Someone needs to be investigated.
Let's unfreeze those funds so they can do more of this:
Let's unfreeze those funds so they can do more of this:
This doesn't make any sense legally. So one federal judge doesn't have "power over" the executive branch. Who does then? Only the SCOTUS? The executive branch is free to ignore orders of any court lower than SCOTUS?
My grandmother used to say you can’t help the ignorant and you are living proof of that. Gracious Lord above.Our Constitution's safety is more in danger than Bondi's.
This doesn't make any sense legally. So one federal judge doesn't have "power over" the executive branch. Who does then? Only the SCOTUS? The executive branch is free to ignore orders of any court lower than SCOTUS?
Essentially, yes except the SCOTUS has no power over the POTUS , but the POTUS has no authority over the SCOTUS. As coequal branches of Govt they have no authority over the other.This doesn't make any sense legally. So one federal judge doesn't have "power over" the executive branch. Who does then? Only the SCOTUS? The executive branch is free to ignore orders of any court lower than SCOTUS?
Showed ignored content, God only knows why. Got this doozy. Lead paint? It takes millions to tell people not to eat that shit? The same paint millions of our parents grew up around and survived just fine? You know how hard it is to come across lead paint anymore? Even in older homes where even if it exists still it’s in trace amounts or has been buried under 30 layers? EVERYBODY, knows about lead paint. Don’t need millions to fund nonsense. You wanna know the real reason for the lead paint fear mongering? You know why x-ray rooms are lined with lead right?
There are plenty of cases where a nationwide injunction has benefitted Republican party and business interests. For example, district court judges have enjoined a bunch of Obama and Biden era employment law regulations (wage and hour, noncompete, vaccine mandate, etc.). If a district court lacked that power, then unlawful regulations would go into effect in some places but not others.They’re probably discussing the ability of a federal district judge issuing injunctions that bind the federal government nationwide over all the people it governs, rather than just the district or as applied to the specific plaintiffs.
That issue will be in front of SCOTUS within the next 18 months as soon as the admin picks the best, most insanely corrupt and overstepping, district court ruling to go with.
I would say your argument (and the other "impeach federal judges" arguments on here) are the oversimpled, lay arguments. IMO, it is a reasonable opinion that an agency that was created by and appropriated by Congress cannot be eliminated (or have its appropriation frozen) by the executive branch. Whether that is legally correct will be tested at the appellate level. But I don't see that's an outrageous decision.Its an overly simplified lay argument that, while not correct in form, is correct in rationale.
Courts have the ability to review whatever. However historically they correctly applied what was once called "judicial restraint". That concept had courts refusing to weigh on questions of national security, political questions, etc.
I use past tense because now with judicial activism there is no such restraint.
At its most basic level, its a horrendous overreach to tell a secretary of an executive office that he has no authority to audit his own office. It's absurd on every level, lay or otherwise, is clearly a massive overreach, and is almost surely an example of the very kind of corruption this audit already uncovered.
Why is this far left, anti-American FILTH not behind bars?
Why has she not been deported?
There are plenty of cases where a nationwide injunction has benefitted Republican party and business interests. For example, district court judges have enjoined a bunch of Obama and Biden era employment law regulations (wage and hour, noncompete, vaccine mandate, etc.). If a district court lacked that power, then unlawful regulations would go into effect in some places but not others.
This doesn't even make sense.until now i didn’t realize how these judges could so quickly and effectively countermand the potus. smdh
until now i didn’t realize how these judges could so quickly and effectively countermand the potus. smdh
The POTUS is under no command to spend money Congress approves. Just as the Congress is under no command to approve funds the POTUS wants available.I would say your argument (and the other "impeach federal judges" arguments on here) are the oversimpled, lay arguments. IMO, it is a reasonable opinion that an agency that was created by and appropriated by Congress cannot be eliminated (or have its appropriation frozen) by the executive branch. Whether that is legally correct will be tested at the appellate level. But I don't see that's an outrageous decision.
