Posted On: Saturday - April 26th 2025 4:12PM MST
In Topics: Trump US Feral Government ctrl-left Legal Stupidity
(I was glad to see that when I'd typed in "Boasberg Judge i..." for "images", google suggested impeachment.)
In my mind, the judicially obstructionist strategy of the ctrl-left was even worse during Trump-45, but, after the initial Trump-47 E.O. Blitzkrieg, it's baaaaaaackkkk! We may see much more of it, just based on the fact that Trump has been getting a LOT more done this time, or in some areas just trying harder. It's been only 4 months, and I don't think President Trump had this many policies at least STARTED in 4 years last go-around.
Will no one rid of us these turbulent Commies? For Henry II, just asking the question may have greatly helped answer it in the affirmative. For American Conservatives, we like to stay within the law. As much as the commies of the ctrl-left stretch the law way beyond the spirit of it to fight us, we may need to fight back in the same manner.
A long-term friend and Peak Stupidity reader has an idea on this matter. He's been trying to get someone, ANYONE, to at least explain why it won't work, if there's a reason. If not, why can't the Trump Administration adopt these ideas?
Here's Coulda Had Lee Rille (NOT his real name) with his idea:
**********************************************
I've had this idea since Trump's first term to deal with anti-constitutional lawfare (e.g. Boasberg, Friedman, many others) that attempts to usurp executive powers at the hands of a few black-robed unelected "judges". The problem's gotten so ridiculous now that I'm compelled to find some way to get this seemingly obvious idea out there. It seems so simple and obvious to me, but in all this time (7 or 8 years now), I've not seen ONE person online, in the media, or in government mention it. That makes me think there must be some technical or legal reason that it's not even being mentioned.
There are two versions of the strategy. The first might be called "reactive" and is considerably simpler. The second might be called "proactive" and would require more planning and thinking, even before an Executive Order is issued. The "reactive" version assumes that one can bring a complaint or case to a federal "district" court, even though a fairly similar complaint has already been brought (and possibly ruled on) in another district.
Reactive: Once a lame injunction or ruling has been dictated in a leftwing activist judge-shopped district, you get a plaintiff(s) to bring a similar complaint to a "conservative or constitutional" judge in a different district. Hopefully, a ruling is then soon made which runs counter to the first ruling. At that point, the prez can safely say "We've got one judge that says "A", and another that says "B", and they conflict with each other severely. The only reasonable thing to do is to keep the order in place until one or both rulings are possibly appealed to the Supremes."
Proactive: Before the latest EO is signed, people in or near the administration brainstorm and try to predict the most likely case or complaint that a crazy leftwing group and lawyer might use to defeat said EO in court. Find some plaintiff(s) to bring that complaint/case to a conservative or originalist judge (reverse judge shopping, as it were!). Hopefully said complaint will be quickly struck down. At that point, if the ACLU (or other anti-American activist group) brings a similar case elsewhere - and it results in the inevitable injunction or "temporary blocking" of the EO - you're back in the situation of saying "hey, we've got two judges saying two totally contradictory things on this, so we're forced to just keep the EO in effect until an appeal is made and ruled on."
Note, the main reason to go with the "proactive" version is if it's somehow illegal or "against process" to bring a complaint to a district judge if a "similar" complaint has already been brought (and possibly ruled on) in a different district. I apologize for my lack of legal process knowledge and language. I'm just hoping some legally knowledgeable people out there might explain why some version of this strategy has not been implemented. BTW, it would also work for a Democratic administration, but they don't seem to have this judicial activist issue hitting them in the face every week or two (probably because there are so many leftwing activist Federal judges that only care about party and politics).
**********************************************
I hope Mr. Had Lee Rille will get some help from either Peak Stupidity readers or elsewhere. (I'm gonna put it in the next Steve Sailer Open Thread.)
Have a good Sunday, Peakers. We'll be back with plenty more next week.
Comments:
Moderator
Tuesday - May 6th 2025 5:05PM MST
PS: OK, got it, Sir. If yours don't appear by sunrise tomorrow (in Greenwich, England?) I'll put them in.
