Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Trump v Law Profession

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by slocala, Mar 22, 2025.

  1. slocala

    slocala VIP Member

    3,955
    850
    2,028
    Jan 11, 2009
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,265
    12,515
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    Roberts is having none of it. See so many judges thread
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,265
    12,515
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    don't dare challenge my decisions in court or the weight of the federal government will fall on you

    nope, no authoritarianism here

    New Trump memo seen as threat to lawyers, attempt to scare off lawsuits

    The White House is directing federal law enforcement officials to seek sanctions against attorneys or law firms that challenge President Donald Trump’s actions in court, a move seen as an escalation of the president’s attacks on those who oppose his aggressive policy changes or who have litigated against him in the past.

    A White House memo issued late Friday night orders Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem to pursue ethics challenges against lawyers who they accuse of bringing meritless cases or making arguments that are not backed up by fact, including in immigration courts.

    The memo told Bondi to consider taking actions against law firm partners for perceived misconduct by junior attorneys and to review cases against the government from the past eight years to look for “misconduct that may warrant additional action.”

    The directive comes as the Trump administration faces more than 130 lawsuits over its efforts to dismantle agencies and diversity programs, freeze spending, fire federal workers and deport immigrants without due process.
     
  4. sierragator

    sierragator GC Hall of Fame

    16,552
    13,392
    1,853
    Apr 8, 2007
    figures. agree with dear leader or you may be in deep shit. Nothing authoritarian going on at all. Matter of time before that gets applied to others as well.
     
  5. Gator515151

    Gator515151 GC Hall of Fame

    22,945
    1,091
    1,763
    Apr 4, 2007
    The first paragraph of your link reads.

    "Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable. Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity."

    Considering many of the actions we have seen taken lately I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  6. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,265
    12,515
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    and the folks at the maga doj will certainly use nonpartisan blinders when determining which lawyers and law firms those are..smdh that people swallow that swill
     
  7. Emmitto

    Emmitto VIP Member

    9,670
    1,886
    933
    Apr 3, 2007
    A lotta people yearn to be told how to live.
     
  8. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    15,917
    5,575
    3,208
    Nov 25, 2017
    The law firms keep winning. This is third world intimidation BS.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. slocala

    slocala VIP Member

    3,955
    850
    2,028
    Jan 11, 2009
  10. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    5,346
    472
    293
    Jun 1, 2007
    It's a judicial activism speed bump.

    "Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief. Each day, they change foreign policy, economic staffing and national security policies of the Administration. The day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end."
     
  11. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,265
    12,515
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    And it's working on some
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,265
    12,515
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    No. Judges have stopped executive overreach. The exact check and balance the founding fathers created it for.

    Do you believe in separation of powers and checks and balances or complete authority for the executive branch?
    Constitution or dictatorship?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. slocala

    slocala VIP Member

    3,955
    850
    2,028
    Jan 11, 2009
    Bullshit. This is the DOJ being the judge, jury, and jailer for lawyers without any due process. How does the DOJ pull out of their ass which lawyers have filed “frivolous” cases against the Government. Hint: the word “frivolous” is in Black’s Law: “Lacking a legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful.” Trump is running a shakedown and you know it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    5,346
    472
    293
    Jun 1, 2007
    Shit works both ways. You've got a bunch of biased lib judges overreaching the powers granted to the executive branch.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  15. ajoseph

    ajoseph Premium Member

    7,631
    2,747
    2,998
    Jan 15, 2008
    It’s far more nefarious. This is a direct attack on the judiciary branch. From disregarding judicial orders, to calling for the removal of “disagreeing” judges, o now threatening the livelihoods of anyone who challenges Trump’s authority, it is a full frontal attack on our checks and balances system.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. coleg

    coleg GC Hall of Fame

    2,264
    829
    1,903
    Sep 5, 2011
    Sorry that doesn't fly at all. The cheeto has signed nearly 100 EOs already and while the majority are ridiculous and many are divisive and spiteful, only a handful are illegal. Those are the ones that judges have rightfully and dutifully challenged.
     
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
  17. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    15,917
    5,575
    3,208
    Nov 25, 2017
    Like refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress? By dismantling agencies created by Congress? By breaching contracts with businesses? By using a law firms wartime to deport immigrants who are not members of a gang and have applied for asylum? This is a country of laws crested by a legislative body that the executive enforces limited by the constitution subject to judicial review. Oddly, Marbury v Madison is right on point for much of what wr have seen now. Executive powers are not unlimited. And sanctioning law firms because they oppose the administration is not one of those powers. Nor are attorney general DOJ investigations into law firms who oppose the government in law suits legal. Even setting aside the First Amendment, the conflicts of interest are so deep that no court will allow it. And, so far, Trump is losing every case. No mater who the judge is or who appointed him. This isn’t about liberalism. It is about the unchecked abuse of power. And appeals to those who apparently never had a civics class, forgot what they learned, or are cheerleaders for a dictatorship.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  18. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    11,494
    1,529
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    President Trump's call for judicial impeachment and removal is simply another form of political activism. No different than endorsing certain congressional candidates or legislation. The judiciary doesn't fly above the system of checks and balances within our tripartite government.
     
  19. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,265
    12,515
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    Wrong..again.
     
  20. slocala

    slocala VIP Member

    3,955
    850
    2,028
    Jan 11, 2009
    GTFO. No, it is not and you know it. Judges are not elected. You know very well judges are nominated by President with advice and consent from Senate. If Trump has evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors - hand over the proof to the House Judiciary Committee. The Executive branch has zero say in this.