There are plenty of cases where a nationwide injunction has benefitted Republican party and business interests. For example, district court judges have enjoined a bunch of Obama and Biden era employment law regulations (wage and hour, noncompete, vaccine mandate, etc.). If a district court lacked that power, then unlawful regulations would go into effect in some places but not others.
Considering they use an inactive form of the viruses, I’d say you are just fear mongering. The flu evolves so quickly that it is really hard to create an effective vaccine. That’s the reason why I do not get one. These inert vaccines are not going to make anything worse, however, if you have some evidence to counter my claim, you’d completely revolutionize epidemiology and probably earn yourself some serious cash.And again.... and again
![]()
2024-2025 Flu Vaccine Effectiveness: What Do We Know?
How effective are flu vaccines this season? Vaccines used in the Southern Hemisphere in the 2024 flu season may provide a hint.www.flu.com
So this year the flu vaccine is "trivalent." They put 3 strains in the shots.
2 type A variants and one type B variant. I'm sure that "has nothing to do with" what they're seeing in hospitals and communities. Notice that no one is talking about "viral shedding" anymore.
Nevermind that every year for the past 20 or so, the variant they put IN THE SHOTS is the same variant that predominates the infections found in testing the sick for that year. I posted charts and links to them from the CDC and NHS several times over the last few years. Usually deleted, of course, since c19.
Now they need to prosecute their asses!!
They should do jail time for this!
So you are saying the court is the highest power in the land? The constitution says the President is in charge of the executive branch. If a judge can rule over judicial, legislative and executive branch then a rogue judge can be emperor. The judge didn't even make a legal case for his ruling.... He was just like "nah, I don't like it". LOLThis doesn't make any sense legally. So one federal judge doesn't have "power over" the executive branch. Who does then? Only the SCOTUS? The executive branch is free to ignore orders of any court lower than SCOTUS?
So people didn't get fired for refusing the vax? Seems like I remember about 30K people losing their jobs.There are plenty of cases where a nationwide injunction has benefitted Republican party and business interests. For example, district court judges have enjoined a bunch of Obama and Biden era employment law regulations (wage and hour, noncompete, vaccine mandate, etc.). If a district court lacked that power, then unlawful regulations would go into effect in some places but not others.
“just discovered”![]()
FBI "Just Discovered" 2,400 Undisclosed Records Tied to JFK Assassination Never Provided to Review Board | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
The FBI's recent unearthing of 2,400 undisclosed records linked to JFK's assassination raises critical questions about transparency and government accountability. This revelation comes on the heels of President Trump's directive for full disclosure.www.thegatewaypundit.com
Then why didn't the judge give a legal argument for the ruling and why didn't the judge let Trumps lawyers make arguments? For instance, he didn't just ban Trump from accessing Treasury records. He banned the duly placed Treasury secretary too.I would say your argument (and the other "impeach federal judges" arguments on here) are the oversimpled, lay arguments. IMO, it is a reasonable opinion that an agency that was created by and appropriated by Congress cannot be eliminated (or have its appropriation frozen) by the executive branch. Whether that is legally correct will be tested at the appellate level. But I don't see that's an outrageous decision.
Yea it's wild. Biden spends fema money on Illegal immigrants, spends DOD funds on Ukraine, spends border patrol money on illegals and spends usaid money of dei and trans nonsense..... not a peep. But try to save money and everyone is a by the book constitutionalist. LOL.The POTUS is under no command to spend money Congress approves. Just as the Congress is under no command to approve funds the POTUS wants available.
You are saying that the founders intended for executive branch departments to have absolutely no accountability to the Executive?I would say your argument (and the other "impeach federal judges" arguments on here) are the oversimpled, lay arguments. IMO, it is a reasonable opinion that an agency that was created by and appropriated by Congress cannot be eliminated (or have its appropriation frozen) by the executive branch. Whether that is legally correct will be tested at the appellate level. But I don't see that's an outrageous decision.
No. They were building a fleet of container ships for his wifes family.Was McConnell at least stealing money from the treasury to benefit KY during this multi-decade grift? Or was he just benefiting his family and China?