Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

All I see is more hatred for America and Americans from Ted today.

That and a dead link to whatever clickbait he was trying to post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

OK, we are going to need this thread just to cover all the different losses for Trump in the courts.

---

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Judge in USIP Case Delivers Trump/Musk/DOGE CRUSHING REBUKE of their Lawlessness & Abuse of Power

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

All I see is more hatred for America and Americans from Ted today.

That and a dead link to whatever clickbait he was trying to post.

---

That's because you're blind. I post here to expose America haters. It's you and your kind that is doing everything it can to tear it down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Judge in USIP Case Delivers Trump/Musk/DOGE CRUSHING REBUKE of their Lawlessness & Abuse of Power

---

Very much looking forward to your follow up on how this one goes, Theodore.

SPOILER ALERT: When we never hear this topic brought up again by Ted 72 hours from now, we will know that it ultimately didn't go Ted's way. Just like the rest of these never, ever do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-allows-trump-anti-144550761.ht
ml

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG: Saturday, November 2, 2019 3:12 PM

OK, we are going to need this thread just to cover all the different losses for Trump in the courts.

---

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:


OK, we are going to need this thread just to cover all the different losses for Trump in the courts.

---

This is a big deal.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Judge Chutkan green lights a lawsuit challenging Trump’s “tyranny” and use of Musk/DOGE, while issuing a surprise ruling involving Trump himself.

---

Quote:

---

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, a relatively low-profile court in Manhattan, stopped Trump’s global tariffs that he imposed citing emergency economic powers

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Striking Down Trump’s Tariffs Isn’t a Judicial Coup

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
and dealt with accordingly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Striking Down Trump’s Tariffs Isn’t a Judicial Coup

Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to enact tariffs.

By Conor Friedersdorf | May 29, 2025, 10:09 AM ET

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/trump-tariffs-court-
rulings/682964/

The debate over President Donald Trump’s tariffs often focuses on whether they are prudent. Defenders insist that Trump’s tariffs will help make America great again and boost national security. Critics counter that they’ll wreck the economy. But the strongest argument against the tariffs is actually that they are unlawful. Neither the Constitution nor any statute authorizes Trump to impose what he ordered.

Now, months after sticklers for the rule of law began making that argument, it has finally been vindicated: Yesterday, the United States Court of International Trade, the federal court with jurisdiction over civil actions related to tariffs, struck down almost all of Trump’s tariffs in a 49-page ruling. The decision includes a detailed discussion of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law delegating increased power over trade to the president during national emergencies, which the White House had cited to support its moves. It concludes that the law does not authorize any of Trump’s tariff orders. https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf

Administration officials quickly challenged the ruling’s legitimacy. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “The judicial coup is out of control,” Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller posted on social media. But their objections are dubious, not because the judiciary never overreaches, but because at least three features of this dispute make the argument for judicial overreach here especially weak.

First, the Constitution is clear: Article I delegates the tariff power to Congress, and Article II fails to vest that power in the presidency. So the Trump administration begins from a weak position. And the court’s ruling did not arrogate the tariff power to the judiciary, which might have warranted describing it as “a judicial coup.” It merely affirmed Congress’s power over tariffs. Americans need not fear a judicial dictatorship here. Congress can do whatever it likes. Indeed, it could pass a law reinstating all of Trump’s tariffs today without violating the court’s ruling. But Congress is extremely unlikely to do so, in part because Trump’s tariff policy clearly lacks public support; for example, a recent poll found that 63 percent of Americans disapprove of it.

Second, the plaintiffs in this particular lawsuit include the states of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont––all democratically accountable entities in a federal system where states are meant to act as a check on unlawful exercises of federal power. All of those states asked the court to rule in this manner to vindicate their rights under the law. As Oregon’s attorney general put it, “We brought this case because the Constitution doesn’t give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy.” States controlled by both Republicans and Democrats routinely file lawsuits asking the judiciary to strike down purportedly unlawful actions by the president. There is bipartisan consensus that such judicial review is legitimate, not couplike, and such rulings have constrained presidents from both parties.

