Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate

1. 83

   Sharlee01posted 2 days ago

   
   Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not through elections, but through courtroom warfare. Unelected judges, many appointed during prior administrations, are using the bench to halt the progress voters demanded at the ballot box.
   
   This isn’t healthy oversight. It’s obstruction dressed up in legal robes. From day one, activist judges have launched a wave of injunctions and legal delays to slow or stop Trump’s key initiatives. These rulings often don’t stem from real constitutional concerns, they’re political in nature, aimed at stalling action on border security, tax reform, energy, and executive restructuring. It’s not just opposition. It’s sabotage.
   
   But President Trump is not backing down. In fact, he’s been winning, most notably at the Supreme Court. Over the past several months, key decisions have reaffirmed his constitutional authority:
   
   Trump v. United States (2024): The Court ruled 6–3 that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for core constitutional duties and have broad protections for other official acts.
   
   Trump v. Anderson (2024): A unanimous decision reversed Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot, confirming that only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause.
   
   J.G.G. v. Trump (2025): The Court allowed the administration to proceed with deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, upholding federal immigration authority.
   
   Trump v. CASA (2025): While the ruling is pending, the Court’s decision to review the scope of nationwide injunctions signals a possible reining in of lower court overreach.
   
   Trade Tariffs Reinstatement (2025): A key appeals court decision temporarily restored Trump’s tariffs, reinforcing the administration’s trade policy.
   
   These victories are more than legal wins, they’re reminders that the presidency is not a symbolic role. It carries real power and responsibility, and President Trump is using that authority to fulfill the promises made to the American people.
   
   What we’re facing isn’t just judicial opposition; it’s a systemic denial of a democratic mandate. Courts should interpret laws, not interfere with the execution of policies that Americans voted for. If left unchecked, this trend threatens not only the Trump presidency but the very foundation of our constitutional republic.
   
   The American people chose this path. No judge, however cloaked in black robes, should have the power to undo that choice. This battle isn't just about Trump, it's about preserving the voice of the voter, the balance of our institutions, and the future of our democracy.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Willowarborposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      So if the "voice of the voter"is to go against the Constitution or break the law then judges should green light that?  I mean their role is judicial review.    But also what about the Trump appointed judges?  The Republican appointed judges?  They are obstructing also? And why is it  obstruction only when the ruling goes against the administration?  Otherwise, when they rule in the administration's favor Maga is just so pleased and confident with the courts ability to rule on the law?
      
      The courts are there to uphold the constitution, the rule of law and interrupt the law.  Just because folks don't like their ruling does not make them rogue or activist Judges.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Readmikenowposted 45 hours agoin reply to this

         The problem is we have federal judges making nation-wide rulings when their jurisdiction in not the entire nation. 
         
         There is only ONE court that can make rulings for the entire nation and that is the Supreme Court.
         
         IF the left does believe so strongly in the rule of law they will support the case before the Supreme Court that would nullify the nation-wide rulings of the federal district courts.
         
         THIS is the law.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Willowarborposted 45 hours agoin reply to this

            Universal or Nationwide injunctions are pauses put on while a case makes it way through the system.  There is absolutely nothing wrong in pausing the potential harm and violation of rights until the highest court can rule. 
            
            Republicans used to celebrate judges' issuance of nationwide court injunctions to block Biden policies or progressive government programs...

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Readmikenowposted 43 hours agoin reply to this

               "Universal or Nationwide injunctions are pauses put on while a case makes it way through the system."
               
               Again, if you believe in the rule of law you would believe that federal district judges are only permitted to make rulings for their district.
               
               They have no authority to make rulings for the entire country.
               
               They are rogue judges who are making rulings beyond their legal jurisdiction.
               
               If you believe in the rule of law you would understand why this is very wrong as well as against the Constitution.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Willowarborposted 43 hours agoin reply to this

                  Why did conservative folks hail these injunctions when they were used to stop Biden  policies, most notably the student loan plans?   Fantastic then but not now?

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  Willowarborposted 42 hours agoin reply to this

                  "They have no authority to make rulings for the entire country.
                  
                  These are pauses while the case in question makes its way through the system to a final resolution. I have no problem with a pause being put into effect so that individuals rights are not potentially violated during that time.   For me, that does no harm and makes sense. 
                  
