There needs to be some penalty for a judge who ignores the law. I'd prefer immediate removal from the bench with no chance of ever being a judge again. If it is a state judge defying federal law, then we should be able to arrest and jail that judge. No judge should be above the law and if they defy the law, then they are criminals and should be treated like criminals.
The Judiciary is the third leg of our government stool (an appropriate term for most of what government creates). Federal judges are appointed according to the constitution. They can only be removed by impeachment. Changing any of that would require amending the Constitution and that is not likely to happen.
My interpretation is different but the real issue here is that Dems want every ruling to go to the SCOTUS so as to slow the whole legal process down until Trump is gone and they get back in power. Then they will pack the court and the whole issue becomes moot. The law from that point on will be whatever the Dems say it is. Vote wisely at midterms and vote often.
The only judges mentioned in the constitution are the Supreme Court. The lower court system is a creation of Congress. The whole system needs to be reformed. Judges can’t be fired but their districts can be changed so that they will no longer have a job
I went and read Article II because of your comment. You're partially correct. Article III mentions the "inferior courts" as established by Congress. It doesn't prescribe any particular method of removing or punishing judges at any level or life time appointments. It looks to me like we can change all of that through legislation, but I'm no scum-sucking lawyer, so what do I know?
It also says something about good behavior, so if they get overturned twice, they should be stripped of their robes And their license to practice law.
The problem though is that when the communists return to power, they will do the same thing to honest judges. Therefore we must start by securing the elections.
I'm beginning to think we can never truly secure the elections. What is to stop Leftists from producing millions of false IDS's, and having their people vote over and over in different locations? Or jiggering the numbers on the back side, after votes have been logged, then switching as many as they need to their side? Can we ban Leftists from working on elections in any capacity?
That's a great idea. Let's get a comfortable majority in the House and control the Senate, and then let's abolish all of the lower courts established by congress, and then rebuild them from the ground up.
its going to get much worse. most law school students and judges are female but that's the lower courts and younger judges. as the older male judges retire or die they will be replaced by the young feminist judges and you won't believe what is coming when that comes to fruition.
I think there are plenty of male leftist lunatic judges too. Indoctrination doesn't seem to discriminate on gender. But wherever the indoctrination mind virus has taken hold, it needs to be eradicated somehow.
Well just look at where they were all trained and you see the reason for these so-called opinions by the courts. The law schools are filled with leftist scholars who view the constitution as a fluid document that changes with time. We lost this fight when we lost control of our education system at all levels.
He trusted Democrats they would seal the border if he gave them their amnesty, but Democrats are congenital liars. They will lie even when the truth would suffice. And remember, Reagan only had two years where Republicans controlled the Senate, and he never had control of the House. When you look at it in those terms, he accomplished everything he did with very little support from Republicans who were just as useless back then as they are now.
Here's a group I just learned about that might be worth investigating, investing in, joining https://www.momsforliberty.org/about/. (SPLC even calls it a hate group, so it's probably doing the right things.)
Thanks Valoree. Yes, I am superficially familiar with them. In fact through a friend who told me about the event, I just went to Mar-a-Lago a couple of months ago (it was a 'bucket list' thing to go there at least once. It was great to see!) for a Moms For Liberty fundraiser. Thing is I don't have children so it's not a great fit for me. But I like their efforts! 😊
In the case of this issue, how do you propose to fight? Is there a legal process to change the blatantly leftist law schools hiring policies? Or their teaching curriculum? University’s and law schools are independent or fall under a state’s jurisdiction. The federal government has no means to control how lawyers are taught that I am aware of.
Per Grok: "Yes, law schools in the US receive significant federal funding, primarily indirectly through federal student aid programs"
If this is accurate, the DJT admin can / should set parameters on law schools such as NO DEI admissions or other discriminatory practices, NO ESG curriculum, etc.
Additionally, I recall one private law firm (a large 'white shoe' firm, as I recall) categorically stated that they WILL NOT HIRE anyone identified as being part of the pro-HAMAS protests on college campuses. That should be factored into law schools admissions too.
The point is that women tend to rule based on feelings rather than the rule of law. Look at the crop of female mayor's and police chiefs running major cities.
There are female mayors and police chiefs appointed by leftists, *who are DEI hires*.
And then there are female leaders such as Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher. Or even a former police chief of DC who rose up through the ranks who (I think?) was respected, Cathy Lanier. So again, I don't think gender aspect is determinative of ability or outlook.
roles, but I take your point--to the bank! We as a society have lost, actually thrown away, the normality and strength inherent in complementary virtues. And it is a great loss. It will take generations to recover it.
NO, they are all figureheads installed exactly because they are insane bubbleheads. They are controlled easily and told what to do and say. And everyone knows they are certifiably insane so people just laugh at them and take pity on them. They are selected through fraud and are exactly what their handlers have prepared them to be. Empty bobbleheads loaded with crazy.
you bet there are but i'm a conservative man and i want nothing to do with liberal feminist judges. indoctrination most definitely DOES discriminate on gender. females are exponentially more malleable than men. that's my position and i'm sticking to it.
