Trunp loses again in Court
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 04:15
VIEWED: 52231
PAGE 86 of 100
Yup. Just as I thought.
You can't cite one single example of Legal AF being correct in a single prediction they have ever made since you started ingesting that bullshit.
You're a clickbait junkie.
Gross.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
COMEY BOMBSHELL: Trump prosecutor never sent indictment to full grand jury
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now another lesson on strategy...
Has it ever occured to you that what they just did in Texas was planned?
We already know that SCOTUS is set to rule on the constitutionality of racial gerrymandering, which is something the Democrats have already completely maximized over decades in states like New York, Illinois and most of California (California only had around 5 more seats left they could racially gerrymander in 2025, otherwise they'd be trying for a lot more).
What they've just done, if the Democrat whining about it is true, is do the exact same racial gerrymandering that Blue States have done for decades. Now SCOTUS gets to look at it like "Neither party is going to get away with racial gerrymandering, and we rule that any state map that has used it is going to have to be redrawn."
Any way you look at it, Democrats lose.
They've fucked the system so hard for decades now there's nowhere left for them to go.
If racial gerrymandering gets deemed unconstitutional next summer, Democrats will NEVER win a Presidential Election again in your lifetime.
Add to that removing illegals from the census, ending mail-in-fraud ballots and ballot drop boxes, ending ballot harvesting and requiring photo ID to vote, we might just end up with a 2028 electoral college map that looks like Reagan's countrywide sweep in 1984.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yup. Just as I thought.
You can't cite one single example of Legal AF being correct in a single prediction they have ever made since you started ingesting that bullshit.
You're a clickbait junkie.
Gross.
Point to the asshole Jack, right.
The Institute for Policy Integrity’s analysis — cited in Democracy Forward and CalMatters — found Trump’s administration lost 79 of 85 federal agency deregulatory/policy cases (a roughly 7% win rate for that narrow category) while CalMatters reported a roughly 31% win rate for suits filed against his rules in his first term
Bottom line: you can cite rigorous, narrow statistics (e.g., 79 losses in 85 federal deregulatory cases)
Impossible to track. I know, since you want to know, look it up.
too funny...
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yup. Just as I thought.
You can't cite one single example of Legal AF being correct in a single prediction they have ever made since you started ingesting that bullshit.
You're a clickbait junkie.
Gross.
Point to the asshole Jack, right.
The Institute for Policy Integrity’s analysis — cited in Democracy Forward and CalMatters — found Trump’s administration lost 79 of 85 federal agency deregulatory/policy cases (a roughly 7% win rate for that narrow category) while CalMatters reported a roughly 31% win rate for suits filed against his rules in his first term
Bottom line: you can cite rigorous, narrow statistics (e.g., 79 losses in 85 federal deregulatory cases)
Impossible to track. I know, since you want to know, look it up.
too funny...
T
Democracy Forward and Cal Matters.
Sounds like real, credible, unbiased stuff.
What you keep forgetting, chud, is that Trump has won literally EVERYTHING on appeal.
There's not a single fucking case of yours in this entire waste of a thread that ever stuck.
Take your California Democrat watchdog firms and shove them up your well-laid asshole.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yup. Just as I thought.
You can't cite one single example of Legal AF being correct in a single prediction they have ever made since you started ingesting that bullshit.
You're a clickbait junkie.
Gross.
Point to the asshole Jack, right.
The Institute for Policy Integrity’s analysis — cited in Democracy Forward and CalMatters — found Trump’s administration lost 79 of 85 federal agency deregulatory/policy cases (a roughly 7% win rate for that narrow category) while CalMatters reported a roughly 31% win rate for suits filed against his rules in his first term
Bottom line: you can cite rigorous, narrow statistics (e.g., 79 losses in 85 federal deregulatory cases)
Impossible to track. I know, since you want to know, look it up.
too funny...
T
Democracy Forward and Cal Matters.
Sounds like real, credible, unbiased stuff.
What you keep forgetting, chud, is that Trump has won literally EVERYTHING on appeal.
There's not a single fucking case of yours in this entire waste of a thread that ever stuck.
Take your California Democrat watchdog firms and shove them up your well-laid asshole.
Shows us the clown Jack. Correct...
Trump loses 93% of cases in court. We know, because we sue Trump and win.
According to the Institute for Policy Integrity, Trump’s administration has failed nearly 93% of the time when its agency actions have been challenged in court — typically for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
At last count, the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that the Trump administration has lost 79 of 85 cases involving federal agencies on deregulatory or policy issues — a historically low 7.1% win rate. (Most administrations have a 70% win rate). As The Washington Post noted, more than a few of these are cases we’ve brought on behalf of municipalities and organizations, successfully forcing the Trump administration to reverse course on illegal policymaking.
Another source. You'll notice I didn't leave a link. That is because you just make shit up and don't provide any facts. Well, fact check this asshole.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meaningless post. And nobody gives a fuck about your links because all you ever post is easily debunkable bullshit.
Trump wins all of them on appeal. Every single one.
Maybe it takes more than one appeal court as it makes its way up the chain, sometimes all the way to SCOTUS, but it ALWAYS happens.
Fuck your little flag-football wins, your headlines, your clickbait and your Lefty "intellectuals'" takes.
You lose every case in the end.
EVERY. SINGLE. CASE.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And that's cute...
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Another source. You'll notice I didn't leave a link. That is because you just make shit up and don't provide any facts. Well, fact check this asshole.
You think hiding a link from me is going to keep me from finding out where your source is?
How do you suppose I constantly out Second for plagiarism when I know he "wrote" something he's literally incapable of writing?
https://democracyforward.org/updates/trump-loses-93-percent-of-cases-w
e-know-because-we-win/
Democracy Forward.
Fuck you, Ted.
You are a waste of carbon, let alone a complete waste of my time.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL
Democracy Forward is so meaningless they don't even have an entry on mediabisfactcheck.org...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=democracyforward.org
And though a check with just "Democracy Forward" gets hits, none of them are what we're looking for with "Future Forward" being an ultra-left Democrat PAC.
Now you're just citing pure fucking nonsense that isn't even on anyone's radar.
Remind me again who the QTard is here, buddy.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And that's cute...Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Another source. You'll notice I didn't leave a link. That is because you just make shit up and don't provide any facts. Well, fact check this asshole.
You think hiding a link from me is going to keep me from finding out where your source is?
How do you suppose I constantly out Second for plagiarism when I know he "wrote" something he's literally incapable of writing?
https://democracyforward.org/updates/trump-loses-93-percent-of-cases-w
e-know-because-we-win/
Democracy Forward.
Fuck you, Ted.
You are a waste of carbon, let alone a complete waste of my time.
I love when you and signym pretend to be smart. The source is named in the post stupid. It's in the first line. It confirms the numbers I posted first post. It is the New York University School of Law. Common, fact check the numbers. Call them worthless democrats.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME