As of early November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump at least 21 times out of 23 emergency docket cases since he returned to office on January 20, 2025.

Would this be #22 ?

(11-11-2025 07:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  As of early November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump at least 21 times out of 23 emergency docket cases since he returned to office on January 20, 2025.

Would this be #22 ?

you're gonna make tanq cry....

(11-11-2025 07:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  As of early November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump at least 21 times out of 23 emergency docket cases since he returned to office on January 20, 2025.

Would this be #22 ?

as more frivolous suits are filed, so shall the supposed remedial courts force more to SCOTUS...

today's judiciary process is w/o question, the biggest joke of 'em all ... and donk-tardia nation knows it ... why would one think that is, eh?! ... it's the last tool they have left before total collapse...

/sarc (or is it)

(11-11-2025 07:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 07:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  As of early November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump at least 21 times out of 23 emergency docket cases since he returned to office on January 20, 2025.

Would this be #22 ?

you're gonna make tanq cry....

He was crying when he left here the other day. I told him my shoulder wasn't for him to cry on.

(11-11-2025 07:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 07:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  As of early November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump at least 21 times out of 23 emergency docket cases since he returned to office on January 20, 2025.

Would this be #22 ?

you're gonna make tanq cry....

I almost said such in my response with you and rath as the disclaimer for fighting for what's 'right' ... lmmfao...

(11-11-2025 07:15 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

I said the other day I didn’t understand how the Judicial Branch could order the Executive Branch to spend money the Legislative Branch hadn’t approved. Seems my Constitution 101 instinct was correct. Makes you wonder about some of these judges.

It's what happens when you make filth like tanq a judge.

(11-11-2025 07:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 07:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  As of early November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump at least 21 times out of 23 emergency docket cases since he returned to office on January 20, 2025.

Would this be #22 ?

you're gonna make tanq cry....

Well, he cries about everything else, so...

(11-11-2025 07:22 PM)banker Wrote:  I said the other day I didn’t understand how the Judicial Branch could order the Executive Branch to spend money the Legislative Branch hadn’t approved. Seems my Constitution 101 instinct was correct. Makes you wonder about some of these judges.

I don't wonder about them at all. They are ideological activists, not real judges.

That is what the entire Dem party has turned into.

(11-11-2025 07:22 PM)banker Wrote:  I said the other day I didn’t understand how the Judicial Branch could order the Executive Branch to spend money the Legislative Branch hadn’t approved. Seems my Constitution 101 instinct was correct. Makes you wonder about some of these judges.

Judges who vote entirely on emotion and loyalty to the DNC are finally being told to shove it. Radical left leaning activist judges have for far too long been abusing their power and its good to see that the court in charge of making sure the Constitutional separation of powers is upheld has finally made it clear this kind of thing will no longer be tolerated.

(11-11-2025 07:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 07:22 PM)banker Wrote:  I said the other day I didn’t understand how the Judicial Branch could order the Executive Branch to spend money the Legislative Branch hadn’t approved. Seems my Constitution 101 instinct was correct. Makes you wonder about some of these judges.

I don't wonder about them at all. They are ideological activists, not real judges.

That is what the entire Dem party has turned into.

it's ironic ... in a sense, they're experiencing what Conklin experienced with Garfield/Arthur or McKinley/Roosevelt ... just watched the Garfield version on Netflix (it's too long and full of bs, but worth the watch with the > key) ... never knew that background story (they don't teach such in the 'sip) ... is quite the story of 'real progressive change' vs the Yanks who were controlling it all...

(11-11-2025 07:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 07:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 07:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  As of early November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump at least 21 times out of 23 emergency docket cases since he returned to office on January 20, 2025.

Would this be #22 ?

you're gonna make tanq cry....

Well, he cries about everything else, so...

0-201

Judges should be held accountable. Over ruled twice by the SCOTUS in their career and they should be disqualified from the bench.

Used to be judges were terrified of being shown up on appeal. Now it's just part of the job. Sad.

(11-11-2025 07:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 07:22 PM)banker Wrote:  I said the other day I didn’t understand how the Judicial Branch could order the Executive Branch to spend money the Legislative Branch hadn’t approved. Seems my Constitution 101 instinct was correct. Makes you wonder about some of these judges.

I don't wonder about them at all. They are ideological activists, not real judges.

That is what the entire Dem party has turned into.

This^

Yesterday, I was in court, looking forward to the setting of a trial date for my brother's killer. The judge sat in her chair at 0930, 30 minutes late, and took a break for almost an hour at 1030. When she finally returned, she looked lost; she kept flipping through what I assume was a docket while talking to her clerk. She flipped through 42 pages at least, going back and forth, and she finally just closed it without ever settling on a page. I don't believe she said one thing of substance, but she sure was kind to the inmates and others who appeared before her. She is a complete DEI hire.

And of course there was yet another continuance after the defense attorney was told two court dates prior that the next time he came to her court, he'd better be ready to set a trial date. Our justice system is completely broken.