Trump attacks lawyers and “frivilous” lawsuits=Constitutional Crisis?

1. 79

   Credence2posted 7 weeks ago

   Trump is now attacking lawyers and the Judiciary over what he calls frivolous lawsuits. Is a frivolous lawsuit one that opposes his policies and precludes him from simply doing what he wants, contrary to established law? As with the Venezuelans, anyone can clearly see that Trump is itching for a fight with the Judiciary and a Constitutional Crisis is at hand. He has dared to cross the line as I always believed that he would. What enforcement tool is actually available to bring Trump and his administration into line?
   
   I would not trust anyone who believes that they should be allowed to do anything he likes without accountability to the law.
   
   So, I am anxious to see Trump trip and fall precipitously over this matter.
   
   
   
   
   
   https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-target … 59563.html

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Straight out of the authoritarian playbook.  He is aggressively trying delegitimize institutions... universities, law firms, judges and others.  Brazenly directing and dictating to Barbie Bondi.   So  yes we're hitting a crisis point, with the apparent evasion of court orders on deportations and immigration, plus shutting down agencies, canceling grants, and firing civil servants contrary to law. And claims from DOJ that Article II of the Constitution enables autocracy. 
      We are living through a massive assault on basic premises of our constitution.
      Call that a crisis or not, but either way we are in deep, deep trouble.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         What concerns me most, Willow, is that there seems to be no penalty from the Judiciary with any teeth to hold against Trump when he resist court rulings.  Honorable men as president in the past submitted to court rulings even against their better judgement. But, it is obvious that the days of honorable men have passed.
         
         So, who and what will stop Trump? In dire times such as these perhaps the Democrats are doing society a disservice by signing on to the Continuing Resolution regardless of the cost as nothing else seems to be reining Trump and MAGA in.

         replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      The recent legal proceedings surrounding the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan migrants underscore the functionality and checks inherent in the U.S. judicial system. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order halting these deportations, emphasizing the necessity for due process. ​
      
      Despite this order, reports indicate that the administration proceeded with deportation flights, leading to judicial scrutiny over potential violations of the court's directive. In response, the administration invoked the "state secrets privilege," arguing that disclosing further details could compromise national security. ​
      
      Currently, the case is under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
      
      If the appellate court upholds Judge Boasberg's order, the administration would be required to provide individualized hearings for the affected migrants. Conversely, if the order is overturned, the administration might resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Ultimately, the courts are positioned to determine the legality of these actions, exemplifying the system of checks and balances designed to ensure that executive actions adhere to constitutional principles.
      
      Do you trust the courts to make the decision? It appears that, thus far, the courts have chosen to look closely at this issue.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         Sharlee, I had missed this.
         
         I believe that Trump’s interpretation of the application of this Act is well beyond the scope that it was designed for. I can see where it can be used against enemy aliens as a result of a war as declared by Congress. Such would have been the case with German, Italian or Japanese nationals during WWII. It was misused by FDR when incarcerating American citizens of Japanese ancestry. We are not formally at war with a street gang and the MS-13 constitutes a criminal enterprise, its members are entitled to due process of law individually to determine if a crime has been committed. Trump just puts a knapsack over the lot and deport them regardless of individual guilt or innocence. This kind of thinking needs to be decimated in our legal system as a stark violation of our laws.
         
         As for trusting the courts, I don’t know. So much of their rulings reflect fealty to Trump rather than interpretation of the law. But, again the courts are all that I have now.
         
         Another point: what about the Mafia and the Cosa Nostra whose criminal enterprises dwarfs anything coming from Venuzuala, can we just bag and ship back to Italy those that are associated with it without due process?

         replyreport
         1. 75

            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "...the MS-13 constitutes a criminal enterprise, its members are entitled to due process of law individually to determine if a crime has been committed."
            
            I would jump on this with immediate agreement...if MS-13 was American.  Or if it were a matter of jailing the gang members.  But it is not - it is composed of aliens in the country illegally and it is about deporting them.  As such there is zero reason for Trump not to get them out of the country.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               We have immigration laws that allow for deportation. It is his use of the alien enemies act that is being contested.  Maybe he should try acting within our laws for a change?  I think he would actually probably get more done rather than being held up in court for absolutely everything.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I believe the Trump administration has been following immigration laws, and the real debate is over whether the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 applies in this situation. Deportation is already allowed under 8 U.S. Code § 1227, which permits the removal of noncitizens with criminal records or those deemed a security threat. The courts have upheld key Trump-era policies in the past, like Remain in Mexico (MPP) and certain applications of Title 42, proving that his administration is operating within legal frameworks. The claim that he should “try acting within our laws for a change” assumes he is ignoring them when, in reality, he is testing the legal boundaries of a rarely used but still valid law to address what he sees as a national security crisis. Given the criminal activity of Tren de Aragua, his team believes this qualifies as a legitimate use of the Alien Enemies Act.
                  
                  For unknown reasons, Democrats seem to believe they can stop a duly elected president from carrying out what he was sent to do. It appears, as expected, that lawsuits will be filed at every turn, making it clear that political opposition is just as much a factor as legal arguments. However, it is encouraging to see that many of these lawsuits have been overruled in appeals, reaffirming that Trump's policies are not outside the law. I also find it reassuring that the courts are hearing these cases with good speed and efficiency. This gives me great confidence that the judicial system is functioning properly, allowing legal challenges while not unreasonably obstructing the administration’s ability to enforce immigration law.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     "For unknown reasons, Democrats seem to believe they can stop a duly elected president from carrying out what he was sent to do"
                     
                     No, most people think that the President should have to act within the laws and our constitution. Using the alien enemies act to deprive people of the due process available under our immigration law is illegal.  If he wants to deport people, he already has existing law to do so.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Does he really?  Have existing law to do so? 
                        
                        As liberal Democrats the country over protect them from ICE, as thousands of people all over the country instruct them on finding loopholes in the law, just what law can Trump use to get rid of aliens residing in our country illegally?  He already has the simple fact that they have violated the law (are criminals) every day they remain here, but that is not enough to get them out.  So what law can he use to protect our country from invasion?

                        replyreport
                  2. 79

                     Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     "For unknown reasons, Democrats seem to believe they can stop a duly elected president from carrying out what he was sent to do."
                     
                     He has to operate within the guardrails of the rule of law and Constitutional prescriptions, regardless of what he was voted in to accomplish.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                        You raise an important point—Trump’s policies and executive orders (EOs) are consistently being challenged in the courts, and in many cases, these legal battles have played out in his favor. In fact, some of his policies have already been upheld by the courts of appeals, signaling that, at least in the eyes of some judges, his actions are not necessarily overstepping constitutional bounds. These legal wins suggest that, at least for now, many of his actions are being evaluated within the framework of the law.
                        
                        This ongoing legal process means that his policies and executive actions are being put under intense scrutiny, and we’re watching the system of checks and balances in action. The fact that his decisions are being questioned and brought before the courts is actually a sign that the constitutional system is working. The judiciary is doing its job in reviewing whether his executive orders or legislative actions are constitutional, and in many instances, these rulings come after careful consideration of the law and precedent. Given the current state of legal challenges, we are witnessing a real-time examination of his presidency and the implications of his decisions, so it’s clear that he is being held accountable in some capacity.
                        
                        In this sense, it’s important to remember that even though Trump’s administration is pushing hard for certain policies, the courts are ultimately the arbiters when it comes to determining legality and constitutionality. If his actions overstep the boundaries of the Constitution or violate federal law, the courts will likely rule against him. On the other hand, if they find that his orders and policies are within the scope of presidential power, they will be upheld. The fact that Trump’s policies are being so rigorously challenged in court shows that the system is functioning as intended—there is no unchecked power, and his actions are not being allowed to simply go unexamined.
                        
                        What I’ve seen is that, while his policies are controversial, the legal system is engaging with them. He’s being scrutinized. This ongoing legal review helps to ensure that his administration remains within the boundaries of the law. As citizens, we might not always agree with his policies or the outcomes of these legal battles, but it’s reassuring to know that they are being tested by the courts. In that sense, I’m not particularly worried about him overstepping the Constitution because the judicial process is in place to determine whether his actions are legal and constitutional, and, ultimately, the courts will decide the fate of his policies.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                           There are over 100 lawsuits involving his executive orders and I believe that not even one has come to a full resolution.

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                              This is not uncommon  --- This page includes an overview of notable multistate lawsuits filed against the federal government during President Joe Biden's (D) administration. Multistate lawsuits are legal actions involving two or more state attorneys general. By the end of his term in office, 133 multistate lawsuits were filed against the Biden administration.[1][2]
                              https://ballotpedia.org/Multistate_laws … hatgpt.com
                              
                              I would imagine the courts will handle all, and any to come... They have been doing a speedy job thus far.

                              replyreport
               2. 75

                  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I would have to say it's pretty obvious that Trump thinks he IS acting within the law.
                  
                  You're right, though - he could have taken the normal path to deportation.  It won't take more than a year or two per person to get them out as lawyer after lawyer, judge after judge, state after state, all claim asylum AND that the person MUST remain within the country until the grossly overloaded system gets to them. 
                  
                  As this is intentional by too many people/states, I find it a useless method of staying legal.  All it accomplishes is to give illegal aliens a right to stay here illegally, while using our welfare system illegally.

                  replyreport
            2. 70

               Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Of course they need due process and protection... they are migrants... they have MORE rights and should be MORE protected than the citizens of America.
               
               Haven't you been paying attention to what "the Left" is really about?
               
               Take a look in the mirror... you are male, you are not a minority... you are the problem... not some poor helpless migrants.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Ken, so agree--- and thank you for taking the time to post.

                  replyreport
               2. 75

                  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Sadly, you are 100% right.

                  replyreport
            3. 79

               Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               It is a standard conservative attitude that characterizes Trump and his followers: the ends justifies the means. Quite frankly it won't do, and will be subject to resistance.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Sometimes, in dire situations, the end does justify the means. What I see is the courts handling cases against the new administration with fairness and efficiency, which I appreciate. Resistance is an essential part of a healthy democracy, just as a strong and just judicial system is.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     That depends on what is a dire situation. We can manufacture a synario like they did during WWII against American citizens of Japanese ancestry. Was it right, was it lawful or was it a kneejerk reaction creating a threat where none existed? Trump created this designation of MS-13 as a terrorist group last Feb 20, do you not see a manufactured synario here?

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                        This is a hard subject to address.
                        
                        I understand the concern you're raising, and it's important to recognize the historical context of things like the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, which was a deeply unjust and wrong action driven by fear and prejudice. It’s a cautionary tale about how a perceived “dire situation” can lead to decisions that violate rights and freedoms. The issue with the MS-13 designation as a terrorist group is similar in that it’s based on fear and the need for a public response to a growing criminal threat. However, unlike the Japanese internment, MS-13 is a violent gang that has caused real harm in several communities, and the decision to label them a terrorist group was rooted in the idea of giving law enforcement more tools to deal with organized crime.
                        
                        Your point about creating a manufactured scenario does have merit in the sense that by labeling the group in such a way, it can shift the perception of what’s really at stake. It may lead to overreach and unnecessary targeting of certain communities, similar to how the internment camps did to Japanese Americans. There’s a fine line between addressing genuine threats and fueling a fear-mongering narrative that may cause more harm than good.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                           The conditions that must be present  in order to invoke the alien enemies act have not met.  Trump has invoked it for the sole purpose of skirting our immigration law that says these people must have due process. He would much rather quickly shuttle them to an El Salvadoran  gulag.

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                              The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act by President Trump to target members of Tren de Aragua (TdA) as "alien enemies" is a significant legal and constitutional step. Whether or not he has met the criteria to enact this law is open to debate, and much depends on how the courts interpret the situation.
                              
                              From a national security perspective, there’s certainly a case to be made that TdA's connections with Cártel de los Soles, Venezuela, and their alleged involvement in transnational crimes—including human trafficking, drug trafficking, and violent crimes—pose a threat to U.S. citizens. The designation of TdA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department earlier in 2025 strengthens the argument that they could be considered hostile actors aligned with broader destabilizing forces, like the Venezuelan regime. In this light, one could argue that the Alien Enemies Act was invoked to address a threat that fits within its general framework.
                              
                              But the Alien Enemies Act has historically been applied to individuals from countries the U.S. is at war with or those who pose an immediate, existential threat in a wartime context. The law has traditionally been used against foreign nationals tied to state actors in conflicts rather than non-state criminal organizations. So, whether this criminal gang truly meets the standard of "hostile" as outlined in the Alien Enemies Act is a gray area,
                              
                              Another important factor is due process. Under U.S. law, foreign nationals are still entitled to certain protections, including the right to challenge their deportation in court. If members of TdA are apprehended and detained as "alien enemies," there could be significant concerns about due process violations if they are removed without a full judicial process, especially since they aren't necessarily engaged in acts of war but are part of a criminal organization.
                              
                              So, while Trump’s action might meet certain criteria in terms of national security, whether it aligns with the law and the U.S. Constitution—particularly with regard to due process—is something that courts will likely need to clarify..

                              replyreport
                           2. 85

                              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                              You may want to get in touch with the Supreme Court and share your legal advice.... Me, I am very satisfied with leaving this issue in the court's hands.

                              replyreport
                           3. 75

                              wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                              Perhaps if liberals would allow due process to happen instead of delaying it whenever and however possible Trump would use more normal methods.  You think?

                              replyreport
                     2. 75

                        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                        For me, Trump used that designation as a means to use a law.  They are here illegally, they are a definite danger, they are criminals...but all that is not enough for Democrats as they protect them from ICE.
                        
                        So, another attempt to use the law in a novel approach.  Or are you insisting that only Democrats can create novel ideas of what a law means?

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                           Trump changes the interpretation which is clearly inappropriate to skirt the law. This “novel” approach is incorrect. Have you proven that every deported immigrant that was just knapsacked by Trump have committed crimes or is it just based on the fact that they were tattooed?

                           replyreport
               2. 75

                  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What attitude is that?  The concept that laws are there to be enforced, including the ones saying aliens inhabiting our shores without permission should leave? 
                  
                  I understand that liberals hate that concept, that they will stand in the way of the law using any method possible, but for me and a whole lot of conservatives it is decades past time that our laws are enforced.  Hang the businesses making hay off the illegals, hang the Democrats hoping to get the votes of illegals; we want the out of the country.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     There is the way to do things properly. Quite frankly, I don’t care what the rightwinger wants.
                     
                     We are going to follow the rules of law or as I put it, there will be trouble in River City.
                     
                     I stand of the way of rightwing prejudice and bigotry in how the law is interpreted and the Trump administration desire to skirt them.
                     
                     Do you really think that the oligarchs are going to take any responsibility for illegals being here. They thrive on exploited labor, are we going to ignore the demand and focus on the supply, instead?

                     replyreport
2. 59

   Willowarborposted 7 weeks ago

   Another Trump overreach slapped down in court...because the Constitution still matters.
   
   A.  federal judge has temporarily BLOCKED Trump's executive order targeting major law firm Jenner & Block, finding it likely violates the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
   
   Judge Bates calls Trump's EO "disturbing" and "troubling," especially the attack on pro bono practice.
   
   None of these executive orders directed at law firms will survive judicial scrutiny. The EOs have no basis in law or the constitution. They are vindictive, petty,  fascist garbage.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Another case headed to appeals--- and we all know how well he is scoring with these friviless cases being shot down. I also noted just how fast these cases are making it before the appeals courts.  I like seeing courts show efficiency.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Kathleen Cochranposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … suits.html

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Dozens of lawsuits have been filed during President Donald Trump’s second administration. The suits challenge his executive orders as well as actions taken by his administration, including Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. The courts have agreed to block the president in a number of cases, and the administration is seeking appeals as well, with many cases just pending.
            
            I don't subscribe to the NYT any longer. The main point I was sharing is that the courts are hearing the cases quickly. My view is that many are friviless. But I am very pleased with our court system. I am very well aware of the hundreds, and some cases that have been brought against Trump's EO's and his administrative decisions. I trust our court processes and believe in our system of justice.
            
            "Sharlee01 wrote:
            Another case headed to appeals--- and we all know how well he is scoring with these friviless cases being shot down. I also noted just how fast these cases are making it before the appeals courts.  I like seeing courts show efficiency."

            replyreport