                  Trump has an easy solution though. They have the trifecta, use Congress to make policy into law.. it's really very simple isn't it?   Apparently, they don't feel they can do that.  If he wants to continue to rule as a king with executive order, of course he's going to be challenged at every turn because he is trying to use power, in many instances, that belongs solely to Congress.  He is clogging up the Supreme Court because much of what he attempts to do is actually illegal.

                  replyreport
               3. 61

                  Willowarborposted 35 hours agoin reply to this

                  So when a president decides he wants to confiscate everyone's guns and a case challenges the order in a particular district.   Under your logic, individuals in every single district would have to sue to get relief against something unconstitutional as the case made its way to the Supreme Court.   Essentially people's rights being violated in the interim between district decisions and a scotus decision... This is nonsensical.   A pause makes sense.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     wildernessposted 18 hours agoin reply to this

                     On the whole I agree with you.  Judges can set the standard for the country in many cases.
                     
                     My problem is the number of cases being filed.  Most of these things should be handled in the political arena rather than the courts, but those that don't like what he is doing understand that they cannot be successful in shutting Trump down that way so they use the courts instead. 
                     
                     And that's wrong.  This is not some kind of stupid game where we spend billions to try and stop Trump's programs.  What's being done is nothing but more of the same old same old; things will be MY way at all times.  And if I have to leave the political efforts behind and spend billions, tying up our courts indefinitely as I search for sympathetic judges that will violate their oath to render verdicts based on politics or morals or something beyond the law, then I will do so. 
                     
                     It is pathetic, it is wrong and it is harmful to both nation and individuals.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Willowarborposted 18 hours agoin reply to this

                        "My problem is the number of cases being filed.  Most of these things should be handled in the political arena rather than the courts,
                        
                        Trump is neutered the Congress though? He won't let them legislate. He prefers to send down dictates, executive orders from on high... There is a real simple solution to all of this. Let Congress do their job. He has the trifecta and yet they don't try to pass legislation on virtually anything.  Why?  My guess is that Trump and crew understand they don't even have the full support of Republicans on most of this nonsense.

                        replyreport
                  2. 84

                     Readmikenowposted 18 hours agoin reply to this

                     The only court that is authorized by the Constitution to pass ruling that impact the entire country is the Supreme Court.
                     
                     District federal courts making rulings for the entire country undermines the authority of the Supreme Court.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Ken Burgessposted 18 hours agoin reply to this

                        You do understand that was/is part of the plan... part of Le Resistance
                        
                        Remember when right after Trump was elected you were hearing about hundreds of millions of dollars being set aside so that NY and CA could battle every decision or order made?
                        
                        Setback after setback ... lawfare to cripple the ability of the Trump Administration to Govern... or stall federal restructuring efforts.
                        
                        In example: a U.S. appeals court has upheld a lower court’s injunction blocking widespread job cuts across federal agencies.
                        
                        The cuts, initiated by Elon Musk through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), were challenged by labor unions and local governments.
                        
                        Judge Susan Illston ruled that sweeping reforms of this nature require congressional authorization, despite many such jobs being directly created by agencies controlled or answerable to the president (not congress).
                        
                        As a result, the Trump administration’s plan... impacting tens of thousands of federal employees... remains on hold pending further legal proceedings.
                        
                        And so on and so forth... everything... border... trade... benefits... everything is challenged in court, directed to activist judges that were put in place decades ago with anticipation that such a time would come.

                        replyreport
         2. 81

            Credence2posted 40 hours agoin reply to this

            The problem is that Trump could through executive order say that all green eyed people are to be deported. None of that is valid as only congress can make law and is clearly unconstitutional, what prevents him from shipping you out at his caprice based on his executive orders?  I neither like Trump nor trust Trump to operate within the confines of the law. By the time a clearly unconstitutional order was issued, do conservatives really believe that we are going to wait for this order to be evaluated by the Supreme Court. Trump knows what he is doing is clearly outside the confines of the law and while the Right is satisfied abusing people in the meantime, I am not and I say that the Federal Courts have a role to play when cease and desist orders apply to the outcomes of a similar abuse anywhere in the nation.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 36 hours agoin reply to this

               "The problem is that Trump could through executive order say that all green eyed people are to be deported. None of that is valid as only congress can make law and is clearly unconstitutional," Cred
               
               That’s true—but wouldn’t you expect at least some on your side to argue this on the floor of Congress? Or are they relying on the judges to do all the work? Your party is all but done. The Biden cover-up was the last nail.
               
               
               "Trump knows what he is doing is clearly outside the confines of the law and while the Right is satisfied abusing people in the meantime, I am not and I say that the Federal Courts have a role to play when cease and desist orders apply to the outcomes of a similar abuse anywhere in the nation." Cred
               
               In my view, yes—Trump absolutely knows what he's doing. He’s working to keep the promises he made to the American people who sent him to Washington. He’s approaching it in the smartest and most effective way he can. When he signs some of his executive orders, he likely knows they’ll face legal challenges and end up in court, possibly reaching the Supreme Court. And he tends to win many of those cases, likely because he has strong constitutional attorneys advising him that the law is on his side.
               
               In doing so, he’s setting precedents that could make things much easier for the next president.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Credence2posted 18 hours agoin reply to this

                  Well, Sharlee, some on our side are vehemently arguing against what Trump is trying to get away with. But again, Republicans are in charge in the Senate and House, all which I hope can be remedied in 2026.
                  
                  Instead of bowing head and bending knee to Trump maybe even these GOP legislators would find the courage to stand up for the oath that they have taken to insure that the tenets of the Constitution are complied with to the best of their ability. I saw that in 1974, has congress become so pusillanimous since then?
                  
                  the “promise” kept MUST comply with the Constitution and rule of law. I abhor the idea that this and any other elected leader are simply free to do anything he or she likes and break the rules. I am naturally resistant to Trumps methods regardless of his “mandate”. Is it smart to ignore and defy court orders? Anyone that does that is taking on the mantle of a tyrant, that knows no restraint on his authority. I wont have it.
                  
                  He has won some cases, but he has lost some as well. I don’t think that the Supreme Court is going to have much sympathy for an administration that ignores court rulings at every level.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     Sharlee01posted 17 hours agoin reply to this

                     What exactly is Trump “getting away with” that he didn’t already say he would pursue during his campaign? Republicans currently hold the House and Senate. If Democrats regain control through the democratic process, they’ll have every opportunity to reverse or modify policies they disagree with. That’s how our system works. But at this moment, we have a man elected by the people to do what he said he would do, and he’s trying to do exactly that. So what some call “getting away with something” are actually changes that a majority of Americans felt were needed.
                     
                     As for those whom you believe are “bowing their heads” or “bending the knee” to Trump, many of them simply support his agenda, or parts of it. As individuals and elected representatives, they have every right to support, oppose, or stand up to whatever they choose.
                     
                     Regarding the courts, in my opinion, Trump knows exactly what he’s doing. He seems to deliberately provoke legal challenges and judicial reactions. But take a step back, his so-called defiance of the courts has, in fact, led to rapid Supreme Court rulings. In contrast, past presidents often got tied up in court battles that dragged on beyond their terms, leaving their agendas unresolved. So, whether you see Trump’s strategy of pushing ahead despite legal challenges as reckless or brilliant, the result is that we’re getting quicker answers on major constitutional questions.
                     
                     Regarding the Constitution, the Supreme Court has upheld many of Trump's actions, granting him several significant wins. So how can anyone fairly claim he’s acting unconstitutionally? In reality, he’s only lost a few cases, and even in those, the rulings often clarified how certain actions can be pursued lawfully rather than outright condemning his agenda. The Constitution is being tested and interpreted, as it should be, but the Court has largely affirmed that his policies fall within legal bounds.
                     
                     Termination of Humanitarian Parole Program
                     Case: Noem v. Doe (Decided May 30, 2025)
                     
                     Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end a temporary parole program that had provided legal status to over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This decision overturned a lower court's block and permitted the administration to proceed with deportations.
                     
                     2. Presidential Immunity
                     Case: Trump v. United States (Decided July 1, 2024)
                     Decision: The Court ruled 6–3 that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and presumptive immunity for official acts. This decision vacated a lower court's denial of immunity and remanded the case for further proceedings.
                     
                     3. Ballot Eligibility
                     Case: Trump v. Anderson (Decided March 4, 2024)
                     Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that states cannot determine eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision that had disqualified Trump from the ballot, thereby restoring his eligibility.
                     
                     4. Use of the Alien Enemies Act
                     Case: Trump v. J.G.G. (Decided April 7, 2025)
                     Decision: The Supreme Court vacated a lower court's restraining orders, allowing the Trump administration to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court emphasized procedural requirements, stating that challenges to such deportations must be filed in the district where the petitioner is detained.
                     Supreme Court
                     
                     5. Removal of Independent Agency Heads
                     Case: Humphrey's Executor v. United States (Developments in 2025)
                     Decision: The Supreme Court stayed the reinstatement of two independent regulators, allowing President Trump to remove them without cause. The Court's order suggested that the President may remove executive officers who exercise executive power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions.
                     
                     Termination of Humanitarian Parole Program
                     Case: Emergency Order (May 30, 2025)
                     
                     Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end the Biden-era CHNV parole program, which had provided temporary legal status to over 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This decision overturned a lower court's block and permitted the administration to proceed with deportations.
                     