Coulda Had Lee Rille
Tuesday - May 6th 2025 1:08PM MST
PS
My Responses to those guys on the other site, Mr. Peak:
James Shearer (May 3, 4:42 pm GMT):
Regarding "fake cases", I would maintain that many of the ACLU-type cases are "fake cases". That is, nobody is truly "offended" or hurt by the law/EO they're complaining about. I think they are just wired (and well paid) to do everything they can to weaken, destroy, dilute, and/or "communize & tyrannize" the country, and these sorts of cases are high on their list to achieve that goal. In my opinion, this is every bit as fake as the strategy my friend is advocating.
Nicholas Stix (May 3, 2:52 pm GMT):
It may well come to that, but I was thinking this would be a kinder/gentler way of handling this judge/forum shopping madness.
Almost Missouri (May 4, 7:54 GMT):
Do you know if it is legally possible to file a case in a different district either (a) after a very similar case has been filed in another district, or (b) after a very similar case has been filed and ruled on in another district?
I would assume there would be some behind-the-scenes knowledge between plaintiff and "conservative" judges, so they would not "decline to give it to you (legal nullity)". If we think they are colluding on the left (synchronizing when the case will be brought to a weekend when they know a certain judge will be working, etc.), why can't the right do some colluding? Even with the leftwing media firmly established, surely there is some level of hypocrisy they would be unwilling to exhibit? Especially since there are so many non leftwing sources out there now.
Regarding your Hawaii "moslem ban" example, that is probably a tactic that Trump may have to employ. That is, stating unequivocally that the country is not adherent to some district judge's view of national policy. This stops far short of an Andrew Jackson move, but it may be time for it to happen if Congress or the Supremes don't do something soon. The next district judge that has the gall to actually state that his judgment is nationwide, I'd say Trump should set that precedent (or reset, as the case may be) then.
My friend thought he saw a legitimate method of obtaining Constitutional results by employing even a fraction of "technically illegal" methods as the left apparently does. Why should the left (who wants to weaken, tyrannize and/or destroy us) get to do all the shady things in the judiciary, while the "right" has to play it totally clean? BTW, why isn't the administration trying to put a stop to this horribly illegal judge shopping practice? If they don't or can't stop it, then they've got to play the game themselves, right?
I can't see the "proactive" strategy backfiring, as I could easily pick the EO's that will result in a leftwing ACLU-type complaint being brought. I and many others could tell you with 100% certainty which EO's will bring such a leftwing response. So for those orders, you may as well try and get a decision first, with a constitution-friendly judge. That's why it requires some effort and planning up front, before the executive order is signed.
My Responses to those guys on the other site, Mr. Peak:
James Shearer (May 3, 4:42 pm GMT):
Regarding "fake cases", I would maintain that many of the ACLU-type cases are "fake cases". That is, nobody is truly "offended" or hurt by the law/EO they're complaining about. I think they are just wired (and well paid) to do everything they can to weaken, destroy, dilute, and/or "communize & tyrannize" the country, and these sorts of cases are high on their list to achieve that goal. In my opinion, this is every bit as fake as the strategy my friend is advocating.
Nicholas Stix (May 3, 2:52 pm GMT):
It may well come to that, but I was thinking this would be a kinder/gentler way of handling this judge/forum shopping madness.
Almost Missouri (May 4, 7:54 GMT):
Do you know if it is legally possible to file a case in a different district either (a) after a very similar case has been filed in another district, or (b) after a very similar case has been filed and ruled on in another district?
I would assume there would be some behind-the-scenes knowledge between plaintiff and "conservative" judges, so they would not "decline to give it to you (legal nullity)". If we think they are colluding on the left (synchronizing when the case will be brought to a weekend when they know a certain judge will be working, etc.), why can't the right do some colluding? Even with the leftwing media firmly established, surely there is some level of hypocrisy they would be unwilling to exhibit? Especially since there are so many non leftwing sources out there now.
Regarding your Hawaii "moslem ban" example, that is probably a tactic that Trump may have to employ. That is, stating unequivocally that the country is not adherent to some district judge's view of national policy. This stops far short of an Andrew Jackson move, but it may be time for it to happen if Congress or the Supremes don't do something soon. The next district judge that has the gall to actually state that his judgment is nationwide, I'd say Trump should set that precedent (or reset, as the case may be) then.
