Law Elon calls for impeachment of any judge who rules against him

[Contempt]

So... someone that has no ability to impeach a judge calls for them to be impeached?

Who gives a shit? Freedom of speech.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

All true. Although, the only evidence I need is how stupid his takes are.

- He is halarious. The sad part is we have people that think like his character!

 

[AmonTobin]

So... someone that has no ability to impeach a judge calls for them to be impeached?

Who gives a shit? Freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech goes both ways. People are free to call MuSSk out on his daily bullshit.

 

[avenue94]

Another fake news thread from the left.

For starters, He did not call for or imply for Amy Coney Barrett’s impeachment, or any other SCOTUS justice, or the impeachment of any judge who rules how he doesn’t like. Your article doesn’t outline that either.

He did call for by name the impeachment of a couple lower level judges who made dubious rulings that could only be interpreted as activism and obstructionist tactics.

Speaking of Amy Coney Barrett, she is in the news because a pipe bomb was planted to target her sister…by a leftist

What lower court rulings were obstructionist tactics?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Another fake news thread from the left.

For starters, He did not call for or imply for Amy Coney Barrett’s impeachment, or any other SCOTUS justice, or the impeachment of any judge who rules how he doesn’t like. Your article doesn’t outline that either.

He did call for by name the impeachment of a couple lower level judges who made dubious rulings that could only be interpreted as activism and obstructionist tactics.

Speaking of Amy Coney Barrett, she is in the news because a pipe bomb was planted to target her sister…by a leftist

Could only be interpreted.... by the SCOTUS? Because nobody gives a fart what you interpret anything as. Have the cases those judges ruled on come before the SCOTUS yet? If the SCOTUS upholds their rulings are you willing to admit you're on the bandwagon and will make excuses for anything?

 

[Kingz]

What lower court rulings were obstructionist tactics?

Well, just the last couple of days there have been rulings saying Trump does not have the authority to layoff probationary federal workers is just one example. He absolutely does. The reasoning was dubious. Im not even sure they gave reasons.

Could only be interpreted.... by the SCOTUS? Because nobody gives a fart what you interpret anything as. Have the cases those judges ruled on come before the SCOTUS yet? If the SCOTUS upholds their rulings are you willing to admit you're on the bandwagon and will make excuses for anything?

Depends on the case. For example, I don’t agree with the ending birthright citizenship and I think SCOTUS might’ve affirmed a lower court ruling on that already and I also don’t think these Columbia students should be arrested.

but a lot of these foreign aid freezes, federal worker layoffs, even some basic immigration authority of the executive being challenged by lower court judges with basically no reason attached to it. Most say “yes the president has the authority to do this but it must be by the law” with no mention what “the law” to them is and where it restricts Trump on whatever the issue is.

I will be surprised if they are backed by SCOTUS.

I would be surprised if they even got a hearing from SCOTUS as these will be set right by the US court of appeals

 

[Contempt]

Freedom of speech goes both ways. People are free to call MuSSk out on his daily bullshit.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the current topic under discussion, but absolutely agreed. As long as people aren't calling for violence against someone which is actually illegal, I believe people should be free to disagree with anyone.

 

[avenue94]

Well, just the last couple of days there have been rulings saying Trump does not have the authority to layoff probationary federal workers is just one example. He absolutely does. The reasoning was dubious. Im not even sure they gave reasons.

Why is that reasoning dubious? And yes they gave reasons.

You didn't find it strange that the administration refused to provide testimony under oath?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Well, just the last couple of days there have been rulings saying Trump does not have the authority to layoff probationary federal workers is just one example. He absolutely does. The reasoning was dubious. Im not even sure they gave reasons.



Depends on the case. For example, I don’t agree with the ending birthright citizenship and I think SCOTUS might’ve affirmed a lower court ruling on that already and I also don’t think these Columbia students should be arrested.

but a lot of these foreign aid freezes, federal worker layoffs, even some basic immigration authority of the executive being challenged by lower court judges with basically no reason attached to it. Most say “yes the president has the authority to do this but it must be by the law” with no mention what “the law” to them is and where it restricts Trump on whatever the issue is.

