Can Anti-Trump So-Called Judges Stop ALL of His Major Projects?

March 13, 2017

With Federal Judges across the nation making up FAKE/WEAK reasons for defying President Trump's temporary travel bans, what else have WE THE PEOPLE given them to power to do?

Can an anti-American judge also suddenly stop Trump Wall from starting? Or halt it, during the process of being built, citing "Most Mexicans are Catholics" and labeling the wall a Catholic discrimination tool?

How about if the 300mph High-Speed Train crosses Indian Land? Forget the fact that Indians would financially benefit. A mentally unbalanced, lone-wolf anti-Trump Judge, could rule the rail line project as discriminatory to Indians, because they have spirit elders hovering in the vicinity.

Have we given Federal Judges so much power that they can literally do whatever they want? If so...how can we legally reduce their authority???

-CareWeMust

Anti-American..... Sane...

Tomato tomato, right?...

a reply to: carewemust

President Trump will have the Supreme Court very soon -- a matter of weeks.

At that point, all this leftist judicial activism will end.

There are also over 100 Federal Judgeships for Trump to fill. Once that process is completed over the next year or so, the Left won't be able to subvert the will of the people anymore.

a reply to: SBMcG

Supreme court? Like Reagan did? Don't forget Reagan tripped over himself to get Ginsburg in there, big first. Look at the success she was/is.

originally posted by: Jefferton
Anti-American..... Sane...

Tomato tomato, right?...

Defending Islam, sane??? I think not. I wonder if they'd defend nazis too, probably.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SBMcG

Supreme court? Like Reagan did? Don't forget Reagan tripped over himself to get Ginsburg in there, big first. Look at the success she was/is.

Huh? Ginsburg was appointed by Clinton.

a reply to: carewemust

The problem that the anti-American so-called President keeps running into seems to be that he and his staff love to hear themselves talk.

Trump calld it a Muslim ban from day one when he first announced that he wanted to put a ban on Muslims entering the country. It was a ban for all that time until Team Trump determined that they needed to stop calling it a ban. Then Giuliani goes on Fox News and says Trump tasked him with making the "Muslim ban' constitutional.

Telling the world that it's a Muslim ban that was dressed up in an attempt to make it legal wasn't a particularly clever move.

Now we've got Stephen Miller, once again on Fox News and this time, he's remarking about how the new ban is basically the old ban only further dressed up in an attempt to get around what had led to the restraining orders for the first ban.

Everyone knows exactly what is up here. This was always a Muslim ban. Now it's seems like maybe it's just about "winning" for the administration. How many days has it been since the purportedly 90-day travel ban supposed to go into place? Forty? How many months do you spend fighting for an emergency 90-day travel ban?

How the hell does that even make sense? Nearly half of the would be ban period has passed. Are they not "finding out what's going on" or whatever vague, stupid, nonsensical reason Trump cited for the ban in the first place?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SBMcG

Supreme court? Like Reagan did? Don't forget Reagan tripped over himself to get Ginsburg in there, big first. Look at the success she was/is.

Wasn't Ginsburg ruling conservatively until she took that fall?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SBMcG

Supreme court? Like Reagan did? Don't forget Reagan tripped over himself to get Ginsburg in there, big first. Look at the success she was/is.

Wasn't Ginsburg ruling conservatively until she took that fall?

LMAO!

No. She's always been the typical anti-America communist leftist.

a reply to: theantediluvian

How does importing even one non-citizen Muslim make American citizens safer?

a reply to: theantediluvian

There are additional countries that could have been included, if President Trump wanted a MUSLIM BAN.

a reply to: carewemust

The courts are using what he said to justify halting his projects.

Now imagine a judge stopping Obamacare because we didn't get to keep our doctor, it didn't save us 2,500.00 per family.

This is setting a dangerous precedent.

The argument that it is a Muslim ban is demonstrably false. Muslims are still free to travel to the US. These so-called judges are therefor left to refer to their imagination, and not law, and not facts, in order to justify their judgements. This erodes the rule of law and the judicial process.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SBMcG

Supreme court? Like Reagan did? Don't forget Reagan tripped over himself to get Ginsburg in there, big first. Look at the success she was/is.

Wasn't Ginsburg ruling conservatively until she took that fall?

LMAO!

No. She's always been the typical anti-America communist leftist.

Oh..thanks for correcting me. It must have been FAKE NEWS that Ginsberg slipped and fell into a vat of GIN while on a tour.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The argument that it is a Muslim ban is demonstrably false. Muslims are still free to travel to the US. These so-called judges are therefor left to refer to their imagination, and not law, and not facts, in order to justify their judgements. This erodes the rule of law and the judicial process.

How do we dial back their authority? Is a Constitutional Amendment needed? I bet we'd get at least 10 million signatures on a petition.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SBMcG

Supreme court? Like Reagan did? Don't forget Reagan tripped over himself to get Ginsburg in there, big first. Look at the success she was/is.

Wasn't Ginsburg ruling conservatively until she took that fall?

LMAO!

No. She's always been the typical anti-America communist leftist.

Oh..thanks for correcting me. It must have been FAKE NEWS that Ginsberg slipped and fell into a vat of GIN while on a tour.

The "vat of gin" angle sounds about right to me, but as for Ginsburg's political leanings, she's always ruled from the far left since being appointed by Slick Willy in 1993.

It's almost certain that both Ginsburg and Breyer -- both vile leftists, will be replaced by Trump.

Not if theyre lawful.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

The courts are using what he said to justify halting his projects.

Now imagine a judge stopping Obamacare because we didn't get to keep our doctor, it didn't save us 2,500.00 per family.

This is setting a dangerous precedent.

Yes sir!.. If these SO-CALLED judges weren't tainted, they would declare ObamaCare Illegal, because it was sold based on more LIES than Truths.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The argument that it is a Muslim ban is demonstrably false. Muslims are still free to travel to the US. These so-called judges are therefor left to refer to their imagination, and not law, and not facts, in order to justify their judgements. This erodes the rule of law and the judicial process.

Even if it were a "Muslim ban", the President has absolute authority under the Constitution to ban ANY GROUP for any reason from entering this country. This judge in Hawaii is just the typical activist leftist subverting the Constitution.

a reply to: carewemust

How do we dial back their authority? Is a Constitutional Amendment needed? I bet we'd get at least 10 million signatures on a petition.

I would argue impeachment, but then again, I do not know enough about to offer an adequete solution.