I'm a conservative (aka common sense!) female and I want nothing to do with LEFTIST ("liberal" can mean different things, but "leftist" is well-defined) people of EITHER gender.
WRT being more malleable, I think that would also cut the other way insofar as being open to hearing logical arguments that would allow one to change one's mind if presented with additional information.
I think if a Judge releases a life long criminal to offend again, they should pay the victim out of their pocket. Like n several of the recent murder cases, they should be required to pay the family for the cost of a life. If they had a personal cost to these cases, that would stop the insanity of letting 10-15 20 plus time offenders right back into the streets.
If it happens again, maybe lost of job and or law licence.
If a judge releases a criminal who then commits another crime, the judge should be charged with aiding and abetting that crime. That might make them think before releasing violent criminals because of their feelings.
They should be treated exactly the way a company or business is that puts out a defective product that harms people. They should be criminally charged with criminal negligence and criminal liability. They should personally pay for people they released who then harm others. Seize their assets and give them to the victim, and then put the stinking judge in jail with his friends, the nice criminals there, who will be sure to welcome him every single day and make him regret ever being born.
The Supreme Court just issued an UNANIMOUS 9-0 ruling that freight brokers can be sued if they negligently hire companies with risky trucking practices.
So there should be a way to have Judges responsible for who they let loose. When the Judges turn activist and consider skin or illegal status as a determining factor in sentencing OR a (Soros) DA drops a case on a murderer who then murders again, they should be up on charges themselves. Those are not normal factors in bond, trials or sentencing. Shoot, there is still an ongoing controversy over wither to let rapist Harvey Weinstein out for medical compassion and he is really sick. It still shouldnt let him out.
“Unless Trump is doing something unconstitutional, judges have no authority to rebuke the president.” Very true, but how many of those so called judges have actually read the Constitution?
I’ll wager they don’t even know what a woman is and believe “that no human” is illegal.
I received another pocket edition from Hillsdale College in the mail yesterday. I could forward mine. Who first? Or better yet, Hillsdale could send a copy to each judge!
Is voting Democrat when you're not a citizen fraud or just illegal? Asking for a friend. Also, Bessent just announced if you're on public support aka welfare, you can't remit money overseas. If you have enough money to live after sending welfare money to relatives out of the country, you don't need the welfare. The Trumpster has exposed the insane way our taxpayer dollars are spent. Might end up being his biggest accomplishment.
Since Congress refuses to provide real oversight, maybe we should contract it out to Elon Musk and his DOGE team? Cheaper, quicker, and much more transparent than the ultra-washed reports we get from Congress.
When Musk's DOGE began their artificial intelligence analysis of every financial transaction of the federal government, that is when the lid was blown off of USAID, SNAP, and many other block-granted programs. That is why they all hate Musk so much. He has exposed them and we can see them committing their fraud while it is in process. They all know their time is limited and justice is coming.
Pray you are right, Sam. But even after DOGE did so, we still see billions in corruption in the states in primarily the healthcare business. Part of the blame lies with Congress where oversight has become so partisan nothing is accomplished. As for the rest, state governors must be held criminally accountable when they do not work to prevent fraud in their states. It just infuriates me that so many politicians blow off millions and billions in fraud like it’s just the cost of doing business. Something has to change soon.
I am glad the Feds are closing down the remittance loophole some. The other loophole that needs to be closed is the one where every illegal filing taxes claims 10-20 children to run up the EIC to get thousands back. One of our local news stations did an in depth investigation more than a decade ago. Thousands in our area were using one or two addresses on tax returns, and most only had a couple kids but were claiming 15-20 other relatives, several living out side the US as dependents. All that info was turned over to the IRS and NOTHING ever happened to the fraudsters.
Why don't banks, Western Union, Venmo or whoever else the hell is transfering money overseas frisk and stop? Sometimes the answers seem sooo simple. And yet there's always the but but but...
Since my 20’s I have always maintained that the landmark Roe vs Wade case was one of the worst things that happened for the US. There is the obvious reason, that being the slaughter of babies but the second reason was the power to create a national law without the need to get both voter and Congressional approval.
By allowing this both sides of the aisle found a way to excuse themselves from making or repealing laws where voters might hold them accountable. Now they could hold up their hands and say, “The courts have ruled on it, it is settled law!”
But it wasn’t settled law at all. Since Roe, generations were brought up believing that lie. Now we have legions of judges that go through law school knowing it’s not lawful but believing they are right to do it anyway.
Power in the hands of zealots never ends well. Add in some hatred for those who adhere to and use the laws correctly allows people to then believe that violent actions are the next step. Next up we have the latest assassin’s judge apologizing for his jail conditions.
Elected officials who support unelected judges to make or countermand settled law will be the undoing of America. But only if our side allows to happen. Count me in as one who won’t.
You summed it up very well. Democrats have been unable to have any of their dream list legislation enacted legally through regular practice by the democratic decisions of Americans so starting several decades ago, they have increasingly gone around the American people by using the judicial branch as a third legislative body. Judges have insinuated themselves into running little fiefdoms where they usurp control from legislatures and executives. They, themselves, have no basis in the constitution as the framers left all inferior courts form and function to be established and regulated by the congress. They have so far exceeded any actual powers they have and need to be torn apart and rebuilt from the ground up.
Good comment. As I said here in another comment, our universities and law schools are full of academics who believe the constitution should be a living fluid document subject to change rather than interpreting it as originalists rightfully do. When we were too busy to pay attention and ignored our eduction system by just throwing more money at it every time they yelled, we effectively lost the ability to affect what is taught there. Now we see the result. I’m not sure the genie can be replaced back in the bottle now.
The process has already begun to break these grip the Left got on our university system. It's going to take awhile, but the dam has been breached and these Augean stables WILL be cleansed. They had reached peak absurdity, and have nowhere to go now but down.
Years ago I looked it up in a dictionary from before Roe. That dictionary defined it as a halo of light that you would see around the moon when viewed during partial overcast.
As with too many things, the left has changed the meaning.
Yes, I have no idea what that Justice meant when he wrote about "emanating penumbras" in Roe v. Wade. But I've been using it ever since, just the way I did here.
The majority choice was the only one that comes anywhere near to what should happen to local judges who think their whims rule the entire nation including its president.
While I abhor the illegal presumption of district judges and their injunctions, usurping the proper powers of the Executive Branch (and even sometimes, amazingly, of the Legislative Branch), what REALLY frosts me is the judges (and magistrates…) freeing violent criminals with no or nominal bail to roam among us and commit more awful crimes. Many illegals in this crowd as well. For these judges, lack of pay is not severe enough punishment.
And yes, I know that there are situations where because of prior DOJ overreach some municipalities are limited re. bail, but those “consent” decrees should be addressed and voided. Enough with recidivists, which studies show form 90%+ of violent crime perpetrators.
The blatant leftist bias of rags like Politico is illustrated by this snippet: ... "millions of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years would now be treated as “seeking admission” to the country, subjecting them to mandatory detention without the opportunity for bond."
What do you mean, "immigrants"? Responsible -- and informed -- journalists use that word to describe the foreign-born who followed American rules and procedures to emigrate to the US and were granted that privilege; as a result they were LEGAL immigrants. The people that Politico described didn't bother with that; they simply snuck across the -- now finally secured -- border. Hence, as proven lawbreakers, detention without bond seems entirely justified, and their proper description reads: ILLEGALS.
Very true, even though we usually think of "invaders" as conducting an armed invasion. BUT, come to think of it, that may apply here too, since their destructive weapons include lethal drugs, human trafficking, sexual violence, illegal driving, running "Learing Centers" and other frauds ...
The EU leadership welcomed and is supporting an invasion of their countries. An invasion of people whose beliefs are the opposite of their native populations. An invasion of people who they had spent decades of war to get rid of.
Here too. Although with Trump's election (both of them), we have slowed it down.
I dont think so. I think their leaders such as Markel received some benefit of some sort. No one is that stupid given that this is EU and most of them are actually taught history. Especially with all the efforts to deny, cover up or hide all the damage that ‘migrants’ have done. That also includes those who have arrested/charged their political rivals like in Germany. The change to fight back has only come after the people have voted in new leaders.
P.S. German history includes plenty of intelligent observers who were in awe of official stupidity, i.e. the obvious fact that HIGHLY-educated individuals in positions of influence and power could say and do intensely stupid things.
But a British writer, Theodore Dalrymple, may have described the phenomenon most clearly: he called it LEARNED STUPIDITY:
“Learned stupidity … is … the stupidity of people who are by no means lacking in intelligence but who nevertheless make stupid decisions that people of … even much lesser intelligence can see at once are stupid. ...
In order for people to learn to be stupid in this sense, they must both undergo a prolonged education … while simultaneously being under surveillance for compliance and conformity. Politicians generally fulfill these conditions. They are not alone in this … People who are selected for intelligence and then denied the use of it are particularly apt to become stupid.”
You say: "No one is that stupid given that this is EU and most of them are actually taught history."
Surely you are overestimating the mental agility of EU politicians -- and their historical perspective, because this was hardly the first time that an advanced country injured itself by implementing a rigid ideology. I'm talking about another huge blunder on Merkel's part, which was the forced closure of all German nuclear power plants, her justification being the meltdown at Fukushima in 2011. But that was caused by an unexpected tsunami that hit Japan's east coast, destroying the engines -- situated too low -- that pumped cooling water to the plant. No cooling water means a meltdown. Unlike Japan, which is very earthquake-prone and tsunami-prone, Germany has no such exposure. And in further contrast, the French, who get 75% of their power from nuclear, decided not to follow Germany's example.
And -- not to belabor this, but Merkel grew up in Communist East Germany. What do you suppose her education in history was like?
