Federal judges on the loose again

Smitty192

Stand-up Philosopher
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Supporter
Feb 23, 2017
1,798
2,418
Deep East Texas
Federal judges play political games because nothing short of being impeached by the Senate can result in them losing their jobs; which is nearly impossible due to how our political system works. I think a lot of the bullshit we are dealing with could be dealt with by allowing the Supreme Court to discipline lower court judges.
 
What would that discipline be? Angry words on twitter/x?

SCOTUS isn't exactly snow white virginal these days, entire fed judiciary is unreliable compared to 25+ yrs ago.

It sucks -- but that is how things are right now. Things you may have learned in k-12 about the role of fed courts and SCOTUS, they are just about non-applicable these days. Same with Congress and same with the Exec branch. The whole circus is heavily compromised, but it is very hard to notice as much if your info sources are domestic. Domestic "news" and opinion sources these days are spending their time creating Team Red vs Team Blue boxing matches, and covering up how bad things are otherwise.
 
What would that discipline be? Angry words on twitter/x?

SCOTUS isn't exactly snow white virginal these days, entire fed judiciary is unreliable compared to 25+ yrs ago.

It sucks -- but that is how things are right now. Things you may have learned in k-12 about the role of fed courts and SCOTUS, they are just about non-applicable these days. Same with Congress and same with the Exec branch. The whole circus is heavily compromised, but it is very hard to notice as much if your info sources are domestic. Domestic "news" and opinion sources these days are spending their time creating Team Red vs Team Blue boxing matches, and covering up how bad things are otherwise.
Discipline requires the Supreme Court be able to remove any problem lower court judge. Anything less isn't going to work.

Right now the Judicial branch can't really regulate itself and the Legislative can't either because impeachment isn't politically feasible. That needs to change and in my mind allowing the Judicial branch to police itself is preferable to granting the Legislative more power over a rival branch of government.
 
How is a Congress motivated toward an impeachment process if the same forces/interests are running all three branches of govt?

What is the solution when the govt is captured by interests and people who represent numerically or per capita no more than 5-7% of the legal citizenry?

Talking about SCOTUS being able to remove lower judges, well I don't think that would play out as you imagine. Not as of 2025 and looking forward, that is.

It is annoying, frustrating, sad, difficult but things are very captured right now and vote smarter/vote harder is not any kind of solution, nor are things that might work if the system otherwise were healthy and functional.

I suggest going basic/granular and looking at your local city council or whatever. What do you know about each person? Their business background? Their family/community background? Their education? What they do for recreation? Do you know if they receive big lump donations from anyone? If so, who are those big donors and what do they expect for their $$?
 
  • Like
Reactions: clcustom1911
How the fuck is this even possible?

When you have a hand full of people trying to subvert the will of the people, the solution is very simple,... well as long as the both sides are not in on it, that is.
 
How the fuck is this even possible?

Well today, anything's possible. Though, it's just a judge. I have yet to see any Governor or President arrested for not listening to a court's ruling.
 
Didn't the SC just rule judges can't issue nation wide injunctions?
As a matter of process/procedure, a Federal District Court judge's rulings have effect within that District on State law matters, and on Federal law matters, the judge can rule on what he thinks the Federal law means across the country.

This means that on Federal law rulings by a Dist Ct judge, you can have different rulings/views/opinions. Both within a District, and then within the Circuit (of Appeals judges) the District sits in. You can have conflicting Federal law rulings among the Districts. And they can take years to resolve.

SCOTUS can certainly say that a Dist Ct judge's injunction (an equity power vested in Fed Dist Ct judges) has only the scope of that District. Functionally, a Dist Ct judge has no authority, power, process to oversee violations of the injunction in another District.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic user
Didn't the SC just rule judges can't issue nation wide injunctions?
The same people who were ignored when they said “text, history and tradition” would allow me to 2a all up and down this bitch full auto, suppressed w a 12.5” barrel?

1752000579839.gif
 
So, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government is responsible for providing healthcare? Is this another bastardization of the general welfare statement?
Man don't just stop w/healthcare,... where does it say they have the right to legally steal from me, to provide anything to the lazy?
 
So, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government is responsible for providing healthcare? Is this another bastardization of the general welfare statement?
Law students spend an entire year on such questions in Constitutional Law, and some of them still can't understand things.

The Constitution is not a recipe book. It is not a list of things that must be in govt and does not talk about the sneaky ways people try to get the govt to behave or be operating unConstitutionally.

It's just a framework. If the nation were a house, the Constitution would be its foundation and if stick-built, its framed structure but nowhere near its finished structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
Man don't just stop w/healthcare,... where does it say they have the right to legally steal from me, to provide anything to the lazy?
Sixteenth Amendment is where the politicians fully ratified the fleecing of their constituents’ wallets into the Constitution. Everything else like socialist security and mediscare are just “taxes” held constitutional through the 16th.
 
Boston.
“US District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and set a preliminary injunction hearing for July 21.”

Elsewhere:
“U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, in Boston, issued a ruling on April 14, 2025, temporarily halting the Biden administration's planned termination of the humanitarian parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV). This decision prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from revoking the parole status of these individuals, impacting approximately 532,000 people,”

National Science Foundation (NSF) Indirect Costs:
She sided with universities in blocking the NSF's 15% cap on indirect costs.

She’s been really busy for her chosen political backers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redmanss
You can quickly see how the fed judiciary is aligned, or not, with how much deference this Boston MA based judge (District of Massachusetts) receives in other injunction applications or lawsuits around the country.

Technically speaking this injunction cannot extend beyond the judge's District. Normally, any other Districts in the country, they have to have a separate application for injunction, and they would probably cite this Mass judge's injunction as their persuasive evidence of need. But there is no obligation for another District Court's judge to follow this -- unless they are other judges in the District of Massachusetts. And even there, another Dist judge in MA might disagree and deny the injunction.
 
Sixteenth Amendment is where the politicians fully ratified the fleecing of their constituents’ wallets into the Constitution. Everything else like socialist security and mediscare are just “taxes” held constitutional through the 16th.
Since the Internal Revenue Service wasn't even an idea, didn't even exist, as of 1789 -- all SCOTUS rulings on what is a "tax" have to be read a little strangely. Normally your frame of reference would be IRS/Treasury imposed taxes. But SCOTUS has to look at what existed in 1789, and what that concept has become over the interim. Sometimes, like Justice Roberts and his "penaltax" ruling, they get it wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fig
Since the Internal Revenue Service wasn't even an idea, didn't even exist, as of 1789 -- all SCOTUS rulings on what is a "tax" have to be read a little strangely. Normally your frame of reference would be IRS/Treasury imposed taxes. But SCOTUS has to look at what existed in 1789, and what that concept has become over the interim. Sometimes, like Justice Roberts and his "penaltax" ruling, they get it wrong.
No, that’s not the case. The original Constitution may have been written and ratified in 1789, but amendments add to or even change the actual text of the original document. Saying SCOTUS has to look at 1789 is saying they should ignore the Bill of Rights as they weren’t ratified until 1791.

The 16th Amendment which allows the USG to tax the people’s incomes and distribute it how they wish by ignoring proportioning by population allowed the Congress to create all the tax bullshit and divvy it out by what gets them votes to keep them in power. The Supreme Court HAS to look at that basis, as the Constitution includes all ratified Amendments the same as if it was part of the original 1789 document.

This is how the dems slid through Obamacare by calling it a tax (and the lib justices going along with that), as well as how GOA is suing to remove SBR, SBS and suppressors from the NFA because their basis was also held due to the tax that no longer exists. I really hope we get that win playing their own fucking game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
Anyone wanting to argue the Constitution had better be well versed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the 1789 Constitution, and all amendments to the Constitution. All of it. This stuff does not arise in a vacuum and is not done by time-specific snapshots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjacobs
I'm good with a 2/3 vote on all bills. If that locks everything up from passing, then GOOD! The less bills passed, the better we are! The less government does, the better we will be. We don't really want them passing anything, it's all bullshit and not designed to make things better.

As the richest country in the world with the 37 Trillion in debt, we should be driving on the nicest roads, drinking through the nicest water systems and have the most powerful power grid in the world. Nope, we waste all that fucking money on these stupid fucking bills! We just sit back and let these cock sucker steal half of every dollar we earn and we do nothing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoDopes and BLEE
I don't know if you are familiar with retired USAF Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski, but she recently offered the idea that because the scheme of taxation changed, people pay less attention to tax dollar waste. She noted that previously in history, you paid your taxes in a lump sum annually -- there were no auto withholdings by employers. She said the auto-withholdings have made people pay less attention to how much they are taxed, and therefore they pay less attention to the wasted tax dollars.

I think there's some weight in that view, just like there is less attention paid to how much bank account and pocket money you have, when you use digital money cards to pay for everything. Out of sight, out of mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLEE and lash
Anyone wanting to argue the Constitution had better be well versed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the 1789 Constitution, and all amendments to the Constitution. All of it. This stuff does not arise in a vacuum and is not done by time-specific snapshots.
The Declaration of Independence is Natural, Fundamental, or Organic Law. It has been cited in numerous SCOTUS decisions, and the internet is 100% dead wrong about a lot of things that come up first in a search. This is what AI says: "...it is a historical document that announced the American colonies' separation from Great Britain and outlined the principles of individual rights and government by consent. It serves as a foundational text for American democracy but does not have legal authority like the Constitution or laws passed by Congress."

I find that to be a completely bullshit answer, and not at all adequate or historically true. AI was appearently programed by feckless leftists. The National Center for Constitutional Studies states unequivocally that it IS law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milf Dots
One of the reasons I threw the life preserver -- general online info about history of fedgov, history of the post-Revolution government, history of federal laws, all of it is unreliable, often it is heavily biased. As to AI, well that arose from California's digikooks in Silicon Valley area, and those kooks are not known for their origins in Revolutionary War stock, Founding Fathers stock, or any stock meaningful to the formation of the nation. They are agitators.
 
Let me say this gently so nobody think's I'm wearing the High Hat here.

Before I went off and studied for 3 yrs and clerked for a judge for a year and spent time as a litigator and time as in-house counsel to a business, I used to think the K-12 basics were how our govt and how our courts worked.

Once I was through my first year of study I realized I was wrong about how law and our courts worked.

Once I spent some years in business, I learned how our government actually works.

Then I wanted to know "inside" govt workings so I spent 4 yrs as a greenie enviro planner working with US EPA and state equivalents. This is where I really saw how govt works and how fed funding is a giant carrot dangled before a starving rabbit. So much top-down control. Example: the region I worked on had no industry, so car/truck/bus/motorcycle etc were the main pollution source. Could we talk honestly with the Transportation Planning folks about ways to make traffic snarls better, ways to make the region more "driveable" and thus less congestion causing pollution? No sir. Transportation had to keep doing things as developers wanted or they would not get their fed hwy funds, which held them afloat more than direct state funding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
Let me say this gently so nobody think's I'm wearing the High Hat here.

Before I went off and studied for 3 yrs and clerked for a judge for a year and spent time as a litigator and time as in-house counsel to a business, I used to think the K-12 basics were how our govt and how our courts worked.

Once I was through my first year of study I realized I was wrong about how law and our courts worked.

Once I spent some years in business, I learned how our government actually works.

Then I wanted to know "inside" govt workings so I spent 4 yrs as a greenie enviro planner working with US EPA and state equivalents. This is where I really saw how govt works and how fed funding is a giant carrot dangled before a starving rabbit. So much top-down control. Example: the region I worked on had no industry, so car/truck/bus/motorcycle etc were the main pollution source. Could we talk honestly with the Transportation Planning folks about ways to make traffic snarls better, ways to make the region more "driveable" and thus less congestion causing pollution? No sir. Transportation had to keep doing things as developers wanted or they would not get their fed hwy funds, which held them afloat more than direct state funding.
Look, I get what you're saying and I (in my literal grunt mind) believe we're somewhat arguing the same point. We're both saying it's one big scam, that the DC swamp from 1795 was never drained, and you can't swing a dead cat in DC without hitting fifteen people looking to fleece the common citizen for their own bankroll.

Idealistically, SCOTUS, Congress and POTUS would use the foundational documents as their runway lights to guide them in their decisions and actions. Small government would always be the basis of judgements and nothing would be instituted if it wasn't good for ALL the citizenry, rich and poor, sick and healthy, land owner and share cropper alike. 100% there with you.

Realistically, we have gay marriage as a Constitutional right, I can't own the same weapons I carried when I was active duty or even when I was a civilian security contractor for DoS/DoD, and despite what would be an extremely lucrative case for those making multiple millions a year and could hire entire firms of lawyers to strike it down, we still have a progressive income tax that penalizes success and a ponzi scheme social security system that's about to fall flat on its face.

Why? Because we don't have idealists and originalists on the court, at least nowhere near the amount we need to get a majority decision. The states gave up their rights to have their representatives in the Senate, the people got fleeced for a bigger budget that with no coincidence was immediately used to fight the biggest war in mankind to date then, and now we even have a major movement to eliminate the Electoral College so they can take down the last institution that is (somewhat) representative of the country as a whole.

I wasn't even a clerk for the 1stSgt, much less any judge, but I can tell we're all getting fucked by the courts that ignore everything written by the Founding Fathers.
 
I'm good with a 2/3 vote on all bills. If that locks everything up from passing, then GOOD! The less bills passed, the better we are! The less government does, the better we will be. We don't really want them passing anything, it's all bullshit and not designed to make things better.

As the richest country in the world with the 37 Trillion in debt, we should be driving on the nicest roads, drinking through the nicest water systems and have the most powerful power grid in the world. Nope, we waste all that fucking money on these stupid fucking bills! We just sit back and let these cock sucker steal half of every dollar we earn and we do nothing!
I'm with you as long as we also make it so that a bill can ONLY contain one item. No more tacking on BS and pork. It has to stand on its own legs and 2/3 of those bastards have to vote yes. It would end the 2500 page bills. Might even limit it to 1 page double spaced in 12 point helvetica.
 
I wasn't even a clerk for the 1stSgt, much less any judge, but I can tell we're all getting fucked by the courts that ignore everything written by the Founding Fathers.
Seriously, I was not trying to be high & mighty before. I was crisp with you because these are very important things to discuss, to take seriously, and to be correct about if you are going to hold or argue a position.

Whether we like this or not, the burden of fixing this mess falls upon the folks who understand this is not the way things should be going. That starts with folks like people here talking to each other and trying to be clear on what is, versus what people want things to be. Can't fix a problem if you can't even pin down the problem or its causes with accuracy.

I don't hang around other lawyers. I hang around normal people. My friends who try to stay up with current problems, I am telling them as well -- forget what you learned K-12 and go back to the Declaration, the Articles, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist essays, and the Constitution. Understand what was intended after succeeding in the Revolution.

Most importantly, understand this: King of England was a dunce and a tyrant, using the colonists as slaves. You really think those who succeeded in the revolution would want to turn around and become a bunch of lying manipulators like the KofE and his regime? If you think that, you may need an examination for post-concussion syndrome or similar!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redmanss