reSee.it - Related Post Feed

robbystarbuck
Posted - January 28, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Saved - January 28, 2025 at 11:25 PM

@robbystarbuck - Robby Starbuck

Massive news: President Trump just signed an executive order banning sex changes for kids. More specifically, it bans the chemical and surgical mutilation of minors. He says "This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end." Absolutely fantastic!🔥 https://t.co/mbyInn9CWz

julie_kelly2
Posted - February 5, 2025 at 2:28 PM
Saved - February 5, 2025 at 11:29 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m frustrated with Judge Lamberth, who seems to be using his position to undermine Trump’s policies. He recently issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s executive order on transgender inmates, claiming it violates their rights. It’s shocking to see his sudden compassion for these individuals, especially considering his harsh treatment of J6 defendants. I can't understand how stopping hormone therapy for inmates isn't seen as a public interest issue, and it feels like this is more about opposing Trump than anything else.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

The same DC judges who tormented J6ers and denounced the president's pardons now will form the first line of defense against Trump adm policies. Judge Lamberth--one of the cruelest and most outspoken DC judges, appointed by Reagan--just entered a temp restraining order related to Trump's executive order on transgender inmates. Lamberth--who held nonviolent offenders under pretrial detention and imposed excessive sentences on J6ers including women--claims the exec order violates the 8A rights of the men pretending to be women. I bet people like @Iamrachelpowell are very interested in Lamberth's new found compassion.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

More from Lamberth--who needs to be forced from the bench. Just stunning but typical garbage from Lamberth. It is NOT in the public interest to stop paying for hormone therapy for criminals?? This has nothing to do with anything except defying President Trump. https://t.co/2AmJKTLHrI

amuse
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Saved - February 8, 2025 at 11:02 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I am outraged by Judge Paul Engelmayer's ruling that prevents all of Trump's political appointees, including the Treasury Secretary, from accessing Treasury Department data. This decision, made without legal precedent or input from the Trump administration, undermines executive authority and transfers power to unelected bureaucrats. It feels like a blatant judicial power grab, and I believe it sets a dangerous precedent for future cases. The Supreme Court must intervene to restore constitutional governance and prevent further judicial overreach.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: Total BS…

@SenTomCotton - Tom Cotton

Outrageous. Obama Judge Paul Engelmayer didn’t just bar @elonmusk and @doge from Treasury systems, he barred the Secretary of the Treasury himself. Without citing a single law or even allowing Trump admin to appear in court! This outlaw should be reversed immediately and Engelmayer should be forbidden by higher courts from ever hearing another case against the Trump admin. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/federal-judge-blocks-elon-musks-doge-from-treasury-system-e0f1e55c?st=QQJrvW&reflink=article_imessage_share

amuse
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 7:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a ruling preventing Trump's political appointees, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, from accessing Treasury Department data, which critics argue undermines executive authority and lacks legal precedent. The decision, made without input from Trump’s legal team, is described as judicial overreach that transfers power to unelected bureaucrats, challenging the Constitution's separation of powers. Supporters of Trump believe this ruling will backfire, asserting that the administration anticipated such judicial actions.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.

@drawandstrike - Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit

This ruling will not age well. Remember, Trump wants this. Trump in his team expected this, that the deep state would attempt to use judges to block executive actions from executive branch official. This is all going to be hashed out now not a year or two from now . They are taking their best shot with the judges to stop him. Legally and constitutionally, they have no leg to stand on .

elonmusk
Posted - February 10, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Saved - February 10, 2025 at 7:14 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

What happens is that those who want the government corruption & waste to continue will shop around the country for an activist judge to do their bidding. It is an undemocratic and unconstitutional power grab by a tiny group of radical leftists!

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: Obama-appointed judge threatened Trump and his team with arrest if they don't restore every last dime of funding that has been paused or cancelled. If the president wants to delay any payment he will need to justify his request to the judge's personal satisfaction.

elonmusk
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 1:49 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

This is getting ridiculous!

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: DC judge orders Trump to restore web pages related to sex change operations and gender ideology on the HHS, CDC, and FDA websites. Presumably, new presidents are not allowed to delete webpages posted by former presidents...

RepMTG
Posted - February 12, 2025 at 10:29 AM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 8:01 PM

@RepMTG - Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸

This judge is a Trump deranged Democrat activist. Below is proof he is not capable of making good decisions from the bench. He should be impeached.

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

🚨 EXC - I've unearthed footage from 2021 where the judge blocking the Trump spending freeze accuses Trump of being a "tyrant," claims racism is a "white people problem," and insists transgenders need special sentencing privileges. This is an activist not a judge. Watch ⬇️🧵

elonmusk
Posted - February 12, 2025 at 3:28 PM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 8:26 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one

@amuse - @amuse

USAID: The swamp is deep. One of the activist judges blocking Trump's agenda, Judge John Bates, is married to the founder of a USAID-funded NGO. Carol Rhees is a Democrat lawyer who started Hope for Children in Ethiopia a long-time USAID grant recipient. h/t @pepesgrandma

libsoftiktok
Posted - February 13, 2025 at 9:04 PM
Saved - February 14, 2025 at 10:50 AM

@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok

BREAKING: U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson just BLOCKED President Trump's EO on stripping funding for sex change surgery and hormone drugs for minors. Why are they so desperate to mutilate and castrate kids?? https://t.co/jEj9edVMjf

CollinRugg
Posted - February 13, 2025 at 9:28 PM
Saved - February 13, 2025 at 11:22 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
An activist federal judge has blocked Trump's executive order banning sex change procedures for minors, arguing that the order denies the existence of the population affected. I find it concerning that anyone would support children undergoing such changes. Judge Brendan Hurson, appointed by President Biden, recently expressed his views on democracy during a speech at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. It seems contradictory that he would now halt a decision that reflects the will of the voters just months later.

@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg

JUST IN: Activist federal judge blocks Trump's executive order banning s*x change "care" for minors, says he blocked it because he thought Trump was denying "the population even exists." Only a creep would want children to have s*x changes. Judge Brendan Hurson was appointed by President Joe Biden. During a recent speech, Hurson opened up about his activism as he ranted about his version of "democracy" to graduates at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Just 8 months later, Hurson is now defying democracy by halting what the country voted for.

Video Transcript AI Summary
I know that the world you're entering feels detached and hopeless, with many questioning our institutions and democracy. Remember why you chose law—that belief in making a difference is what keeps our democracy alive. Look to our new citizens, who, despite immense struggles, still believe in America. Defend democracy by offering your legal knowledge, even in informal settings, to show that the system can work. Volunteer, mentor, and share your expertise. These small acts restore faith in our democracy and can change lives. As you graduate, march forward with belief in yourself, in America, and in defending our democracy.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The world that I walked into is the same one that you're marching into today. It feels very different today. You march into a world where so many people seem completely detached from our system of government. Many Americans are hopeless. They're lost. Many feel that our institutions, all of our institutions, our courts included, are completely partisan and dysfunctional. Many feel like our democracy doesn't work. If people vote at all, some feel like their vote doesn't matter, and some even feel like their vote isn't even counted. Even worse, so many in our country feel alone, unheard. And I'm often reminded of doctor King's words that a riot is the language of the unheard. So perhaps it no it is no surprise that extreme anger and even violence seem to be inevitable outcomes of virtually any disagreement. Some even feel like our democracy is dying. Something led you to firmly believe that you can make a difference in the world as a lawyer. And whether you know it or not, as long as you still hold that belief in your heart, our democracy can never die. What was it that led you to believe that the law was the field where you can make a difference? Hold that memory tight because right there in that feeling, our democracy survives. What drove you to be here in the first place or just can't find it to believe in our democracy? I'd encourage you to come down to the federal Courthouse and watch a naturalization ceremony where our newest citizens are minted. It is one of the absolute best parts of my job. Many of these new citizens fled from famine, from poverty, from war. They've been through years of struggle. Many have even had to leave family members far behind. And yet they are so proud to finally be called Americans. Despite everything they have been through, they still believe in our country and its institutions. They believe in our democracy, that our democracy is worth defending. And maybe you're asking, I'm with you, judge, but how do I defend democracy? Let me tell you how to start defending our democracy. It's gonna start very soon, in that inevitable moment when someone you've known for years or maybe someone you just met at a bar calls you aside and quietly says, hey, you're a lawyer. Right? Alright. Now first off, when you hear that, buckle up. Alright. Because what is coming is a question about an area of the law that you know absolutely nothing about. And you know what isn't on its way when someone asks a question like that? Any financial compensation for your answer. You got that, uncle Billy, wherever you are? But buried inside every ask like that is a hope that the system works. A hope that with a little bit of knowledge, fairness and justice can prevail. And in the small act of taking time to listen, providing a little help as best you can reaffirm that our systems aren't as broken as people think they are. You work to restore faith in our democracy, to restore faith in America. And there are other small acts you can do too. You can volunteer in expungement clinic. You can answer the court's call to represent a pro se plaintiff. You can come back to your alma mater to provide mentoring or coaching or give a speech. I think this counts. I don't know. But and in sharing that little bit of yourself, you're gonna be restoring faith in democracy. And you might just alter the course of someone's life, maybe even your own. So as you join this long line of proud graduates, hold your head up high. March forward. March all over the world. But most important, just keep marching. Keep believing in yourself. Keep believing in America. Keep defending this democracy.
mrddmia
Posted - February 14, 2025 at 4:25 AM
Saved - February 14, 2025 at 12:44 PM

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

This is insane. A DC federal judge has ordered the commander-in-chief not to bring home overseas foreign-service officers. This is lawless. And a dangerous sabotage of the President’s Article II constitutional powers. (Maybe this judge has a conflict of interest?) https://t.co/VOnWOQmOES

elonmusk
Posted - March 12, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Saved - March 13, 2025 at 3:39 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk expressed surprise regarding Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee known for opposing Donald Trump. A user highlighted five significant rulings by Howell against Trump: blocking parts of an executive order targeting Perkins Coie, ordering Trump lawyers to testify in the January 6 probe, upholding a subpoena for Trump Hotel records, holding Trump in contempt for non-compliance with a grand jury subpoena, and rejecting Trump's attempt to block access to White House records related to the January 6 Committee.

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Wow

@nicksortor - Nick Sortor

🚨 #BREAKING: A federal judge has BLOCKED President Trump from revoking the security clearance of Perkins Coie, the law firm which helped develop the Russia Hoax WTF? These activist judges HAVE TO GO. How can a judge FORCE the President to give someone a security clearance?! https://t.co/PW1SrLqEQT

@floridanow1 - floridanow1

It's DC's Judge Howell again. Judge Howell (Obama appointed) has always fought anything Trump does. Here are five notable rulings by U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell against Donald Trump or his administration: March 12, 2025 - Perkins Coie Executive Order: Howell blocked parts of Trump’s March 6 order targeting Perkins Coie, halting contract terminations and access bans. She ruled it violated free speech and due process, deeming it a loyalty punishment, though security clearance restrictions await further review. November 18, 2022 - Trump Attorney Testimony: Howell ordered Trump lawyers, including Evan Corcoran, to testify in a January 6 probe, rejecting privilege claims. She found evidence of potential crimes (obstruction, fraud) in Mar-a-Lago document handling, advancing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. August 31, 2021 - Trump Hotel Records: Howell upheld a House subpoena for Trump Organization’s D.C. hotel financials, dismissing executive privilege. She ruled Congress had a legitimate need to probe conflicts of interest during Trump’s presidency, favoring oversight over privacy claims. December 9, 2022 - Trump Contempt Ruling: Howell held Trump’s office in contempt for failing to fully comply with a grand jury subpoena for classified documents. She imposed no immediate penalty but warned of sanctions, escalating pressure in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. October 29, 2021 - Trump White House Records: Howell rejected Trump’s bid to block January 6 Committee access to White House records, denying executive privilege. She ruled Biden’s waiver and Congress’s need to investigate the Capitol riot outweighed Trump’s claims, releasing call logs and memos.

angelwoman501
Posted - March 13, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Saved - March 13, 2025 at 11:53 PM

@angelwoman501 - Patriot Lady

This is another federal activist judge who has blocked President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training. When is SCOTUS going to put a stop to these judges interfering with President Trump's article II rights? https://t.co/s3bJbENymI

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

Meet the federal Judge who just blocked President Trump’s cuts to DEI teacher training. His resume is full of DEI activism, he served on the board of groups currently suing President Trump, and trained far-left activists how to avoid arrests during protests. 🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/KSp77nbT2X

angelwoman501
Posted - March 13, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 1:11 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The discussion centers on a federal judge blocking President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training, prompting concerns about judicial overreach. One participant argues that the judiciary is unconstitutionally influenced by popular vote, undermining the rule of law and equal protection. They assert that this creates an anti-Republican democracy rather than a constitutional republic, as outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The conversation emphasizes the need for an independent judiciary and proper representation to restore constitutional governance.

@angelwoman501 - Patriot Lady

This is another federal activist judge who has blocked President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training. When is SCOTUS going to put a stop to these judges interfering with President Trump's article II rights? https://t.co/s3bJbENymI

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

Meet the federal Judge who just blocked President Trump’s cuts to DEI teacher training. His resume is full of DEI activism, he served on the board of groups currently suing President Trump, and trained far-left activists how to avoid arrests during protests. 🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/KSp77nbT2X

@NGorhamA4S4 - NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫

@angelwoman501 @Ikennect This Is Why It Is Happening. There Is NO RULE OF LAW, Or Equal Protection Under The Law, When State And Federal Judiciary Are Seated Unconstitutionally Via Direct And Indirect Popular Vote, From The Most Populace Counties, And Cities In Those Counties, In All 50 States, Territories And Possessions. That Form Of Government Is A Anti-Republican Unconstitutional Representative Constitutional Democracy. Which Is Unconstitutional As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution, Which Says; “Guarantee Clause ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” There Are Supposed To Be Three Voices Represented In Our Federal Government, Hence The Three Branches. The Voice Of The People, Represented In State And Federal Houses Of Representatives. The Voice Of The State Represented In State And Federal Senates. The Voice Of The Law, The State And Federal Judiciary. Right Now, Which Is The Problem, The Voice Of The People, Which Is Already Represented In State And Federal Houses Of Representatives, Via Direct Popular Vote. Seats The Voice Of The State And The Law From The Same Voting Pool, Which Is Only The Most Populous Counties, And Cities In Those Counties. That Means, ONLY That Voting Pool Has Any Representation In Our State And Federal Government. And That Form Of Government Is A Unconstitutional Democracy Form Of Government, As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution. Which Says The United States Shall Guarantee A Republican Form Of Government To The States, And NOT A MOB Seated Democracy! It Is Impossible To Be A Constitutional Republic, When State And Federal Judiciary Are Seated By Direct And Indirect Popular Vote, ONLY From The Most Populous Counties And Cities In Them Because They Have The Population Density To Do So, That Being THE MOB, The Voice Of The People, Which Also Seats State And Federal Houses Of Representatives, State And Federal Senates, ALL From That Same Pool Of Voters, Directly Or Indirectly. There Is NO Equal Protection Under The Law By Such A Unconstitutional Democratic Form Of State And Federal Government. Being Unconstitutional, As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution, Says The United States Shall Guarantee A Republican Form Of Government To The States, Which It Has Not Since 1849, Via Luther v Borden, Which Set Into Motion Other Individual States, Seating State Judiciary Via Direct Popular Vote. What Made The United States The Constitutional Republic We Started Out As Was The Guarantee Of A Republican Form Of Government To The States, Which Means Independent State Judiciary, Seated By The State Senate, State District Court And Above To Include State Supreme Court, As The State Senate Is Representative Of The State As A Whole As The Voice Of The State, Where As The Voice Of The People Is Representative Of The Population Centers, And Cities In Them, As They Have The Population Density To Cancel Out The Rural Areas Of The State. When ALL Of That Is Achieved In All Of The States, That Creates The Constitutional Republic, With The Voice Of The State, Residing In The United States Senate, Seated There To Seat A Independent Federal Judiciary, Those Senators Being Chosen In Full And Open Sessions Of State Legislatures, To Seat Them There. ALL Of THAT Is What Made Us A Constitutional Republic. That Does NOT Exist Today, What Exists In State And Federal Government, Are A Anti-Republican Democratic Form Of State And Federal Government, Masquerading As A Constitutional Republic, Which It Is Not!

@NGorhamA4S4 - NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫

@angelwoman501 @Ikennect @angelwoman501 @Ikennect This Is How To End It. 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇

@NGorhamA4S4 - NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫

Constitutionally Sound Plan To Fix Everything. All 50 States Territories And Possessions Must Replace Their Unconstitutional Bicameral Representative Constitutional Democracy State Government With A Republican Form As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution Says. To Do That You Must Have Independent State Judiciaries. To Achieve That, Below State District Court, Must Be Seated By Direct Popular Vote. Because The Judge Seated There Will Have Something In Common With Cases Appearing There Because They All Reside In The Same Geographic Location. That Means, State District Court And Above To Include State Supreme Court MUST Be Seated By The State Senate, As That Body Is Representative Of The Entire State, And NOT Just The Most Populous Counties, And Cities In It. To Fix The Federal Level Representation Of The State In The United States Senate. The 17th Amendment MUST BE Repealed. United States Senators Must Be Chosen In A Full And Open Session Of The State Legislature ONLY. NOT The House Submitting A Candidate, Not The Senate Submitting One, Not The Governor Submitting One, Not Committees Submitting One, Not Major Political Parties, Submitting One. But Individual Legislators From Either State House Of Representatives Or State Senate Submitting A Candidate, Before State Legislature As A Whole. And Then That Body ONLY Choosing The Voice Of The State, In The United State Senate. When Done That Way, The United States Senate, Can Seat A Proper Federal Judiciary And Not One Seated By The Most Populous Counties And Cities Nation Wide. That Entire Process Creates Independent State And Federal Judiciaries, And A Republican Form Of State And Federal Government. Which You CAN NOT DO, Unless Your State Government Has Reinstated A Republican Form Of State Government. The Authority To Determine What A Republican Form Of State Government Is Resides With The Executive Branch Of Our Federal Government. The President Of The United States. It's That Way Because The President Has An Army At His Command To ENFORCE That Determination. Example, Is RECONSTRUCTION. Which WAS NOT Completed At The End Of The At The End Of The Civil War. The Supreme Court Majority Decision In The Case Of Luther v Borden, Explains This Authority VERY Clearly. That Case Was About The Dorr Rebellion In Rhode Island, In 1849, Which Ruled Wrongly That The Remnant Of The King Charles Charter That Was In The State, Was The Correct Form Of State Government And Not The Republican Form That Was Set Up In Rebellion, Which Was Wiped Out. So. To Fix What We Have Now, We MUST Complete Reconstruction, For A Minimum Of Three Election Cycles, To Properly Reseat State And Federal Judiciaries As I Have Previously Explained. Once All Of That Is Done, Then We Will Be A Tricameral Representative Constitutional Republic Again, With Independent State And Federal Judiciaries. In My View, President Trump Must Be President, And Via A Presidential Emergency Action Document, Using The Constitutional Authority Given To President Of The United States, As Per Article Four Section Four, Which Says; Guarantee Clause ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. As President Of The United States And Head Of The Executive Branch Our Federal Government, He Would Direct All 50 States Territories And Possessions To Reform Thier Governments As I Have Explained. Once Done Via Reconstruction, Which WILL BE NECESSARY, Because Not Every State Will Want To Comply. Then The Article V, Can Be Convened, For The Express Purpose ONLY, Of Repealing The 17th Amendment. So, EVERY THING, Can Be Fixed Using The Constitutional Authority, That Already Exists, Via Executive Branch Of Our Federal Government. Continuing…

angelwoman501
Posted - March 13, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 2:23 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A user criticized a federal judge for blocking President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training, questioning when the Supreme Court would intervene. Another user asked if the issue had already been litigated, implying that the matter may have been previously addressed.

@angelwoman501 - Patriot Lady

This is another federal activist judge who has blocked President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training. When is SCOTUS going to put a stop to these judges interfering with President Trump's article II rights? https://t.co/s3bJbENymI

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

Meet the federal Judge who just blocked President Trump’s cuts to DEI teacher training. His resume is full of DEI activism, he served on the board of groups currently suing President Trump, and trained far-left activists how to avoid arrests during protests. 🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/KSp77nbT2X

@SuDoSilverKnife - SudoSilverKnife

@angelwoman501 Wasn't this already litigated?

elonmusk
Posted - March 14, 2025 at 4:13 AM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 4:23 AM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Without judicial reform, which means at least the absolute worst judges get impeached, we don’t have real democracy in America

@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk

Clinton appointee Judge William Alsup says the Trump Admin has to rehire 30,000 laid off probationary hires. He says that trying to cut headcount is a "sham" and actually it's legally mandatory for taxpayers to keep paying them. What will blue judges come up with next? Will they order Trump to declare war on Russia? Micromanage troop movements? Dictate what Trump eats for breakfast? This isn't judicial review. It's dictatorship by a big ego with a gavel. SCOTUS must intervene.

nataliegwinters
Posted - March 14, 2025 at 2:19 PM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 10:11 PM

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

The federal Judge who blocked President Trump from firing bureaucrats and stripping Perkins Coie’s security clearances is on tape going on a crazy tirade against Trump. She melts down about the rise of “authoritarianism” and the “big lie.” https://t.co/VPMgDQa71D

Video Transcript AI Summary
Historian Heather Cox Richardson argues in her book, *Democracy Awakening*, that dismissing facts and using false history telling are key to the rise of authoritarianism, stating that "big lies are springboards for authoritarians." She claims America is at a crossroads, teetering on the brink of authoritarianism, and that the outcome rests in our own hands. The book aims to set the record straight about conspiratorial retellings of American history. The speaker notes that they and their judicial colleagues regularly see the impact of big lies when sentencing individuals convicted for offenses on January 6, 2021, related to the disruption of the 2020 presidential election certification. As district court judges, they focus on facts.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Having a very surprising and downright troubling moment in this country when the very importance of facts is dismissed or ignored. That's a very risky business for all of us and our democracy. The historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose book I've been reading, explains in her new book, which is a best seller, so many of you may have already read it, Democracy Awakening, that burying facts with false history telling is one of the keys to the rise of authoritarianism. As she bluntly puts it, big lies are springboards for authoritarians. She cautions in her book's opening line, it's a very first line, America is at a crossroads, teetering on the brink of authoritarianism. And she echoes this thought in her closing line that we are at a time of testing and how it comes out resting as it always has is in our own hands. In between those two points in the first line and the last, her book focuses on historical facts to set the record straight about recreated and imagined conspiratorial retellings of our country's history, recent and long ago. My DC judicial colleagues and I regularly see the impact of big lies at the sentencing of hundreds hundreds of individuals who have been convicted for offense conduct on 01/06/2021 when they disrupted the certification of the twenty twenty presidential election at The US Capitol. As district court judges, we are all about the facts.
shinboson
Posted - March 15, 2025 at 1:50 AM
Saved - March 16, 2025 at 5:58 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the current situation highlights a troubling misuse of executive power. The actions taken against a law firm representing political opponents, including banning federal organizations from collaborating with them and revoking security clearances, seem to be an attempt to gain an unfair advantage in legal matters. This approach, which I view as tyrannical and undemocratic, undermines the principles of our nation. I urge those who deflect criticism by comparing it to the left's actions to reconsider; this behavior stands out as particularly un-American.

@shinboson - 𝞍 Shin Megami Boson 𝞍

not only are the wokies going to turn out to be 100% correct that he’s an unstable rеtаrd, they’re also going to be right about him being a fascist tyrant he’s trying to use an executive order to punish a law firm for the “crime” of representing his political opponents https://t.co/xEs9UbSXOz

@shinboson - 𝞍 Shin Megami Boson 𝞍

his order: - banned federal orgs from working with them - revoked their security clearances - banned their employees from federal buildings - imposed secondary sanctions on any else who does business with them these range from probably illegal to definitely illegal & also insane

@shinboson - 𝞍 Shin Megami Boson 𝞍

so he’s using the executive powers to shut his opponents out of legal counsel, thereby giving himself an advantage in court. why is this bad? using power to gain more power is tyrannical, undemocratic and un-American. it’s an attack on our nation and borderline treasonous.

@shinboson - 𝞍 Shin Megami Boson 𝞍

if you show up in my replies complaining ‘but what about the left’, ‘but what about the woke’, I would ask you to stop being a little bіtсh. anything they did that was obviously wrong was wrong and none of it was as un-American as this is.

megynkelly
Posted - March 19, 2025 at 2:06 AM
Saved - March 19, 2025 at 9:41 AM

@megynkelly - Megyn Kelly

Same judge who said it’s incorrect to say there are only two biological sexes and who suggested Pete Hegseth had only very limited military experience (!) & she would listen instead to the ex-President (Biden’s) Chrmn of the Joint Chiefs. Activist. Lying. Hack.

@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who was appointed by Joe Biden, just ruled that the Pentagon can’t enforce President Trump’s order banning transgender people from serving in the military. https://t.co/aGOsyNIKw0

RodDMartin
Posted - March 19, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Saved - March 20, 2025 at 4:23 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m excited to share that AG Pam Bondi has announced the continuation of deportation flights, defying a federal judge's order. She emphasizes that these flights target foreign terrorists, including members of the Tren de Aragua gang, who are illegally in the U.S. Bondi argues that one judge shouldn't have the power to halt national security measures and criticizes what she sees as judicial overreach. She believes the Trump administration is acting within the law to protect families and is determined to push back against perceived deep state interference. Expect more deportations ahead.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

🚨 BREAKING: @AGPamBondi DEFIES Federal Judge, Says Deportation Flights WILL Continue Gosh I just love her. ❤️ Here are the details.... 1/🧵

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 2/ Obama-appointed Judge Boasberg tried stopping deportation flights of Venezuelan terrorists. He wants them on OUR STREETS. But AG Bondi just dropped a BOMBSHELL: "We will ABSOLUTELY continue the flights" 🔥

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 3/ “These are foreign terrorists, that the president has identified them, and designated them as such, and we will continue to follow the Alien Enemies Act,” Bondi said Monday

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 4/ Let's be CLEAR what we're dealing with: • Tren de Aragua gang members • Designated TERRORISTS • Illegally in America • Caught committing crimes in OUR country • Trump deporting them according to the law

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 5/ DIRECT QUOTE from Border Czar Tom Homan that'll make your jaw DROP: "I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming."

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 6/ He's right. Trump is following the law. And the three branches have EQUAL power to interpret and enforce the Constitution. One local judge does NOT have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction, esp on national security. Time to "resist". https://www.rodmartin.org/p/judicial-despotism-how-to-end-nationwide

Judicial Despotism: How to End Nationwide Injunction Abuse Democrats are attempting to win in court what they lost at the ballot box. But their strategy abuses the legal system and upends the Constitution. Here's what to do about it. rodmartin.org

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 7/ 🔥 The real story? Deep state trying to block Trump admin from protecting YOU and YOUR FAMILY. They're also trying to neuter the Presidency through unconstitutional judicial activism. But Bondi isn't backing down. Will Judge Boasberg hold her in contempt? Good luck.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 8/ And don't forget: this is a dirty judge. He was on the FISA court that authorized domestic spying on a political opponent (Trump 2016). That's Watergate times 1,000. He's been part of the lawfare for a decade. Absolutely corrupt.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 9/ It's time to stop judges from acting like dictators. The Constitution does NOT give them executive authority. We can't have hundreds of unelected Presidents. The voters elect one. This isn't against legitimate judicial authority. It's against unconstitutional abuse.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 10/ Expect more flights. More deportations. And more fireworks from Judge Boasberg and John Roberts. It's time to settle some of these issues. Trump has the guts to stand up. No Republican before ever did.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 11/11 If you enjoyed this content, please like and share; and also, sign up for your FREE subscription to my newsletter at http://RodMartin.org.

The Rod Martin Report | Rod D. Martin | Substack Tech Entrepreneur. Futurist. Christian. "Philosopher Capitalist". Click to read The Rod Martin Report, by Rod D. Martin, a Substack publication with thousands of subscribers. rodmartin.org
RapidResponse47
Posted - March 19, 2025 at 10:25 PM
Saved - March 20, 2025 at 1:41 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
A federal judge blocked the President from enforcing an executive order that bans transgender individuals from military service. The judge has a history of Democratic activism, including supporting Joe Biden financially. A commenter expressed support for Trump in response.

@RapidResponse47 - Rapid Response 47

🚨 “A federal judge who blocked @POTUS from implementing an executive order banning transgender troops from serving in the military has a long history of activism in the Democratic Party, including volunteering for Joe Biden and donating tens of thousands to Democrat campaigns." https://t.co/3On0nNqFk8

@VGirl6516231 - 🇺🇸 SpokesTurd 🇺🇲

@RapidResponse47 @POTUS From the horses mouth to your ears! Carry on Trump. https://t.co/G9loQjxESn

@MAGAVoice - MAGA Voice

AOC does not want you to retweet this video of her calling for Joe Biden to ignore the Courts’s ruling She wouldn’t be too happy DON’T DO IT https://t.co/tH1KZLfqmi

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes recent rulings and actions from the FDA and Congress are egregious overreaches by right-wing Republican-appointed judges, whose goal was to pack the courts with partisan and unqualified individuals. They claim this has been anticipated and that Senator Ron Wyden has advised a course of action, which the speaker supports: the Biden administration should ignore the ruling. The speaker argues the courts rely on their legitimacy, which they are undermining through partisan and unfounded rulings, thus eroding their own enforcement power.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The news this afternoon, a couple hours ago, what did you think? Well, know, I think rulings like this, and I think we've seen from the FDA and and also from activity in congress that some of these rulings, they're I think we've been preparing and anticipating for there being these egregious overreaches by members of the judiciary appointed by a right wing Republican party whose goal for a very long time was to just pack these courts with partisan judges, often often underqualified or completely unqualified for the for their role. And so there has been thought, I believe, given to this. Senator Ron Wyden has already issued statements, for example, advising what we should do in a situation like this, which I concur, which is that I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling. I think that we you know, the courts have the legitimacy, and they rely on the legitimacy of their rulings. And what they are currently doing is engaged in an unprecedented and dramatic erosion of the legitimacy of the courts. They it it is the justices themselves through the deeply partisan and unfounded nature of these rulings that are undermining their own enforcement. So you're say
ImMeme0
Posted - March 20, 2025 at 12:32 AM
Saved - March 20, 2025 at 2:30 AM

@ImMeme0 - I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

BREAKING: Judge Royce Lamberth has ordered the federal Bureau of Prisons to transfer two male inmates pretending to be women back to women’s prisons after they had been sent to men’s facilities in the wake of President Donald Trump’s executive order. https://t.co/FcnpIMptjF

elonmusk
Posted - March 20, 2025 at 5:42 PM
Saved - March 21, 2025 at 10:06 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

He’s a radical activist cosplaying as a judge

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: An Obama-appointed judge told Trump's lawyers they should assume that if a hearing is scheduled to challenge the president's actions, he will rule against them. Imagine trying to govern with 700 district court judges that expect you to be a mindreader. h/t @julie_kelly2

RepOgles
Posted - March 25, 2025 at 5:34 PM
Saved - March 26, 2025 at 1:28 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Federal Judge Theodore Chuang is obstructing President Trump and enabling USAID's questionable spending, which includes extravagant expenditures on controversial projects. I argue that unelected judges like Chuang should not dictate executive actions, as his rulings reflect a blatant power grab. His history as a Democratic activist raises concerns about his impartiality, and his decisions, such as striking down Trump’s travel ban and undermining abortion regulations, demonstrate a pattern of legislating progressive priorities from the bench. Congress needs to hold him accountable.

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

Federal Judge Theodore Chuang—a career Democrat operative—is obstructing President Trump and protecting USAID’s reckless spending. Congress must hold him accountable. Here’s the case for impeachment.👇

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

1/ Judge Theodore Chuang, Maryland Federal District Court, is mandating President Trump and DOGE defy the American people’s mandate by propping up USAID. This is the same USAID blowing $2 million on Guatemalan sex changes, $1.5 million on DEI in Serbia, and $47,000 for a transgender opera. That’s your tax dollars at work.

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

2/ Let’s be clear: unelected district judges have zero constitutional authority to dictate terms to a duly elected President on executive actions. Chuang’s ruling is a blatant power grab—plain and simple.

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

3/ No surprise here. Judge Chuang’s history is steeped in Democrat activism. From 1992-1994, as editor of the Harvard Law Review, he championed articles pushing Critical Race Theory, affirmative action, and a Marxist spin on America’s foundations.

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

4/ Take “Whiteness As Property,” republished under Chuang’s watch by Cheryl Harris—now on LA’s Reparations Advisory Committee. She argues: “Seeing oneself as ‘white’ assumes white supremacy.” That’s the radical ideology Chuang elevated. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/no-volume/whiteness-as-property/

Whiteness as Property - Harvard Law Review In the lead up to Volume 134, the Harvard Law Review republished five classic Critical Race Theory articles from our archives. This is the first... harvardlawreview.org

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

5/ Harris doubles down: "It assumes that Black ancestry in any degree, extending to generations far removed, automatically disqualifies claims to white identity, thereby privileging "white" as unadulterated, exclusive, and rare...The law has played a critical role in legitimating this claim."

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

6/ Before Obama put him on the bench in 2013, Chuang was a Democratic Party stalwart. Vice President of Montgomery County’s District 16 Democratic Club in 2009, Board member for the Coalition of Asian-Pacific American Democrats of Maryland, and Precinct Chair for Montgomery Democrats. His Senate Judiciary Questionnaire lays it out. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Theodore-Chuang-Senate-Judiciary-Questionnaire-Final.pdf

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

7/ In 2008, Chuang served on the Steering Committee for Obama’s Maryland Asian Pacific American Coalition, rallying fundraisers and connecting Democrat mega-donors. He was also a delegate at the 2002 Massachusetts Democratic Convention. This isn’t a judge—it’s a partisan resume.

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

8/ Chuang’s bias didn’t stop at the bench. In 2017, he struck down Trump’s travel ban, unprofessionally leaning on Trump’s tweets to misconstrue the policy—a flimsy tactic echoed by activist Amir Ali at the Supreme Court. Another rogue Judge I am impeaching. The NPR record shows it. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/18/558501163/federal-judge-in-maryland-blocks-trumps-latest-travel-ban-attempt

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

9/ In 2020, Chuang gutted a Trump rule requiring doctor visits for chemical abortions, calling it an “infringement” on abortion rights and claiming it caused “irreparable harm” in the COVID era. That decision greenlit mail-order abortions, AKA murder—disgraceful.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/federal-judge-rules-women-can-get-abortion-pill-without-doctor-visits#:~:text=U.S.%20District%20Judge%20Theodore%20Chuang,the%20circumstances%20of%20the%20pandemic.

Federal judge rules women can get abortion pill without doctor visits A federal judge agreed Monday to suspend a rule that requires women during the COVID-19 pandemic to visit a hospital, clinic or medical office to obtain an abortion pill. pbs.org

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

10/ He argued requiring a doctor’s visit would make women “forgo or delay abortion care” or risk COVID exposure. This isn’t judicial restraint—it’s Chuang legislating progressive priorities from the bench.

@RepOgles - Rep. Andy Ogles

11/ Chuang’s latest stunt—an injunction against @elonmusk , @DOGE , and @POTUS is absurd. His deep Democrat ties, aligned with their woke pro-bureaucrat agenda, scream conflict of interest. He’s abusing his robe to thwart the people’s will. Congress must act.

NextNewsNetwork
Posted - May 16, 2025 at 12:21 AM
Saved - May 16, 2025 at 2:15 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m alarmed by the ongoing judicial battles against Trump, which I believe are undermining our democracy. It seems that unelected judges are sabotaging his presidency and blocking his executive orders, particularly regarding birth tourism and border security. I see a pattern of increased nationwide injunctions since Trump took office, which I view as a coordinated attack on America First policies. The situation feels like a constitutional crisis, and I’m frustrated that Congress isn’t taking action to address this judicial overreach. The stakes are high for our republic.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

🚨 BREAKING: The DEEP STATE JUDGES trying to BLOCK TRUMP from SAVING AMERICA!! Supreme Court FINALLY fighting back against ROGUE JUDGES who've been running a SHADOW GOVERNMENT! This is the battle for our REPUBLIC! 🔥🔥🔥 1/12 https://t.co/ATj8q3v2BW

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

The GLOBALIST JUDGE CABAL has been SABOTAGING Trump since DAY ONE! 675 UNELECTED TYRANTS with BLACK ROBES stopping our ELECTED PRESIDENT! These DISTRICT DICTATORS think they can rule from their little COURTROOM KINGDOMS! The SYSTEM is RIGGED! 2/12 https://t.co/KJhLZ2ki7H

Video Transcript AI Summary
Nationwide injunctions allow a single federal judge or a small group to halt Trump administration policies, even with weak legal justification. An injunction issued in one jurisdiction, like Maryland, can halt implementation of a law across the entire country, not just locally. A new parallel court system could be created to specifically handle requests for nationwide injunctions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nationwide injunctions mean that one lone federal judge or a small group of them can entirely block everything the Trump administration wants to do even if their legal pretext is somewhat flimsy. And that means if something happens in Maryland, they're not just issuing an injunction of the Maryland jurisdiction. All of America must stop the implementation of said law because what happens in Maryland? It's a nationwide injunction for something where the violation or the thing in question is happening locally. You see, they could create a new parallel court system whose only purpose is handling requests for nationwide injunctions.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

There were SIX nationwide injunctions under Bush, TWELVE under Obama, but a STAGGERING 64 under Trump's first term! Now on pace for EVEN MORE! This isn't coincidence - it's COORDINATED JUDICIAL WARFARE against America First! 3/12 [Kirk(4).txt] https://t.co/mc5WEanE1T

Video Transcript AI Summary
Nationwide injunctions occur when a district court judge blocks a law or order from being implemented nationwide, despite their jurisdiction typically covering only one state or part of one state. These injunctions were once uncommon, with six issued during George W. Bush's presidency and twelve during Obama's. However, their frequency increased significantly during Donald Trump's first term, with 64 being issued. At the current rate, this number could be surpassed in the first year of a second Trump term.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The matter of nationwide injunctions. Pretty much instantly after the Trump executive order, a district court judge issued a nationwide injunction. That's where a single district court judge whose jurisdiction is just one state or even part of one state blocks a law or order from being implemented nationwide. You see nationwide injunctions used to be rare. There were just six of them under George W. Bush's term. There were 12 of them during Obama's presidency, but there were 64 of them in Trump's first term. And at this current pace, he might top that figure in the first year of his second term.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

BIRTH TOURISM is REAL! Foreign nations SENDING pregnant women to EXPLOIT our laws! They give birth, go back to CHINA, then return YEARS LATER claiming CITIZENSHIP! The 14th Amendment was for SLAVES, not FOREIGN INVADERS! 4/12 https://t.co/GkUYBWFaWU

Video Transcript AI Summary
A birth tourism industry exists where pregnant individuals travel to the US to give birth. Evidence suggests some countries, possibly China, send people to the US for this purpose. The children born in the US are then raised in their home countries for many years. Later, these individuals can return to the US and claim citizenship due to their birthright. Abuses like these led to President Trump's executive order.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is a birth tourism industry, where people will pay to come to our shores, in their seventh or eighth month of pregnancy when it's still relatively safe to travel, and they will then stay in hospitals until they give birth, and they will go back into their countries. And and there are certainly evidence out there that there are some countries, surprise me if it was China, that are in fact sending people here to give birth, so that at some point, they can take those children who have been living back in China, for, you know, many, many years and bring them back to The United States and then claim that they are that the people that are coming back to The United States are in fact US citizens by dint of the fact that they were born on our shores. I believe it is exactly abuses like that among many, that led president Trump to enter the executive order that he did. Alright. That's John

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Trump's EXECUTIVE ORDER would END this ABUSE! But ACTIVIST JUDGES have BLOCKED it nationwide! One judge in MARYLAND can stop what VOTERS in ALL 50 STATES demanded! This isn't DEMOCRACY - it's JUDICIAL TYRANNY! 5/12 [ABC Subclip(2).txt] https://t.co/LKxCxjvPHl

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Federal appeals courts have maintained the order on hold, suggesting it is likely unconstitutional. President Trump contends that the lower courts overstepped their authority. He is requesting the Supreme Court to lift the injunctions or, at minimum, permit the administration to begin planning for the change.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The supreme court is hearing arguments over nationwide injunctions blocking president Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. Three federal courts, have kept the federal appeals courts, that is, have kept the order on hold, finding it very likely unconstitutional. But president Trump argues the lower courts exceeded their authority. Now he's asking the supreme court to lift the injunctions or at least allow the administration to start planning for the change.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

TRAITORS outside Supreme Court speaking SPANISH while protesting BORDER SECURITY! They're chanting "DOWN WITH DEPORTATION" right in front of our highest court! They're not even HIDING their INVASION AGENDA anymore! 6/12 https://t.co/RFTWcVLtBv

Video Transcript AI Summary
Anti-Trump protesters are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court against Trump's secure border policies. The crowd is chanting "down, down with deportation, up, up with liberation." According to the speaker, the protesters have been chanting in Spanish, which the speaker finds annoying considering the location is outside the United States Supreme Court. More footage is available on Laura Loomis' X account.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're outside the Supreme Court this morning as the left's anti Trump protesters are now protesting Trump for his secure border policies. As you can hear behind me, the crowd is chanting down, down with deportation, up, up with liberation. The same crowd has been literally chanting things in Spanish all morning, which is kind of annoying considering we're outside the United States Supreme Court. Stay tuned to Laura Loomis' ex account for more exclusive footage of this crazy open borders anti Trump protest at Scott's.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

The 14th Amendment was TWISTED and PERVERTED by the GLOBALISTS! It was meant for FREED SLAVES after the Civil War, NOT for illegal aliens sneaking across our border to DROP ANCHOR BABIES! The ORIGINAL INTENT is CLEAR! 7/12 https://t.co/XBmHwaWzAo

Video Transcript AI Summary
The case concerns birthright citizenship and the Trump administration's attempt to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. The Trump administration announced it would no longer automatically grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, tourists, and temporary guest workers. However, this order did not take effect.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The case concerns birthright citizenship. One of the first orders of the Trump administration was an announcement that this administration is henceforth reinterpreting the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment dates back to the end of the civil war. Its first clause reads, quote, all persons born or naturalized in The United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of The United States and of the state wherein they reside. Now the Trump administration announced that from now on, the children of illegal immigrants, tourists, and temporary guest workers are not automatic US citizens. That order didn't take effect, though, and that's the other issue being debated today.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Trump Administration CORRECTLY argues these nationwide injunctions are a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS! They "prevent percolation of novel legal questions" and "encourage RAMPANT FORUM SHOPPING"! The LEFT shops for sympathetic judges! 8/12 [ABC Subclip.txt] https://t.co/5kn63ZNS8E

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Trump administration's attorney argues injunctions are a bipartisan problem spanning five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed judicial power granted in Article III, which should only address injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority and create practical problems. Universal injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions and encourage rampant forum shopping. Judges are required to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions. They create confrontations between the life-tenured and representative branches of government and disrupt the Constitution's separation of powers.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So far, the Trump administration's attorney has argued the injunctions are a bipartisan problem that has spanned the last five presidential administrations. Speaker 1: Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems. Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed, high stakes, low information decisions. They create what justice Powell described as repeated and essentially head on confrontations between the life tenured and representative branches of government, and they disrupt the constitution's careful balancing of the separation of powers.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Sotomayor exposed her RADICAL AGENDA with GUN CONFISCATION hypothetical! She's TELEGRAPHING the LEFT'S PLAN to TAKE YOUR GUNS while pretending to defend "judicial power"! These people are SICK and TRANSPARENT! 9/12 https://t.co/hVTz4yuTis

Video Transcript AI Summary
One key question is whether a federal judge can block a presidential policy nationwide. The administration argues this creates an unfair playing field, forcing the government to "win everywhere" while plaintiffs "can win anywhere." Justice Sotomayor responded skeptically, saying the administration's argument "makes no sense whatsoever," and that it would limit the ability of federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, to issue nationwide relief. She asked what would happen if a president issued an executive order to take away everyone's guns, and whether courts would have to "sit back and wait for individuals to sue one by one." The administration also argues that the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship provision was meant for freed slaves, not immigrants.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Selena, what stands out to you from questioning so far? We never know what justices are are thinking, but sometimes it's interesting to hear the questions they choose to Speaker 1: ask. Yeah, Diane. Well, as you were just outlining, I mean, one of the key questions here is can an individual federal judge then block a presidential policy nationwide? And the administration here is arguing that the ability to do so creates an unfair playing field saying, quote, this forces the government to win everywhere while the plaintiffs can win anywhere. Now justice Sodio So Sodio Mayor had very skeptical response. She had a tough line of questioning. She said that the administration's argument, quote, makes no sense whatsoever, saying that this would not only limit the ability of federal courts, but also the supreme court to issue nationwide relief. She also made an interesting analogy saying, what would happen if a new president issued an executive order to take away everyone's guns? She asked if in that case, the courts would have to, quote, sit back and wait for individuals to sue one by one to challenge the constitutionality of such an order. Now the administration is also arguing that the fourteenth amendment's provision of birthright citizenship at the time of its passage was meant for freed slaves. It was not meant to apply to immigrants to The United States.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

We survived until the 1960s WITHOUT nationwide injunctions! They EXPLODED in 2007 when the 9th Circuit started using them for ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS! It's the CLIMATE CULT's gift to the DEEP STATE! 10/12 https://t.co/bh57yJ1GRA

Video Transcript AI Summary
Injunctions were not universally applied until the 1960s, with *Wertz* in 1963 identified as the first instance, according to the speaker's interpretation of *Trump v. Hawaii*. A dispute exists regarding *Perkins v. Lukens Oil* from 1940. The speaker cites cases like *National Treasury Employees Union*, *Perkins v. Lukens Oil*, *Frothingham*, *Massachusetts v. Mellon*, and *Scott v. Donald* to show courts have historically limited injunctive relief to the plaintiffs in the case. Universal injunctions were rare even in the 1960s, with a surge occurring around 2007, particularly in the Ninth Circuit concerning environmental claims, as highlighted in a cert petition for *Summers v. Island Institute*. Justice Alito is then addressed.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Injunctions used. We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wertz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There's a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And, of course, we point to the court's opinion that reversed that that that universal injunction issued by the DC circuit and said it's it's profoundly wrong. Now if you look at the the the cases that the either party site, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite, like National Treasury, Treasury's Employment Union, Perkins against Lukens Oil, Frothingham, and and Massachusetts against Mellon, going back to Scott against Donald. And all of those, those are cases where the court considered and addressed the sort of universal, in that case, statewide, issue of provision of injunctive relief. So when the court has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs who are appearing in court in complaining of that remedy. So we survived until the nineteen sixties without universal injunction. That's exactly correct. And in fact, those are very limited very rare even in the nineteen sixties. It really exploded in 02/2007 in our cert petition in Summers against Island Institute. We pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims. Justice Alito? You began by outlining what you

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Congress could FIX THIS IMMEDIATELY but they're SITTING ON THEIR TAILS! We control Congress - what are they DOING all day?! The UNIPARTY wants judges to have this power to BLOCK TRUMP when needed! DRAIN THE SWAMP NOW! 11/12 https://t.co/1cidv0N97O

Video Transcript AI Summary
A fundamental question is whether a district court judge's jurisdiction, limited to their district, allows them to issue nationwide orders. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this issue. It is argued that they shouldn't have this power. Congress could resolve this, and Republicans, who control Congress, should act. Congress should fix this problem.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's a lot they could do. There's a lot of good ideas out there, but they not might not be necessary. Because an obvious question is this, and this is the fundamental question. And I'm glad we're actually getting this out of the way in the first six months of the Trump administration. And I'm glad we're getting it done quick. It's very important. The question is this. If a district court judge's jurisdiction is only over his his or her own district, how can they have the power to issue a nationwide order? Arguably, they shouldn't, and that's what the supreme court just heard in oral arguments today. And, of course, we should be clear. Congress could fix this. We control congress, and we should not let republicans off the hook. What are they doing all day long? Hello? Congress, get off your tail. Fix this.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Wrap-up Tweet: The battle is ON! One lone judge should NOT have power to BLOCK the PRESIDENT! This case will determine if we're a REPUBLIC or a JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP! Stay tuned for MASSIVE revelations! FOLLOW @NextNewsNetwork for the TRUTH they don't want you to hear! 12/12 https://t.co/uJbN07e9cT

View Full Interactive Feed