Oldbear83 said:

---

So Sam thinks single District judges are the same as a Federal Appeals Court

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So Sam thinks single District judges are the same as a Federal Appeals Court

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So Sam thinks single District judges are the same as a Federal Appeals Court

---

Sam only thinks whatever the left tells him to think.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So Sam thinks single District judges are the same as a Federal Appeals Court

---

Sam only thinks whatever the left tells him to think.

---

What do you think? Was the DAPA injunction judicial overreach, or not?

---

Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place.

The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by “resistance” judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee’d up at the onset of this Congress? https://t.co/OscAkpXgeo

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) March 19, 2025

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I saw an article about the SC commenting on Trump impeaching the judge.. I dont think they got the message that he IS the LAW now.

Is calling 47% approval rate what goes for "vast majoriy" at A&M?

---

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump's job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.

Where is your 47% from?

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I saw an article about the SC commenting on Trump impeaching the judge.. I dont think they got the message that he IS the LAW now.

Is calling 47% approval rate what goes for "vast majoriy" at A&M?

---

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump's job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.

Where is your 47% from?

---

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-poll-tracker-march-18-2046375

President Donald Trump's approval rating has taken a significant hit, according to America's most accurate pollster.
According to a poll conducted by AtlasIntel between March 7 and 12 among 2,550 respondents, Trump's approval rating currently stands at 47 percent, while 52 percent disapprove of his job performance. The poll had a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points.
This is down from previous polls conducted by AtlasIntel in January and February, which found that 50 percent approved Trump's job performance, while 50 percent disapproved.
AtlasIntel was the most accurate polling company of the 2024 election, according to veteran pollster Nate Silver.

Sorry, I should have provided my source. So many people here dont I kinda got out of the habit. This post was in responce to an aggie claiming "the vast majority approve of Trump" with no source provided.

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So Sam thinks single District judges are the same as a Federal Appeals Court

---

Sam only thinks whatever the left tells him to think.

---

What do you think? Was the DAPA injunction judicial overreach, or not?

---

Nobody cares what you think or say. You are a 100% one sided hypocrit TDSer. Talking to you seriously is what the Bible considers casting your pearls before swine. It is a waste of time. My only interactions with you are to call out your hypocrisy, your fictional accusations that MAY happen one day, and your function as a left wing sheep (only able to think what they tell you to think.)

---

J.R. said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So Sam thinks single District judges are the same as a Federal Appeals Court

---

Sam only thinks whatever the left tells him to think.

---

What do you think? Was the DAPA injunction judicial overreach, or not?

---

Nobody cares what you think or say. You are a 100% one sided hypocrit TDSer. Talking to you seriously is what the Bible considers casting your pearls before swine. It is a waste of time. My only interactions with you are to call out your hypocrisy, your fictional accusations that MAY happen one day, and your function as a left wing sheep (only able to think what they tell you to think.)

---

again Sam, NO answer by this bomb throwing clown who does not have enough experience to know which of which he speaks unless spoken by Pigman or Foxy News. No ability to critically think.

---

Just In - WOW

Massive majority approves of Trump nullifying Biden autopen pardons, believe WH staff autopened these and other documents without Biden knowledge or approval.

Plurality (almost a majority) say to impeach DC Judge Boasberg

Both for early next week ... stay tuned https://t.co/wAw91js2CJ

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) March 20, 2025

🔥🔥🔥Breaking exposé! FIVE anti Trump judges are involved in a secretive, INVITE ONLY club for judges and lawyers called the American Inns of Court. Even the membership and meetings are secret. But somehow the DOJ has shown up at meetings. At least since Biden had been in… pic.twitter.com/PxbBQLWvtF

— Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁💪🏻 (@pepesgrandma) March 20, 2025

Married A Horn said:

---

🔥🔥🔥Breaking exposé! FIVE anti Trump judges are involved in a secretive, INVITE ONLY club for judges and lawyers called the American Inns of Court. Even the membership and meetings are secret. But somehow the DOJ has shown up at meetings. At least since Biden had been in… pic.twitter.com/PxbBQLWvtF

— Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁💪🏻 (@pepesgrandma) March 20, 2025

---

Assassin said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

🔥🔥🔥Breaking exposé! FIVE anti Trump judges are involved in a secretive, INVITE ONLY club for judges and lawyers called the American Inns of Court. Even the membership and meetings are secret. But somehow the DOJ has shown up at meetings. At least since Biden had been in… pic.twitter.com/PxbBQLWvtF

— Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁💪🏻 (@pepesgrandma) March 20, 2025

---

There sure is a lot of 'evidence' underneath that top post. Is this for real?

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So Sam thinks single District judges are the same as a Federal Appeals Court

---

Sam only thinks whatever the left tells him to think.

---

What do you think? Was the DAPA injunction judicial overreach, or not?

---

Nobody cares what you think or say. You are a 100% one sided hypocrit TDSer. Talking to you seriously is what the Bible considers casting your pearls before swine. It is a waste of time. My only interactions with you are to call out your hypocrisy, your fictional accusations that MAY happen one day, and your function as a left wing sheep (only able to think what they tell you to think.)

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So Sam thinks single District judges are the same as a Federal Appeals Court

---

Sam only thinks whatever the left tells him to think.

---

What do you think? Was the DAPA injunction judicial overreach, or not?

---

Nobody cares what you think or say. You are a 100% one sided hypocrit TDSer. Talking to you seriously is what the Bible considers casting your pearls before swine. It is a waste of time. My only interactions with you are to call out your hypocrisy, your fictional accusations that MAY happen one day, and your function as a left wing sheep (only able to think what they tell you to think.)

---

No hypocrisy here. I recognize pretended the judges' have authority in both cases.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam you are trying to mix apples and oranges again.

Your example was an appeals court decision on a lawsuit. The current flurry of actions are temporary restraining orders by district judges.

This matters because the judge failed his duty to confirm standing by the plaintiffs, then establish both immediate and incorrectable harm. Also, TROs may not be appealed prior to effect, so due process did not happen, at least not yet . The judges have also not only demanded actions be halted but have ordered the President to take specific actions according to the judges' preferences, in apparently clear overreach of Article 3 limits .

So you are pretending that biased actions without due process catering to Leftist activists must be considered equal in credibility to a full review by original and appellate court.

That, at best, is blowing smoke and we all see that.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam you are trying to mix apples and oranges again.

Your example was an appeals court decision on a lawsuit. The current flurry of actions are temporary restraining orders by district judges.

This matters because the judge failed his duty to confirm standing by the plaintiffs, then establish both immediate and incorrectable harm. Also, TROs may not be appealed prior to effect, so due process did not happen, at least not yet . The judges have also not only demanded actions be halted but have ordered the President to take specific actions according to the judges' preferences, in apparently clear overreach of Article 3 limits .

So you are pretending that biased actions without due process catering to Leftist activists must be considered equal in credibility to a full review by original and appellate court.

That, at best, is blowing smoke and we all see that.

---

Those are your opinions, but none of them matter if the district courts don't have authority to issue the injunctions. It sounds like you're acknowledging that they do. You just happen to disagree with the decision in this case.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam you are trying to mix apples and oranges again.

Your example was an appeals court decision on a lawsuit. The current flurry of actions are temporary restraining orders by district judges.

This matters because the judge failed his duty to confirm standing by the plaintiffs, then establish both immediate and incorrectable harm. Also, TROs may not be appealed prior to effect, so due process did not happen, at least not yet . The judges have also not only demanded actions be halted but have ordered the President to take specific actions according to the judges' preferences, in apparently clear overreach of Article 3 limits .

So you are pretending that biased actions without due process catering to Leftist activists must be considered equal in credibility to a full review by original and appellate court.

That, at best, is blowing smoke and we all see that.

---

Those are your opinions, but none of them matter if the district courts don't have authority to issue the injunctions. It sounds like you're acknowledging that they do. You just happen to disagree with the decision in this case.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Where Obama-appointed judges are concerned, that went bye-bye more than a decade ago.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Where Obama-appointed judges are concerned, that went bye-bye more than a decade ago.

---

Well, that's kind of the point here. You all cry "impeachment" and "treason" when an Obama judge claims jurisdiction over the executive, but you're as happy as can be when a W. Bush judge does the same. All this thread amounts to is a lot of partisan whining.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Where Obama-appointed judges are concerned, that went bye-bye more than a decade ago.

---

Well, that's kind of the point here. You all cry "impeachment" and "treason" when an Obama judge claims jurisdiction over the executive, but you're as happy as can be when a W. Bush judge does the same. All this thread amounts to is a lot of partisan whining.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Where Obama-appointed judges are concerned, that went bye-bye more than a decade ago.

---

Well, that's kind of the point here. You all cry "impeachment" and "treason" when an Obama judge claims jurisdiction over the executive, but you're as happy as can be when a W. Bush judge does the same. All this thread amounts to is a lot of partisan whining.

---

How many times did a "Trump" judge order Biden to do something against his choice?

There was the Supreme Court ruling against Joe, but the District judges - even the ones put there by Trump - didn't do the activist crap we are seeing now.

Simple fact is, people like you keep saying 'no one is above the Law', but you really mean 'our judges should control everything'.

And we Americans have noticed that you get all angry at DOGE for finding out the fraud and corruption, but you have not uttered any condemnation against the people actually committing the fraud.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Where Obama-appointed judges are concerned, that went bye-bye more than a decade ago.

---

Well, that's kind of the point here. You all cry "impeachment" and "treason" when an Obama judge claims jurisdiction over the executive, but you're as happy as can be when a W. Bush judge does the same. All this thread amounts to is a lot of partisan whining.

---

A judge cannot "claim" jurisdiction over anything. The Court either has it or it does not have it. The judge has nothing to do with it.

An order from a judge with no jurisdiction has no force and is of no consequence.

Oddly, can you guess how one would test the jurisdiction of a court - ignore the order.

Now, please tell us again how Trump thinks he is above the law.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Where Obama-appointed judges are concerned, that went bye-bye more than a decade ago.

---

Well, that's kind of the point here. You all cry "impeachment" and "treason" when an Obama judge claims jurisdiction over the executive, but you're as happy as can be when a W. Bush judge does the same. All this thread amounts to is a lot of partisan whining.

---

How many times did a "Trump" judge order Biden to do something against his choice?

There was the Supreme Court ruling against Joe, but the District judges - even the ones put there by Trump - didn't do the activist crap we are seeing now.

Simple fact is, people like you keep saying 'no one is above the Law', but you really mean 'our judges should control everything'.

And we Americans have noticed that you get all angry at DOGE for finding out the fraud and corruption, but you have not uttered any condemnation against the people actually committing the fraud.

---

Assassin said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Where Obama-appointed judges are concerned, that went bye-bye more than a decade ago.

---

Well, that's kind of the point here. You all cry "impeachment" and "treason" when an Obama judge claims jurisdiction over the executive, but you're as happy as can be when a W. Bush judge does the same. All this thread amounts to is a lot of partisan whining.

---

How many times did a "Trump" judge order Biden to do something against his choice?

There was the Supreme Court ruling against Joe, but the District judges - even the ones put there by Trump - didn't do the activist crap we are seeing now.

Simple fact is, people like you keep saying 'no one is above the Law', but you really mean 'our judges should control everything'.

And we Americans have noticed that you get all angry at DOGE for finding out the fraud and corruption, but you have not uttered any condemnation against the people actually committing the fraud.

---

That's the official Democrat mantra these days, you can't fault Sam for toeing the company line

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

C) Have jurisdiction

---

Where Obama-appointed judges are concerned, that went bye-bye more than a decade ago.

---

Well, that's kind of the point here. You all cry "impeachment" and "treason" when an Obama judge claims jurisdiction over the executive, but you're as happy as can be when a W. Bush judge does the same. All this thread amounts to is a lot of partisan whining.

---

A judge cannot "claim" jurisdiction over anything. The Court either has it or it does not have it. The judge has nothing to do with it.

An order from a judge with no jurisdiction has no force and is of no consequence.

Oddly, can you guess how one would test the jurisdiction of a court - ignore the order.

Now, please tell us again how Trump thinks he is above the law.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Anyone else notice Sam is ducking the fact that none of these judges established standing or immediate threat for the plaintiffs?

Anyone else notice Sam cannot name a single 'Republican' judge who ordered the Biden or Obama Administrations to spend money on a program or agency they wanted to cut?

Just call him Democrat Sam from now on.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TRO's cannot be appealed, you know.

Or did you?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Anyone else notice Sam is ducking the fact that none of these judges established standing or immediate threat for the plaintiffs?

Anyone else notice Sam cannot name a single 'Republican' judge who ordered the Biden or Obama Administrations to spend money on a program or agency they wanted to cut?

Just call him Democrat Sam from now on.

---

Standing was never raised as an issue. Irreparable harm was established by the plaintiffs, in the opinion of the judge, and I don't know of any case where it was more obvious. Many detainees who were likely innocent are now caged in conditions that wouldn't be fit for animals, and there's no realistic hope for relief.

All because we couldn't wait a few days to punish us some brown people.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Anyone else notice Sam is ducking the fact that none of these judges established standing or immediate threat for the plaintiffs?

Anyone else notice Sam cannot name a single 'Republican' judge who ordered the Biden or Obama Administrations to spend money on a program or agency they wanted to cut?

Just call him Democrat Sam from now on.

---

Standing was never raised as an issue. Irreparable harm was established by the plaintiffs, in the opinion of the judge, and I don't know of any case where it was more obvious. Many detainees who were likely innocent are now caged in conditions that wouldn't be fit for animals, and there's no realistic hope for relief.

All because we couldn't wait a few days to punish us some brown people.

---

Hahahahahahaha

Race card!

---