Third, when Congress created the Court of International Trade and later defined its jurisdiction, its precise intent was to create an arm of the judiciary that would exercise authority over trade disputes. Congress made a deliberate choice to alter an earlier law vesting that power in the Treasury Department, under the executive branch, and deliberately vested it in a court instead. To quote from the 1980 law that defined its powers, “The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for tariffs.” Policing whether or not a tariff complies with the law and the Constitution is central, not peripheral, to the court’s ambit.

If the Trump administration kept its criticism of the judiciary to edge cases, where there is real doubt about how the Constitution separates powers, it could plausibly claim to be engaged in the sort of dispute that is inevitable when branches of the federal government are checking one another as intended. That it seeks to delegitimize even this ruling suggests contempt for any check on the power of the presidency, not principled opposition to judicial overreach.

The Constitution explicitly vests the tariff power in Congress, and wisely so: Empowering one person to impose taxes and pick economic winners and losers tends toward corruption and dictatorship. Going forward, Congress should set tariff policy itself, and impeach any president who tries to usurp its authority.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
dealt with by the Supreme Amy that he appointed?


Trump administration has lost a shocking 96% of rulings in federal district courts so far this month, a new analysis shows. The rulings against the president came from judges across the ideological spectrum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Complete horseshit. Just like every post you've made in the last 12 years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I see you have a big fucking mouth in two non-related threads tonight, Ted, but you didn't reply to this one, didja?

Curious that, innit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I see you have a big fucking mouth in two non-related threads tonight, Ted, but you didn't reply to this one, didja?

Curious that, innit?

---

---

Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been returned from El Salvador Gilligan. What does that mean? It means I was right and you were wrong.

Remember, say something brilliant so that I no longer wish to return and post here ever again.

T

For The First Time, Trump Administration Facilitated The Return Of A Man They Wrongfully Deported!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

OK, we are going to need this thread just to cover all the different losses for Trump in the courts.

---

---

T

Quote:

---

Two unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the American Federation of Teachers — filed the lawsuit against DOGE. They alleged that the DOGE employees’ access to personal data could violate the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Two unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the American Federation of Teachers — filed the lawsuit against DOGE. They alleged that the DOGE employees’ access to personal data could violate the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

---

Well... These unions have no more concern about this than 300 Million other people do...

Unless they were trying to hide something. They weren't trying to hide anything, do you think Ted?

---

Quote:

---

The sudden return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States on Friday to face federal charges of smuggling migrants across the country was a messaging triumph for the Trump administration.

The news deflected public attention from a series of unanimous court rulings — including a Supreme Court decision — that President Donald Trump did not have the power to unilaterally detain and deport individuals to foreign prisons without a review by a judge.

And the allegations against Abrego Garcia are damning. A federal grand jury found that the 29-year-old was an MS-13 member who transported thousands of undocumented immigrants, including children, from Texas to states across the country for profit for nine years. He allegedly also transported firearms and drugs, abused female migrants and was linked to an incident in Mexico where a tractor-trailer overturned and killed 50 migrants.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer representing Abrego Garcia, said Saturday that he planned to meet his client for the first time on Sunday, but declined to further comment.

A former senior law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation, said he was struck by the large amount of resources the DOJ put into investigating Abrego Garcia.

"They came hard at a relatively low level guy, which does not necessarily make it improper — just odd. Perhaps they wanted the last word, which seems childish," said the former official. "Typically, you work up the chain; not down it. That said, at least he gets his due process rights this time around."

In a telephone interview with NBC News’ Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump hailed Abrego Garcia’s indictment and predicted it would be easy for federal prosecutors to convict him. “I think it should be,” he said. “It should be.”

Multiple questions about Abrego Garcia, the case against him, and the political fallout remain unanswered.

Will Democrats pay a political price?

For months, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, his wife, and some Democrats, have denied that he was an MS-13 gang member. They generally portrayed him as a Maryland construction worker and claimed he was transporting co-workers when a Tennessee state trooper stopped him on Interstate 40 on Nov. 30, 2022.

