Trunp loses again in Court
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 04:15
VIEWED: 52231
PAGE 57 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TRUMP WINS IN COURT
A DC Appeals court ruled thatQuote:
The appeals court's 2-1 ruling Saturday emphasized the judiciary's deference to executive authority in matters concerning federal employment and contractual decisions.
The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the administration's personnel actions and funding decisions, particularly regarding grant agreements with non-federal entities like Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.
This ruling Trump's March 14 executive order (EO), which aimed to dismantle USAGM operations.
In other words, according to this Appeals court, district courts lack jurisdiction to rule on Presidential contract or personnel actions.
SpecificallyQuote:
According to Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling hinges on a critical point: jurisdiction, which has sweeping implications. As Cleveland explains, many of the legal challenges being hurled at the Trump administration involve employment decisions—precisely the kind of disputes Congress has explicitly said federal district courts have no authority to adjudicate.
In additionQuote:
the lower court also overstepped its bounds by trying to restore federal grants—something Congress assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, not the district courts. All told, the decision is a sharp rebuke to the legal overreach being used to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.
The significance of this decision extends far beyond these specific cases—it establishes clear jurisdictional parameters that could affect dozens of pending lawsuits against Trump administration policies. While the administration won't prevail in every case, this ruling suggests courts may need to more carefully consider their jurisdictional authority before issuing sweeping injunctions against executive actions.
THGR:
Hey, so Trump got a stay. Good for him. No, the law states the executive office cannot dismantle programs created by, and funded by Congress. It will run its course. He will, or should lose.
I'm not sure Congress can compel a President to spend money on a program, even if it's been budgeted and funded. Thinking back to my time in public service, there have been times when we had funds for personnel or programs that were intended to be spent, but thanks to rapidly changing political priorities staff was never hired and programs were set aside per CEO.
For instance, what happens if someone finds a way to do the same thing at 1/10 of the cost? Is a President required to waste money? I thought the role of the President was to administer the government, and that means hiring, firing, and counting pennies.
So it seems a gray area exists between Congress and Executive branches
Another question: In order for a case to be heard, the person bringing a complaint must have "standing". So, if the fundamental question is the division of powers, whose toes are being stepped on? Congress'?
Also... if the district courts lack jurisdiction, what court, or courts, should hear the(se) case(s)?
It'll be interesting to see this all sorted out. USA government was not meant to run on Executive Orders alone. Altho, TBH, if Congress hadn't been so dysfunctional for the past... oh 40 years or more ... we wouldn't have gotten to this point.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look at Ted, funding the resistance of his dead party after all the years of accusing people who didn't give any money to Trump of giving money to Trump.
Stupid fool
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Supreme Court Lets Trump Admin Ban Trans Troops As Hegseth Says "We're Done With That Sh*t"
Tuesday, May 06, 2025 - 01:40 PM
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a stay allowing the Trump administration to ban troops who identify as transgender while litigation plays out in a lower court.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a stay allowing the Trump administration to ban troops who identify as transgender while litigation plays out in a lower court.
A majority of justices agreed to enter a stay of a preliminary injunction issued by a US district judge in March, pending the disposition of an appeal.
Opposing the stay, of course, were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The decision is a big loss for seven transgender men, led by lead plaintiff Emily Schilling, a Navy commander, who sued to block the Trump admin from busting her balls.
"Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender service members who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense," said Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign Foundation - two groups representing the plaintiffs, said in a joint statement, adding that the policy "has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice."
In a separate case, a judge in Washington, D.C., also blocked the policy nationwide, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put that ruling on hold temporarily while it heard arguments on whether to block it more permanently. The court has yet to rule.
The policy, announced in February, is much more comprehensive ban than a similar proposal implemented during the first Trump term. It "generally disqualifies from military service individuals who have gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions for gender dysphoria," Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers. -NBC News
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a fiery speech on Tuesday that the US military will return to a warrior ethos.
"We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind. No more pronouns, no more climate change obsession, no more emergency vaccine mandates. No more dudes in dresses. We’re done with that shit," he said, adding "We’re focused on lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards and readiness."
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/supreme-court-lets-trump-admin-ban-
trans-troops-hegseth-says-were-done-sht
This may be popular with MAGA, and it might make sense for fighting forces, but what if ... for example ... a transgender officer is a superior tactician or strategist?
We employed gay and lesbians who were superior at their jobs. We've employed white Christian males who should have been fired. When you treat people as a category you're prejudiced.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No transgenders in the military. Period.
That is an obvious mental disease on full display and is not necessary nor is it helpful to anyone in the armed forces.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Look at Ted, funding the resistance of his dead party after all the years of accusing people who didn't give any money to Trump of giving money to Trump.
Stupid fool
Trump gets his ass kicked in court yet again.
T
Maine Governor Janet Mills Told Trump "I'll See You In Court." And Then She Beat Him!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
No transgenders in the military. Period.
That is an obvious mental disease on full display and is not necessary nor is it helpful to anyone in the armed forces.
Talking about mental health disorders Gilligan, look in the mirror.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
No transgenders in the military. Period.
That is an obvious mental disease on full display and is not necessary nor is it helpful to anyone in the armed forces.
Talking about mental health disorders Gilligan, look in the mirror.
T
Oh please. I implore you... do go on.
Is the sky falling again today, Chicken Little?
What part of your life is being ruined by whatever the Clickbait videos are telling you to be outraged over today?
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would advise you to extract yourself from your Doomsday Cult at this point, Ted.
You don't need to go down with their sinking ship too.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I would advise you to extract yourself from your Doomsday Cult at this point, Ted.
You don't need to go down with their sinking ship too.
Again and again and again Trump loses. Just another non-fact aye Gilligan.
T
BREAKING: DOJ Won't Appeal Block on Trump's Anti-Voting Order
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I would advise you to extract yourself from your Doomsday Cult at this point, Ted.
You don't need to go down with their sinking ship too.
Again and again and again Trump loses. Just another non-fact aye Gilligan.
T
BREAKING: DOJ Won't Appeal Block on Trump's Anti-Voting Order
They're not telling you the whole story, dummy. But first off, here is what YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/justice-department-appeal-
trump-election-executive-order/
Quote:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) does not plan to appeal a judge’s order blocking President Donald Trump from adding a proof of citizenship requirement on a federal registration form, according to a court filing made Monday by plaintiffs in the case.
Besides the fact that Trump wants it, what specifically do you take issue with here?
Once you're done figuring out that you just fucked yourself again because you are a very stupid person, maybe you can read that article from a obvious Lefty site and see what is actually going on here.
Nobody has lost anything, and it won't even start to be decided until late fall.
And if the judgement doesn't go the right way, we'll just appeal it outside of the jurisdiction of another of your Obama/Biden plants and win it on appeal just like every single other case you've ever presented in this thread so far.
We've got nothing but time. Mid-terms are still a very long way away.
And if you don't grow the fuck up quick and fix your party and stop cheerleading for anti-American shit like this, it's not going to matter anyhow.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME