Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire trump, sue self in friendly court??

it seems like everything trump tries to do he gets held up in lower courts. The latest is some clinton judge said trump can't use military funds to fund the wall. don't you love it how the courts are now saying what can and can't be done with military funds. I suppose they will decide who we are able to go to war with next. What the libs do is judge shop, find a judge they know will give them a ruling they want, then this holds up everyting.

I am wondering about a different strategy. What if trump formed a legal group that judge shops themselves. puts up poor legal arguments and purposely finds courts they know they will lose in. This way they would have favorable rulings from courts they lost in. sounds strange? well we live in wonky times. but if you can't be the libs use their strategy.

Most people just don't appreciate the fact that judicial appointments is one of the most important things a president does. We're still suffering from the appointments made by Clinton years ago.

While it'd never be front-page news, Democrats sometime in the future may someday privately malign former President Obama for leaving all of those judicial openings for his successor to fill.

For all the times we wish McConnel would pistol-whip the other side of the aisle and he doesn't and infuriates us. It needs to be pointed out that holding judicial appointments until Obama was out of office is a beat-down of the left that will last decades.

And those open seats are and have been being filled, at breakneck speed!

Can't he raid social security? The rest do.

I’m 100% for the border wall.
But my understanding is that the pres does not have the authority to move funds that congress approved for X to a project called Y.
If the president could do that, congress would approve a number for budget purposes and the president then decides where to spend all of that budget.
Doesn’t work that way.

I walk right past the 5th circuit courthouse every morning walking to work. I am confident that the judge/court shopping thing won't die when we get our next D president.

What? Congress and the President actually passed a National budget. I thought we had been operating on continuing resolutions for the past dozen years or so.

Not to mention that pos Obama who stuffed the courts with flamers... That pos - I pray he dies a long, slow, lingering death - all the while screaming in agony....

And some day I'll tell you how I really feel about that pos...

It wouldn't work. District Court decisions aren't binding on anyone other than the parties to that case (although a judge will usually rule in the future the same way they have in the past).. There is the issue of colalteral estoppel that screws trump, in that once an issue has been decided it bars the party it went against from re-litigating it. In order for estoppel to be invoked the party the decision is going against as to be the party in the future case (or so closely aligned with the future party that it has the ability to legally bind them). That bites Trump in that his admin is always going to be the defendant in all the cases, but it doesn't do jack to the liberals as one liberal wacko group doesn't have the ability to legally bind the other lib wack groups, so collateral estoppel only flows one way in this case.

so what you are saying in my mind is an issue of standing. The people who lost the case don't have standing to re litigate it. Standing probably isn't the right word because it most accurately applies to eligibility to file a dispute in court in the first place. My point is if such and such district court in say texas rules that the government does have the legal right to proceed, IE a case was brought by a pro trump legal team, with the express intention of losing the case. Is this not a granting that the action is legal and isn't the adminstration able to say look we have the court's imprimatur for our actions?

Are you taking into consideration the fact we are in a declared state of war and Trump has legally proclaimed the US to be in a state of national emergency?

He gets to proclaim an invasion or assault and not the judicial system iirc.

I get what you're saying and it's somewhat like standing, , Trump would get a decision saying he's right but that decision wouldn't be binding on anyone else. Say I sue a liberal government saying that the 2nd amendment requires them to give me reloading supplies at no cost, while that's about as dumb as most liberal arguments the liberal government would win and I would lose. Since you weren't a party to that first suit you can turn around and sue them for the exact same thing the day after I lose my lawsuit and they would have to fight it out with you just like my suit never occurred. But if I'd gotten lucky and won then they'd have to give you and anyone else who asked free reloading supplies or you could sue them and automatically win based upon the previous ruling against them.

Now I do agree with you that once Trump gets a final ruling on appeal then that would be binding law provided that the opinion was issued on very broad grounds. But that would take years and courts are hesitant to issue broad rulings, most will try to rule as narrowly as possible to prevent unforeseen consequences. Also any 1st year lawstudent with a lap top can think of different reasons why something should be allowed or not allowed, that's one of the reasons the libs file so many lawsuits. Group A files saying the Wall violates their freedom of movement, Group B files in another jurisdiction saying it should be allowed as it hurts endangered species. And then once Trump wins those, Group C will file saying that the wall violate XYZ and on down the line, just every time one suit gets show down another using some different theory would pop up. .

There's no clear cut answer that won't make a bigger problem other than for Trump to appoint and the Senate to nominate conservative judges. Any precedent we set that prevents them for suing over their pet causes would prevent us from suing when we think our rights are being infringed. What if the next Dem president were to be able to file suit against himself in Berkley California and get a ruling that the 2nd Amendment only applies to single shot rifles? If that were allowed to be binding precedent then we're screwed

It IS the most important thing that Trump is doing and is the reason behind this impeachment farce, that being them trying to block him from picking RBG’s successor.