                     Case: Trump v. Wilcox
                     
                     Date: May 22, 2025
                     Decision: The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 order allowing President Trump to remove Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), despite federal laws that typically require "for cause" removals for such positions.
                     
                     So far, I haven’t found any cases that he has lost at the Supreme Court level. He still has many cases pending, but to claim that he’s been acting unconstitutionally doesn’t seem supported by the current record. I believe he has some very skilled attorneys advising him on what he can realistically win at the Supreme Court. Most likely, he knows exactly what issues he can push forward and succeed with.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Credence2posted 16 hours agoin reply to this

                        The problem is that Trump could through executive order say that all green eyed people are to be deported. None of that is valid as only congress can make law and is clearly unconstitutional,"
                        
                        So, after your explanation, you really want to give this kind of power of caprice to Trump or anyone else? Because sending people away and deporting without due process is against the Constitution, unless the rightwinger wants to trash that? Ask yourself a question, would you want this to happen to you, because there is no restraint found in trump’s executive orders.
                        Is this what Trump conservatism is all about?
                        
                        I don’t care for trump taking the executive branch and turning it into place of emperors and kings.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           Sharlee01posted 13 hours agoin reply to this

                           "The problem is that Trump could through executive order say that all green eyed people are to be deported. None of that is valid as only congress can make law and is clearly unconstitutional," Cred
                           
                           I would trust many lawsuits, and 100% that the Supreme Court would find that unconstitutional; and that would be that.  Did not our Supreme Court stand up for due process? They did in strength.  So, why would you fear that Trump would not be brought to task if and when he does something unconstitutional?  He is slapped with lawsuits right and left. So, have no fear, no green-eyed people will be sent packing.
                           
                           " Ask yourself a question, would you want this to happen to you, because there is no restraint found in trump’s executive orders." Cred
                           
                           I had hoped my longer comment would help shed light on a simple truth: Trump isn’t “getting away” with anything. He’s facing numerous lawsuits, and any case he doesn’t win on appeal is going through the proper legal channels—often landing before the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s how our system works. The highest court in the land is determining whether his actions are lawful or if any executive orders cross constitutional lines.
                           
                           Yet despite this, many in the media and on social media keep repeating the line that “Trump is ignoring the Constitution.” That’s simply not true. He’s not ignoring it; in fact, he’s actively engaging with it, using the legal tools available to ensure his actions are upheld as constitutional. That’s not defiance of the law, it’s a respect for the system.
                           
                           Maybe it’s time to step back and recognize that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do. A majority of voters sent him to Washington with that mandate. And yes, there will always be a side that disagrees with what a sitting president is doing, but that’s usually the side that lost the election. That doesn’t make the president illegitimate or lawless. It just means not everyone got their way.
                           
                           You see a man trying to be a king.  I see a president who is doing what I voted for.  I have been working on a Hubpage on this subject for a while. You have inspired me to get back to it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Willowarborposted 10 hours agoin reply to this

                              It's sort of hinges on universal injunction though doesn't it?   If district judges cannot pause potentially unlawful orders, the administration would be able to throw out green-eyed people as fast as they can as long as the green eyes do not individually bring lawsuits.... Of course the administration would lose every single one but when the administration doesn't appeal, they actually win by losing until a case is able to make its way to scotus.

                              replyreport
                              1. 84

                                 Readmikenowposted 10 hours agoin reply to this

                                 If a president is giving unlawful orders, according to the Constitution, it is up to the US Congress to stop it.
                                 
                                 That is also the law.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 83

                                 Sharlee01posted 9 hours agoin reply to this

                                 There is currently no specific federal law that outright prohibits a federal district judge from issuing a nationwide, or universal, injunction. At the same time, there is also no statute that clearly authorizes such sweeping orders. The authority for nationwide injunctions exists in a gray area of judicial interpretation and equitable powers, which has become increasingly controversial, especially during and after the Trump administration.
                                 
                                 Federal courts derive their authority from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which limits them to resolving actual “cases or controversies.” Traditionally, this has meant that courts issue rulings or injunctions that apply only to the parties involved in a case. Many legal scholars and some justices argue that when a district judge issues an injunction that affects individuals or entities who are not parties to the case, the court may be exceeding its constitutional authority. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has raised concerns that such broad injunctions go beyond the limits of what Article III allows.
                                 
                                 Under federal law, courts are allowed to issue declaratory and injunctive relief, particularly in cases involving unconstitutional statutes or actions. However, this law does not explicitly define whether such relief can or should apply nationwide. Courts have traditionally relied on their “inherent equitable powers” to justify broad injunctions, but these powers are meant to be used cautiously and within constitutional bounds.
                                 