These judges are simply looking at the laws on immigration and imposing their own bias and use a small part of the law to justify their rulings. It’s like not being able, or in this case willing, to see the forest because of the trees.
The other thing that has been going on and people are on to it now, is dragging something out so long people either lose interest or a statuette of limitations is reached or they are trying to wait out Trump until he is no longer President and they can get their way at that point.
I remember a painting from my youth that depicted a man who had been tarred and feathered being chased from town by a mob carrying torches. The teacher told us that in some cases that was the case. That teacher began his career in 1925, my mother was in his first class.
I'm pretty sure there are laws that when a bartender overserves a customer, and the drunk then kills someone accidentally, the bartender can be held liable. Maybe we should do that with judges.
As Don points out, judges do not always (perhaps more accurately, amost never) constrain their rulings to the strict letter of the law. Rather, they "interpret" the law in accordance wiht their persoal preferences, predelictions, foibles and prejudices; that is to say, in accordance with their personal world view. I was reminded that Judicial tyranny is not exactly a new phenomenon. The courts have almost since the very founding sought to usurp the powers granted to the other two branches of our federal government, and more perniciously, to usurp from the citizens their own sovereign power to live their lives in accordance with their conscience. Lincoln, in his First Inaugural Address made passing mention of the problem he perceived at the time. He said:
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
Of course, the thinking on the power of the judiciary has "evolved", some would say degenerated since then, to the point we now occupy, where men and women in black robes, sitting behind benches are looked upon as the final arbiter of all things, judicial, social, biological and religious. That is how we came to accept the lies of "affirmative action," "gay rights," "gay marriage," not to mention the false belief that the First Amendment somehow prevents people from any and all expression of Christianity--our founding creed--in the public square, yet compels us to accept other religious beliefs coming from such polluted sources as "satanism," "islam" (but I repeat myself), "science" and "feminism." We as a people have abrogated our own God-given and unalienable rights by ceding them to the black-robed tyrants to whom we looked as our modern equivalent of sages, seers and prophets of old, although they possess none of the qualifications to assume such an exalted position. That false paradigm must be destroyed. Trump is our avatar in doing so. He is not our savior, but he is the only chief executive in my lifetime who has seen fit to try to tame the avaricious beast that has taken up residence in Washington, DC. May he continue to have success.
I think we need to stop appointing judges and magistrates and have them run on their records in open elections every 2 or 4 years. A lot of these lunatics are simply dem operatives working under cover of a black robe…
No, but retention should be on the ballot every six years and each judge should appear in the district they represent. Then remove the bottom ten percent each election cycle but in case of a tie, remove all who are tied.
The reason I chose six is so every other time, they hit a presidential election cycle and thus more votes.
The buried lede is that appellate courts are split, with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits backing the administration while others resist. That means Politico’s “10,000 rulings” is not a constitutional verdict. It is litigation fog. The real fight is over who governs immigration: the elected President or individual district judges intoxicated by power. Judge Fred Biery’s overwrought sermon about cruelty reads less like law and more like therapy with a lifetime appointment. Trump is trying to detain and deport people who should not be here. The bench wants bond hearings, delay, relocation games, and bureaucratic molasses. This ends at the Supreme Court.
There needs to be some penalty for a judge who ignores the law. I'd prefer immediate removal from the bench with no chance of ever being a judge again. If it is a state judge defying federal law, then we should be able to arrest and jail that judge. No judge should be above the law and if they defy the law, then they are criminals and should be treated like criminals.
Let's take the midterms and then release the Kracken on these judges. They're Dem operatives in black robes.
Even some of the judges appointed by Bush & Trump.
The Judiciary is the third leg of our government stool (an appropriate term for most of what government creates). Federal judges are appointed according to the constitution. They can only be removed by impeachment. Changing any of that would require amending the Constitution and that is not likely to happen.
My interpretation is different but the real issue here is that Dems want every ruling to go to the SCOTUS so as to slow the whole legal process down until Trump is gone and they get back in power. Then they will pack the court and the whole issue becomes moot. The law from that point on will be whatever the Dems say it is. Vote wisely at midterms and vote often.
Well, yeah, except for that last clause....
Page out of the dem book .
The only judges mentioned in the constitution are the Supreme Court. The lower court system is a creation of Congress. The whole system needs to be reformed. Judges can’t be fired but their districts can be changed so that they will no longer have a job
I went and read Article II because of your comment. You're partially correct. Article III mentions the "inferior courts" as established by Congress. It doesn't prescribe any particular method of removing or punishing judges at any level or life time appointments. It looks to me like we can change all of that through legislation, but I'm no scum-sucking lawyer, so what do I know?
It also says something about good behavior, so if they get overturned twice, they should be stripped of their robes And their license to practice law.
The problem though is that when the communists return to power, they will do the same thing to honest judges. Therefore we must start by securing the elections.
Amen. Pretty sure some places only have Dims because the Dims have cheated.