The indictment paints a different picture: Abrego Garcia was transporting nine Hispanic males without identification or luggage in a Chevrolet Suburban. Prosecutors allege he “knowingly and falsely” told the trooper they “had been in St. Louis for two weeks doing construction” and were returning to Maryland.

However, license plate reader data showed that the Suburban had not been near St. Louis for 12 months. Instead, it had been in Houston where, according to prosecutors, Abrego Garcia had picked up the men. The vehicle was not carrying tools or construction equipment, but its rear cargo area had been modified with makeshift seating to transport more passengers.

The apparent strength of the government’s case could reignite debate among Democrats about the risks of focusing on Abrego Garcia’s case. For weeks, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and other Democrats emphasized that their criticism targeted Trump’s decision to unilaterally deport Abrego Garcia without judicial oversight, not a defense of Abrego Garcia himself.

When Kristen Welker of NBC News asked Trump about Van Hollen, the President mocked the senator and said defending the Abrego Garcia would backfire on Democrats.

“He’s a loser. The guy’s a loser,” Trump said, referring to Van Hollen. “They’re going to lose because of that same thing. That’s not what people want to hear. He’s trying to defend a man who’s got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular.”

Van Hollen defended his stance in a CNN interview. “You know, I will never apologize for defending the Constitution,” he said. “In fact, it’s the Trump administration and all his cronies who should apologize to the country for putting us through this unnecessary situation.”
What happened inside the Trump administration?

In an Oval Office visit on April 15, 2025, Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other Trump administration officials asserted that it was not possible for the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador as the Supreme Court had ordered.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele mocked a reporter for asking whether he would do so. “How can I return him to the United States? Like if I smuggle him into the United States?” Bukele said, sitting beside Trump in the Oval Office. “Of course I’m not going to do it. The question is preposterous.”

Trump, in turn, chided the assembled journalists, saying, “They’d love to have a criminal released into our country. These are sick people.”

Bondi said only El Salvador could decide whether to return Abrego Garcia. “If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane,” Bondi said. “That’s up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s not up to us.”

Yet, in a Friday press conference at the Justice Department, Bondi described the return of Abrego Garcia as smooth and seamless. “We want to thank President Bukele for agreeing to return Abrego Garcia to the United States,” she said. “Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country.”

Asked what had changed since the traffic stop in 2022, she lauded Trump. “What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States,” Bondi said, “and our borders are again secure.”

In an unusual move, Bondi also described allegations against Abrego Garcia that were not included in the indictment. She said that co-conspirators alleged that Abrego Garcia “solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor” and “played a role in the murder of a rival gang member’s mother.”

For decades, attorneys general from both parties and state and local prosecutors have generally accused defendants of crimes only for which a grand jury indicted them. Discussing other potential crimes has long been regarded as an abuse of prosecutorial power, risking unfair harm to defendants’ reputations.

A former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity, citing fears of retaliation, said that Bondi often speaks as a partisan Trump loyalist, not a neutral law enforcement official.

“She says the president’s name every time,” said the former DOJ official. “She talks more like a politician, stumping for a candidate than an attorney general who is out there talking independently. You can see that in the words she uses.”
Why did a top federal prosecutor in Tennessee resign?

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that people close to the matter said the indictment prompted the resignation of a veteran career prosecutor who headed the criminal division at the U.S. attorney’s office where the case was filed. The Journal did not name the prosecutor.

However, days after Abrego Garcia was indicted by a federal grand jury in Nashville, Ben Schrader, the head of criminal division in the U.S. attorney’s office in Nashville, resigned.

“Earlier today, after nearly 15 years as an Assistant United States Attorney, I resigned as Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee,” Schrader posted on LinkedIn. “It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I’ve ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. I wish all of my colleagues at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Nashville and across the Department the best as they seek to do justice on behalf of the American people.”

Asked about Schrader’s resignation by NBC News, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said it does not comment on personnel changes. Schrader, reached by NBC News via text on his cellphone, sent a two-word reply when asked why he had resigned: “No comment.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

OK, we are going to need this thread just to cover all the different losses for Trump in the courts.

---

Brace yourself...

T