I will be surprised if they are backed by SCOTUS.

I would be surprised if they even got a hearing from SCOTUS as these will be set right by the US court of appeals

Well we can both speculate about that, but the SCOTUS has the final word, and you must admit it's slanted to the conservative side. I think by the law means Congress. We've always heard they have the power of the purse right? If they approved payments then how does the Executive have the power to undo that? And another thing that really brings the credibility of DOGE to the forefront is when they claim fraud for things they just partisanly see as waste. Not to mention their flat out lies about how much money they have saved and what it was earmarked for.

 

[nixkid]

Just these judges should be impeached, IMO. And I hope that process is as transparent as possible

So you don't care if they are actually operating within the bounds of the laws? You don't care if DOGE is actually breaking laws. You only care that the rulings favors your "side" and any judge that dares rules against you (regardless of the law) should be dealt with. Just open support for fascism. Cool.

 

[Contempt]

He's repeating the latest lines "transparency" is the right wing buzzword at the moment

Wait... you believe government being transparent with the American people is a bad thing?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Wait... you believe government being transparent with the American people is a bad thing?

Wait, do you think DOGE is transparent, even though a Judge ruled they need to follow open records standards and release all the documents they're hiding?

 

[Kingz]

Why is that reasoning dubious? And yes they gave reasons.

You didn't find it strange that the administration refused to provide testimony under oath?

No. I didn’t find it strange. it’s not that they don’t feel they have a case to explain the presidential authority to hire and fire workers within the executive branch. That seems pretty easy, doesn’t it?

It’s intentional because they know it was a shopped judge who is predisposed to the ruling they were sought out for and the appeal phase is all that matters. They’ll testify and lay their case for that. Should be a layup

Yes , they are intentionally showing a lack of respect for district judges they think are activists and a rubber stamp for left wing grievance.

I do think It’s a slippery slope to ignore and I think they should be patient instead of treating them like they don’t hold sway, because we’ll want our right wing lower court injunctions respected in the future…let it play out in their favor in the higher courts..democrats filing lawsuit after lawsuit is the only card they have to play right now. All of these challenges and injunctions were predictable. Just patience.

But I understand the frustration and the desire to flout them. It is blatant judge shopping and activism. How do all these left wing grievances so conveniently land at the feet of an Obama, Biden or Clinton judge?

 

[Contempt]

Wait, do you think DOGE is transparent, even though a Judge ruled they need to follow open records standards and release all the documents they're hiding?

All their actions are being made public and published on their website. Typically government doesn't make any of this information around their spending public, so this is a much higher level of transparency than has ever been provided previously.

What are these documents that they are supposedly hiding?

 

[Crazy Source]

All their actions are being made public and published on their website. Typically government doesn't make any of this information around their spending public, so this is a much higher level of transparency than has ever been provided previously.

What are these documents that they are supposedly hiding?

Dude, most of what DOGE has made public has been 100% bullshit. They have NO oversight.

 

[Contempt]

Dude, most of what DOGE has made public has been 100% bullshit. They have NO oversight.

Of course they do. DOGE are simply acting as auditors, they have the power to do absolutely nothing but make recommendations.

Their oversight comes from the heads of these departments that actually approve any of the changes DOGE suggests and as these departments are all part of the executive branch of government, they need to meet the ultimate approval of the head of that branch of government.

...or did you actually mean, they have "NO oversight" by people that YOU approve of?

 

[Aurelian]

Elon needs to fuck off somewhere far in the distance.

 

[Crazy Source]

No CONGRESSIONAL oversight. You know, how it's supposed to work? They are a third party. It's the reason I don't buy supplements if they aren't tested by a trusted 3rd party. The dept. heads are Trump lackeys and will rubber stamp anything Elon wants to do. And how do you know that the heads of these depts are getting the heads-up before Elon and DOGE make cuts and fire people?

 

[Crazy Source]

Elon needs to fuck off somewhere far in the distance.

....................

 

[Aurelian]

It's really refreshing when someone from across the aisle agrees with you in the WR.

I'm not a Republican. Don't get wet.