I'm beginning to think we can never truly secure the elections. What is to stop Leftists from producing millions of false IDS's, and having their people vote over and over in different locations? Or jiggering the numbers on the back side, after votes have been logged, then switching as many as they need to their side? Can we ban Leftists from working on elections in any capacity?
I think we need to eliminate all of the Democrats. Send them back to their preferred foreign country along with the vermin illegals they let in.
Me either
That's a great idea. Let's get a comfortable majority in the House and control the Senate, and then let's abolish all of the lower courts established by congress, and then rebuild them from the ground up.
Amen. Unless a proposed Amendment reads: "Democrats shall be in charge of everything forever," it will never get through Congress.
its going to get much worse. most law school students and judges are female but that's the lower courts and younger judges. as the older male judges retire or die they will be replaced by the young feminist judges and you won't believe what is coming when that comes to fruition.
I think there are plenty of male leftist lunatic judges too. Indoctrination doesn't seem to discriminate on gender. But wherever the indoctrination mind virus has taken hold, it needs to be eradicated somehow.
Judge Boasberg comes to mind.
anecdotal kevin.
Bores berg??
Ice berg?
Borg-berg?
Well just look at where they were all trained and you see the reason for these so-called opinions by the courts. The law schools are filled with leftist scholars who view the constitution as a fluid document that changes with time. We lost this fight when we lost control of our education system at all levels.
We certainly lost control, but did the conservative side *ever fight*????
[Not until DJT, as far as I'm aware.]
Even Ronnie was too nice/trusting, imo. (See: caving on illegal immigration)
He trusted Democrats they would seal the border if he gave them their amnesty, but Democrats are congenital liars. They will lie even when the truth would suffice. And remember, Reagan only had two years where Republicans controlled the Senate, and he never had control of the House. When you look at it in those terms, he accomplished everything he did with very little support from Republicans who were just as useless back then as they are now.
Here's a group I just learned about that might be worth investigating, investing in, joining https://www.momsforliberty.org/about/. (SPLC even calls it a hate group, so it's probably doing the right things.)
Thanks Valoree. Yes, I am superficially familiar with them. In fact through a friend who told me about the event, I just went to Mar-a-Lago a couple of months ago (it was a 'bucket list' thing to go there at least once. It was great to see!) for a Moms For Liberty fundraiser. Thing is I don't have children so it's not a great fit for me. But I like their efforts! 😊
In the case of this issue, how do you propose to fight? Is there a legal process to change the blatantly leftist law schools hiring policies? Or their teaching curriculum? University’s and law schools are independent or fall under a state’s jurisdiction. The federal government has no means to control how lawyers are taught that I am aware of.
Per Grok: "Yes, law schools in the US receive significant federal funding, primarily indirectly through federal student aid programs"
If this is accurate, the DJT admin can / should set parameters on law schools such as NO DEI admissions or other discriminatory practices, NO ESG curriculum, etc.
Additionally, I recall one private law firm (a large 'white shoe' firm, as I recall) categorically stated that they WILL NOT HIRE anyone identified as being part of the pro-HAMAS protests on college campuses. That should be factored into law schools admissions too.
Maybe restrictions on grant monies would work Redd ?
The point is that women tend to rule based on feelings rather than the rule of law. Look at the crop of female mayor's and police chiefs running major cities.
There are female mayors and police chiefs appointed by leftists, *who are DEI hires*.
And then there are female leaders such as Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher. Or even a former police chief of DC who rose up through the ranks who (I think?) was respected, Cathy Lanier. So again, I don't think gender aspect is determinative of ability or outlook.
Men and women process information differently. We have different but complimentary rolls in the family as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers.
Dads in most cases are the disciplinarian and moms the nurturing ones.
That's in your DNA, that's in mine as well, put there by GOD.
Meir and Thatcher were both excellent leaders. They are also not the norm.
You listed three, I could list three hundred starting with Bass, Merkel and Lightfoot.
I don't dispute that many men are also terrible leaders.
roles, but I take your point--to the bank! We as a society have lost, actually thrown away, the normality and strength inherent in complementary virtues. And it is a great loss. It will take generations to recover it.
Take me to your liter....fill it with vodka.
NO, they are all figureheads installed exactly because they are insane bubbleheads. They are controlled easily and told what to do and say. And everyone knows they are certifiably insane so people just laugh at them and take pity on them. They are selected through fraud and are exactly what their handlers have prepared them to be. Empty bobbleheads loaded with crazy.
you bet there are but i'm a conservative man and i want nothing to do with liberal feminist judges. indoctrination most definitely DOES discriminate on gender. females are exponentially more malleable than men. that's my position and i'm sticking to it.
I'm a conservative (aka common sense!) female and I want nothing to do with LEFTIST ("liberal" can mean different things, but "leftist" is well-defined) people of EITHER gender.
WRT being more malleable, I think that would also cut the other way insofar as being open to hearing logical arguments that would allow one to change one's mind if presented with additional information.
Had to look up "WRT"--"With respect to". :)
I think if a Judge releases a life long criminal to offend again, they should pay the victim out of their pocket. Like n several of the recent murder cases, they should be required to pay the family for the cost of a life. If they had a personal cost to these cases, that would stop the insanity of letting 10-15 20 plus time offenders right back into the streets.
If it happens again, maybe lost of job and or law licence.
If a judge releases a criminal who then commits another crime, the judge should be charged with aiding and abetting that crime. That might make them think before releasing violent criminals because of their feelings.
It would be nice if that could be used.
Biblical!
They should be treated exactly the way a company or business is that puts out a defective product that harms people. They should be criminally charged with criminal negligence and criminal liability. They should personally pay for people they released who then harm others. Seize their assets and give them to the victim, and then put the stinking judge in jail with his friends, the nice criminals there, who will be sure to welcome him every single day and make him regret ever being born.
The Supreme Court just issued an UNANIMOUS 9-0 ruling that freight brokers can be sued if they negligently hire companies with risky trucking practices.
So there should be a way to have Judges responsible for who they let loose. When the Judges turn activist and consider skin or illegal status as a determining factor in sentencing OR a (Soros) DA drops a case on a murderer who then murders again, they should be up on charges themselves. Those are not normal factors in bond, trials or sentencing. Shoot, there is still an ongoing controversy over wither to let rapist Harvey Weinstein out for medical compassion and he is really sick. It still shouldnt let him out.
I'd prefer a rope.
Give new meaning to the term hanging judge.
“Unless Trump is doing something unconstitutional, judges have no authority to rebuke the president.” Very true, but how many of those so called judges have actually read the Constitution?
I’ll wager they don’t even know what a woman is and believe “that no human” is illegal.
I received another pocket edition from Hillsdale College in the mail yesterday. I could forward mine. Who first? Or better yet, Hillsdale could send a copy to each judge!
Is voting Democrat when you're not a citizen fraud or just illegal? Asking for a friend. Also, Bessent just announced if you're on public support aka welfare, you can't remit money overseas. If you have enough money to live after sending welfare money to relatives out of the country, you don't need the welfare. The Trumpster has exposed the insane way our taxpayer dollars are spent. Might end up being his biggest accomplishment.
Since Congress refuses to provide real oversight, maybe we should contract it out to Elon Musk and his DOGE team? Cheaper, quicker, and much more transparent than the ultra-washed reports we get from Congress.
When Musk's DOGE began their artificial intelligence analysis of every financial transaction of the federal government, that is when the lid was blown off of USAID, SNAP, and many other block-granted programs. That is why they all hate Musk so much. He has exposed them and we can see them committing their fraud while it is in process. They all know their time is limited and justice is coming.
Pray you are right, Sam. But even after DOGE did so, we still see billions in corruption in the states in primarily the healthcare business. Part of the blame lies with Congress where oversight has become so partisan nothing is accomplished. As for the rest, state governors must be held criminally accountable when they do not work to prevent fraud in their states. It just infuriates me that so many politicians blow off millions and billions in fraud like it’s just the cost of doing business. Something has to change soon.
I am glad the Feds are closing down the remittance loophole some. The other loophole that needs to be closed is the one where every illegal filing taxes claims 10-20 children to run up the EIC to get thousands back. One of our local news stations did an in depth investigation more than a decade ago. Thousands in our area were using one or two addresses on tax returns, and most only had a couple kids but were claiming 15-20 other relatives, several living out side the US as dependents. All that info was turned over to the IRS and NOTHING ever happened to the fraudsters.
OK, that's it. I just added 18 dependents. I'm 75, it's possible....
Good luck with your new 18 dependents!
Why don't banks, Western Union, Venmo or whoever else the hell is transfering money overseas frisk and stop? Sometimes the answers seem sooo simple. And yet there's always the but but but...
Since my 20’s I have always maintained that the landmark Roe vs Wade case was one of the worst things that happened for the US. There is the obvious reason, that being the slaughter of babies but the second reason was the power to create a national law without the need to get both voter and Congressional approval.
By allowing this both sides of the aisle found a way to excuse themselves from making or repealing laws where voters might hold them accountable. Now they could hold up their hands and say, “The courts have ruled on it, it is settled law!”
But it wasn’t settled law at all. Since Roe, generations were brought up believing that lie. Now we have legions of judges that go through law school knowing it’s not lawful but believing they are right to do it anyway.
Power in the hands of zealots never ends well. Add in some hatred for those who adhere to and use the laws correctly allows people to then believe that violent actions are the next step. Next up we have the latest assassin’s judge apologizing for his jail conditions.
Elected officials who support unelected judges to make or countermand settled law will be the undoing of America. But only if our side allows to happen. Count me in as one who won’t.
You summed it up very well. Democrats have been unable to have any of their dream list legislation enacted legally through regular practice by the democratic decisions of Americans so starting several decades ago, they have increasingly gone around the American people by using the judicial branch as a third legislative body. Judges have insinuated themselves into running little fiefdoms where they usurp control from legislatures and executives. They, themselves, have no basis in the constitution as the framers left all inferior courts form and function to be established and regulated by the congress. They have so far exceeded any actual powers they have and need to be torn apart and rebuilt from the ground up.
Good comment. As I said here in another comment, our universities and law schools are full of academics who believe the constitution should be a living fluid document subject to change rather than interpreting it as originalists rightfully do. When we were too busy to pay attention and ignored our eduction system by just throwing more money at it every time they yelled, we effectively lost the ability to affect what is taught there. Now we see the result. I’m not sure the genie can be replaced back in the bottle now.
The process has already begun to break these grip the Left got on our university system. It's going to take awhile, but the dam has been breached and these Augean stables WILL be cleansed. They had reached peak absurdity, and have nowhere to go now but down.
From your keyboard to God's ears.
I am not sure about the peak absurdity. Every time I think they have reached bottom or the high of absurd. They manage to find a shovel.
I pray you’re right. We are getting too close to the constant riot stage for my liking.
You mean pulling penumbras out of one's ass isn't the way to settle legal arguments? What a novel idea.
What's a penumbra?
Years ago I looked it up in a dictionary from before Roe. That dictionary defined it as a halo of light that you would see around the moon when viewed during partial overcast.
As with too many things, the left has changed the meaning.
Yes, I have no idea what that Justice meant when he wrote about "emanating penumbras" in Roe v. Wade. But I've been using it ever since, just the way I did here.
I think it is meant as a pejorative as in an empty bromide. Something repeatedly said that actually has either no meaning or is just useless words.
Useless words are a dem specialty.
That penumbra usually means rain in the next 24 hrs.
Now you and WTPuck will have me saying this all the time. It is going to be my new word of the month.
Disgraceful. When judges totally ignore law they need removed from office!!
The Wisdom of Surberites prevailed today.
The majority choice was the only one that comes anywhere near to what should happen to local judges who think their whims rule the entire nation including its president.
While I abhor the illegal presumption of district judges and their injunctions, usurping the proper powers of the Executive Branch (and even sometimes, amazingly, of the Legislative Branch), what REALLY frosts me is the judges (and magistrates…) freeing violent criminals with no or nominal bail to roam among us and commit more awful crimes. Many illegals in this crowd as well. For these judges, lack of pay is not severe enough punishment.
And yes, I know that there are situations where because of prior DOJ overreach some municipalities are limited re. bail, but those “consent” decrees should be addressed and voided. Enough with recidivists, which studies show form 90%+ of violent crime perpetrators.
You’re on 🎯 .
Nailed it !!
Politico is a swamp rag, it’s good for bird cages and toilet paper.
I would not want it anywhere near my ass..
I have to go find the cat. I scared it laughing so hard.
Make sure you get it back to Don, it needs to write tomorrow's poll before he goes to bed.
lolol I didnt say it was Don's Dr Cat, just my own. She might be helping Dr Cat though so I will find her.
The blatant leftist bias of rags like Politico is illustrated by this snippet: ... "millions of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years would now be treated as “seeking admission” to the country, subjecting them to mandatory detention without the opportunity for bond."
What do you mean, "immigrants"? Responsible -- and informed -- journalists use that word to describe the foreign-born who followed American rules and procedures to emigrate to the US and were granted that privilege; as a result they were LEGAL immigrants. The people that Politico described didn't bother with that; they simply snuck across the -- now finally secured -- border. Hence, as proven lawbreakers, detention without bond seems entirely justified, and their proper description reads: ILLEGALS.
Invaders Wim, illegal invaders !!
Very true, even though we usually think of "invaders" as conducting an armed invasion. BUT, come to think of it, that may apply here too, since their destructive weapons include lethal drugs, human trafficking, sexual violence, illegal driving, running "Learing Centers" and other frauds ...
The EU leadership welcomed and is supporting an invasion of their countries. An invasion of people whose beliefs are the opposite of their native populations. An invasion of people who they had spent decades of war to get rid of.
Here too. Although with Trump's election (both of them), we have slowed it down.
I'm more inclined to describe the European approach as sleepwalking into it. But the results were the same.
I dont think so. I think their leaders such as Markel received some benefit of some sort. No one is that stupid given that this is EU and most of them are actually taught history. Especially with all the efforts to deny, cover up or hide all the damage that ‘migrants’ have done. That also includes those who have arrested/charged their political rivals like in Germany. The change to fight back has only come after the people have voted in new leaders.
P.S. German history includes plenty of intelligent observers who were in awe of official stupidity, i.e. the obvious fact that HIGHLY-educated individuals in positions of influence and power could say and do intensely stupid things.
But a British writer, Theodore Dalrymple, may have described the phenomenon most clearly: he called it LEARNED STUPIDITY:
“Learned stupidity … is … the stupidity of people who are by no means lacking in intelligence but who nevertheless make stupid decisions that people of … even much lesser intelligence can see at once are stupid. ...
In order for people to learn to be stupid in this sense, they must both undergo a prolonged education … while simultaneously being under surveillance for compliance and conformity. Politicians generally fulfill these conditions. They are not alone in this … People who are selected for intelligence and then denied the use of it are particularly apt to become stupid.”
You say: "No one is that stupid given that this is EU and most of them are actually taught history."
Surely you are overestimating the mental agility of EU politicians -- and their historical perspective, because this was hardly the first time that an advanced country injured itself by implementing a rigid ideology. I'm talking about another huge blunder on Merkel's part, which was the forced closure of all German nuclear power plants, her justification being the meltdown at Fukushima in 2011. But that was caused by an unexpected tsunami that hit Japan's east coast, destroying the engines -- situated too low -- that pumped cooling water to the plant. No cooling water means a meltdown. Unlike Japan, which is very earthquake-prone and tsunami-prone, Germany has no such exposure. And in further contrast, the French, who get 75% of their power from nuclear, decided not to follow Germany's example.
And -- not to belabor this, but Merkel grew up in Communist East Germany. What do you suppose her education in history was like?
Invasive species. One cop I knew used to refer to some types as NHHs short for not hardly human.
These judges are simply looking at the laws on immigration and imposing their own bias and use a small part of the law to justify their rulings. It’s like not being able, or in this case willing, to see the forest because of the trees.
The other thing that has been going on and people are on to it now, is dragging something out so long people either lose interest or a statuette of limitations is reached or they are trying to wait out Trump until he is no longer President and they can get their way at that point.
I would prefer tar and feathering followed by hanging them by their heels on the public square, but alas, the cat did not offer me that choice 🤨
Let’s start with that tool Boasberg.
APS out
I remember a painting from my youth that depicted a man who had been tarred and feathered being chased from town by a mob carrying torches. The teacher told us that in some cases that was the case. That teacher began his career in 1925, my mother was in his first class.
I remember that picture from my schooling. A few years later, that class was no longer taught.
That was a part of my history and civics classes .
Since when are illegal invaders entitled to sue process? They snuck in and they’re not Americans. Duh!!!!!
Since the left took over training and owning the courts.
I'm pretty sure there are laws that when a bartender overserves a customer, and the drunk then kills someone accidentally, the bartender can be held liable. Maybe we should do that with judges.
No maybe about it. It's long past time.
Yes! This.
As Don points out, judges do not always (perhaps more accurately, amost never) constrain their rulings to the strict letter of the law. Rather, they "interpret" the law in accordance wiht their persoal preferences, predelictions, foibles and prejudices; that is to say, in accordance with their personal world view. I was reminded that Judicial tyranny is not exactly a new phenomenon. The courts have almost since the very founding sought to usurp the powers granted to the other two branches of our federal government, and more perniciously, to usurp from the citizens their own sovereign power to live their lives in accordance with their conscience. Lincoln, in his First Inaugural Address made passing mention of the problem he perceived at the time. He said:
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
Of course, the thinking on the power of the judiciary has "evolved", some would say degenerated since then, to the point we now occupy, where men and women in black robes, sitting behind benches are looked upon as the final arbiter of all things, judicial, social, biological and religious. That is how we came to accept the lies of "affirmative action," "gay rights," "gay marriage," not to mention the false belief that the First Amendment somehow prevents people from any and all expression of Christianity--our founding creed--in the public square, yet compels us to accept other religious beliefs coming from such polluted sources as "satanism," "islam" (but I repeat myself), "science" and "feminism." We as a people have abrogated our own God-given and unalienable rights by ceding them to the black-robed tyrants to whom we looked as our modern equivalent of sages, seers and prophets of old, although they possess none of the qualifications to assume such an exalted position. That false paradigm must be destroyed. Trump is our avatar in doing so. He is not our savior, but he is the only chief executive in my lifetime who has seen fit to try to tame the avaricious beast that has taken up residence in Washington, DC. May he continue to have success.
Well said.
I think we need to stop appointing judges and magistrates and have them run on their records in open elections every 2 or 4 years. A lot of these lunatics are simply dem operatives working under cover of a black robe…
No, but retention should be on the ballot every six years and each judge should appear in the district they represent. Then remove the bottom ten percent each election cycle but in case of a tie, remove all who are tied.
The reason I chose six is so every other time, they hit a presidential election cycle and thus more votes.
The buried lede is that appellate courts are split, with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits backing the administration while others resist. That means Politico’s “10,000 rulings” is not a constitutional verdict. It is litigation fog. The real fight is over who governs immigration: the elected President or individual district judges intoxicated by power. Judge Fred Biery’s overwrought sermon about cruelty reads less like law and more like therapy with a lifetime appointment. Trump is trying to detain and deport people who should not be here. The bench wants bond hearings, delay, relocation games, and bureaucratic molasses. This ends at the Supreme Court.
"This ends at the Supreme Court."
It also could end, or be significantly throttled, with the help of Congress who could restrict its powers without removing its original intent.
I'd laugh, but the complicity of congress in the evil pervading this country isn't funny.
I think these judges are administrative law judges, not federal judges appointed for life. Fire them. Hire citizens to rule.