My friend thought he saw a legitimate method of obtaining Constitutional results by employing even a fraction of "technically illegal" methods as the left apparently does. Why should the left (who wants to weaken, tyrannize and/or destroy us) get to do all the shady things in the judiciary, while the "right" has to play it totally clean? BTW, why isn't the administration trying to put a stop to this horribly illegal judge shopping practice? If they don't or can't stop it, then they've got to play the game themselves, right?
I can't see the "proactive" strategy backfiring, as I could easily pick the EO's that will result in a leftwing ACLU-type complaint being brought. I and many others could tell you with 100% certainty which EO's will bring such a leftwing response. So for those orders, you may as well try and get a decision first, with a constitution-friendly judge. That's why it requires some effort and planning up front, before the executive order is signed.
Coulda Had Lee Rille
Tuesday - April 29th 2025 4:16PM MST
PS With regards to M's response, I would think it would only take a little coaxing or sense of awareness for a constitutionalist judge to take the "proactive" case, regardless of any constitutional or traditional practices that may dictate otherwise. If he knows that a leftwing judge in another week or two will very likely take a similar case, and do horrible damage with his ruling, he may go ahead and "play along" in that regard. Let's face it, the hard truth is that the Left has turned this sort of lawyering into a game...a game for political purposes apparently.
If I was a civil engineer (with a P.E.) in some district, and was asked to review some important, potentially dangerous project, knowing that the guy would otherwise take it to his proper precinct known to have a dangerous "jackleg" engineer in charge, I would likely go ahead and review it. Particularly if I knew that the "jackleg" engineer made a habit of reviewing projects that are not really in his district.
If I was a civil engineer (with a P.E.) in some district, and was asked to review some important, potentially dangerous project, knowing that the guy would otherwise take it to his proper precinct known to have a dangerous "jackleg" engineer in charge, I would likely go ahead and review it. Particularly if I knew that the "jackleg" engineer made a habit of reviewing projects that are not really in his district.
The Alarmist
Monday - April 28th 2025 9:23AM MST
PS
I didn't realize it at the time, but I saw the future of the United States in El Salvador in 1980.
People who think the Dems and their activist jurists are merely importing Dem voters are woefully naïve. They particularly value MS-13 and TdA members because they are actively recruiting for their left-wing death squads.
☯️
I didn't realize it at the time, but I saw the future of the United States in El Salvador in 1980.
People who think the Dems and their activist jurists are merely importing Dem voters are woefully naïve. They particularly value MS-13 and TdA members because they are actively recruiting for their left-wing death squads.
☯️
M
Monday - April 28th 2025 3:16AM MST
PS
The problem I see with this is that the originalist judge will say "This isn't my jurisdiction", while the activist will go ahead with it.
So you still get one ruling until it goes to appeal.
The problem I see with this is that the originalist judge will say "This isn't my jurisdiction", while the activist will go ahead with it.
So you still get one ruling until it goes to appeal.
Coulda Had Lee Rille
Sunday - April 27th 2025 8:30PM MST
PS You're probably right Mr. Alarmist. And I realize that there are IMPORTANT things that Congress could and should be doing to stop this kind of nonsense...and undoubtedly the Supremes and/or our Chief Justice could do stuff too (not that I trust them/him too much). But if this here tactic buys time for commonsense, constitutional actions to proceed, it should be implemented. I can't help imagining the look on some sleezebag ACLU lawyer's face when he suddenly realizes "WHAT, our complaint has already been brought...in Huntington West Virginia!? Why, why, that's judge-shopping...oh wait" (slumps away).
Adam Smith
Sunday - April 27th 2025 7:37PM MST
PS: Top o' the evenin', Mr. Alarmist!
>First post, best post.
☮️
>First post, best post.
☮️
Moderator
Sunday - April 27th 2025 7:34PM MST
PS: You're probably right, Alarmist. Trump's blitzkrieg HAS had me pretty excited about things though.
The Alarmist
Sunday - April 27th 2025 1:10PM MST
PS
This isn't going to be solved in the courts or via the ballot box.
☯️
This isn't going to be solved in the courts or via the ballot box.
☯️