society Foundations Fund
Every year, we give thousands of grants to groups and individuals that work on the issues we care about: promoting democracy, transparency, and freedom of speech.
These people are criminal thugs with rap sheets a mile long , they are not US citizens, they don't deserve due process! Frankly, they should not be deported, they should be killed in the cheapest way possible! These f'ckers are killers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, thieves, etc. No one wants these sorry basterds in their neighborhood (even you board libs). I hope they all rot in hell for the terrible crimes they have committed!
ICE admitted in a sworn statement submitted in court that many of the deported “gang members” have never been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. So just about everything you posted is wrong.
'Many' alleged gang members deported by Trump didn't have criminal records in the US: ICE
Many of the noncitizens deported pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act did not have criminal records, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said in a sworn filing.
Oh the hypocrisy. Remember Biden and the left questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court . The protest in front of justices homes. And Schumers threats directed at justices.
Naivety is a hell of a thing, I'm sure these thugs were model citizens! If they don't have a rap sheet here, I'm sure they have a lengthy one in their home country! Will, just keep posting nonsense that commonsense people see right through! Anyone with any intellect at all knows that these were bad people that should not be here. Hopefully, one of these sorry SOB's doesn't doesn't rape or kill one of your family members before Trump can get them out of our nation! These animals don't care what side of the ailse you are on politically, if they get the opportunity to commit a crime, they will. What happened to Laken Riley could happen to any young woman! I have 18 & 23 old girls, I want these thugs gone asap! Most level headed people would agree, but you do you!
Hes also transparent in his hate for the West and the US. My gd man are you serious? This is like cheering for Satan.Just because Soros doesn’t tweet all day every day and get on stage swinging a chainsaw like a lunatic doesn’t mean he isn’t transparent in his philanthropy.
How the Open Society Foundations Fund
Every year, we give thousands of grants to groups and individuals that work on the issues we care about: promoting democracy, transparency, and freedom of speech.
Those banking on John Roberts and Barrett to overturn these injunctions are going to be sorely disappointed. Trump must ignore these judges and move forward.
All I am saying is the same reaction being had by the right with these judges, was happening with the left too. You think these were the only two people telling Biden to do this. Or that he had the ability to do this. You totally washed over it because you have Orangeman derangement.
Color me shocked that a judge would come out in favor of not impeaching judges. lol. Damn dude. Next you are going to telling me coaches are not in favor of firing other coaches.
Everything that is happening here has been done by the left previously. That is the even bigger point. The very same suggestions. Some of the same strategies in response to decisions not going their way. The democrats set a new precedent that it is ok to threaten Supreme Court justices. Haven’t seen that one yet from the right.
The funny part about this whole thing. Not all of it, but most of this is being done to prevent success. To prevent him from doing what he said he was going to do. The very same things he campaigned on doing.
This is what kills me about the statist cult. I have never talked to any Trump supporter that wants to eliminate foreign aid, medical research or reduce the ability of vets to access top notch medical care or push granny over a cliff and take her SS. Imo, Trump supporters are simply people that want the government to operate within it's constitutional bounds, operate with efficiency that is at least comparable to the private sector and holds those with the keys to POWER more accountable than the average purchasing manager at a local business that gets caught taking kickbacks from a vendor.
Seriously, look at the activities you guys are trying to defend. Billions of dollars sent to NGOs with absurd bookkeeping and financial controls. Refusing to turn violent illegals over to ICE upon release from local jails. Lack of control of our borders and resisting efforts to slow the flow, high school males in female locker rooms, treating little Johnny like little Susie at school without informing parents and on and on.
Imo, those that reluctantly voted for Trump realized that neither party is our friend and we had become a government by, of and for the government. Most Trump supporters I know want equal protection under the law for every citizen and that means no special rights for some at the expense of others. A government that is accountable to those that are supposed to be self governed and reps that treat the people's treasure as if they were budgeting for their fixed income parents. (Heavy on necessities, light on folly.)
No, I don't want NGOs affiliated with Stacey Abrams getting 2 billion out of the blue. And yes, I'd be just as pissed if Trump's team sent 2 bill to a NGO affiliated with Newt as well. I don't think the government needs any help spending money if the cause is legitimate.
Not exactly the same. The left incorporates threats of violence and illegally protesting at the justices homes. The decisions are also vastly different. These current rulings are partisan district court judges with questionable jurisdiction issuing rulings impacting the entire country. The left was opposing decisions made by 5 Supreme Court justices with clear jurisdiction.
Or how about the issues at hand?
The supposedly biased conservative leaning judges ruled in favor of Trump on issues that relate to him specifically / personally.
The left right now is suing to prevent actions intended:
- to weed out government waste of taxpayer dollars.
- to remove violent TDA gang members from the Country
- to revoke the visa status of a Hamas supporting "protestor," whose protests have prevented Jewish kids from going to class
Putting aside for a second whose interpretation of the law is correct......why the hell are we searching for legal reasons to prevent these actions? The opportunity here for any issue that falls into a legal grey area? Let it freakin' slide. The left cannot help themselves if the action is rooted to Trump.....even if that action is clearly in the interests of Americans.
I agree. But you will never get a one of them to agree that this is happening. I am just trying to show the level of hypocrisy hilarious. They will never admit that what they did was way worse.
I disagree. This is exactly what the left wants him to do. Then they can say “see, we were right about him all along”. This is their strategy by doing this. Stay the course. But do it the right way and use it against the left in the midterms. Keep voting lefties in and you will get more defense on issues that no one supports. I hope someone advising him will tell him this. This is why democrats approval ratings are so low. Don’t let them off the hook. They are totally baiting him right now.
He could make a speech tomorrow. Just say, I am trying to do what you asked me to do when you elected me. I am being blocked by the left at every turn. Issues the American people decidedly voted me in to handle. I will stay the course and accomplish this the right way. I leave it up to you the American people to vote out politicians who don’t want to do the right thing.
It is literally sitting on a tee for him right now.
Similar threads