                                 The Supreme Court has not yet definitively ruled on whether nationwide injunctions are constitutional. Justices like Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have strongly criticized the practice. In cases such as Trump v. Hawaii and Department of Homeland Security v. New York, they expressed concern about forum shopping, judicial overreach, and the increasing tendency of lower courts to halt federal policy across the entire nation based on limited legal review. However, these opinions have come in concurring or dissenting writings and do not yet represent binding precedent.
                                 
                                 There have been legislative attempts to curb the use of nationwide injunctions. For example, the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act, which has been proposed in Congress, seeks to limit district courts to issuing injunctions that apply only to the parties in the case. However, such proposals have not passed into law. Until Congress enacts such legislation or the Supreme Court issues a definitive ruling, district judges will continue to have the discretion to issue nationwide injunctions, though the practice remains highly contested.
                                 
                                 At this point, it’s clear that the Supreme Court has generally sided with Trump in the cases they’ve ruled on. Given the growing number of cases involving nationwide injunctions by federal judges, it seems likely the Court will eventually address the issue directly. With so many of these cases now before them, and mounting criticism from within the Court itself, it's reasonable to expect that they’ll take the opportunity to clarify or limit the use of universal injunctions.
                                 
                                 Congress does have the authority to override or block a president’s executive orders. So, if a president were ever to overstep their authority, for example, by ordering the deportation of all green-eyed people, Congress would have both the power and responsibility to step in and put a stop to it.
                                 
                                 I believe Trump will leave the presidency having changed many laws and set important precedents that will effectively give future presidents more freedom to advance their agendas without as many constraints. These changes could reshape the balance of executive power, potentially loosening the traditional limits on what a president can do to implement their policies.

                                 replyreport
      2. 83

         Sharlee01posted 42 hours agoin reply to this

         I understand your point about judges needing to uphold the Constitution and perform judicial review, regardless of who appointed them. But it’s also important to recognize that many federal judges sometimes overstep their legal boundaries. Their authority is limited to the specific states or districts they serve, and they don’t have the constitutional right to impose rulings with nationwide effect. When district or circuit judges issue rulings or injunctions that apply broadly across the country, especially on issues that are national in scope, they are arguably exceeding their proper jurisdiction. This raises concerns about judicial overreach and ignoring constitutional limits. So ironically, it’s these judges who are stepping outside their constitutional role by taking on authority they don’t legally have. The balance of power relies on judges respecting their jurisdictional boundaries and allowing the appeals process and the Supreme Court to handle nationwide constitutional questions. When judges go beyond that, they’re not defending the Constitution, they’re ignoring it.
         
         These judges are clogging up the legal system and burdening the Supreme Court. Trump is winning the majority of these cases once they reach the high court — in fact, he just won another one this morning as I write this. It’s becoming clear that many of these lower court judges who overstep their legal boundaries need to be admonished. Their role is not to legislate from the bench or to issue rulings that stretch beyond their proper jurisdiction.
         
         I have confidence in the Supreme Court, and it should be clear that it’s not Trump who’s disregarding the Constitution. In many cases, it’s been lower court judges issuing sweeping injunctions that push beyond their authority. You might want to take a closer look at how many of those overreaching injunctions Trump has successfully challenged and overturned at the Supreme Court.

         replyreport
2. 61

   Willowarborposted 45 hours ago

   "Unelected" appointed and Senate confirmed judges are responsible for upholding the law in order to prevent Presidents from wielding powers that do not rightfully belong to them. 
   
   Congress IS  elected and it's time they did their job. 
   
   The courts aren't shaping policy. The courts are upholding the law/constitution. If Trump would stop breaking the law every time he tried to enact policy, the judges wouldn't need to step in.  It's really very simple.
   
   What is rogue about upholding the rule of law?
   
   Should we take a look at the hypocrisy of those in this Administration...look back on their previous statements? 
   
   Funny how they  had no problem with a single district judge when they were blocking Biden initiatives... What happened to the will of the voters lol?? There was  only praise for the judges.

   replyreport
3. 83

   Sharlee01posted 42 hours ago

   Breaking News---- May 30, 2025     May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing them to end a Biden-era humanitarian parole program. This program had granted temporary legal status and work authorization to hundreds of thousands of migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.    Another One Bites The Dust!
   
   The decision granted an emergency appeal requested by the Trump administration.
   The Supreme Court lifted a lower-court order that had blocked the Trump administration's attempt to repeal the parole policy.
   
   As a result, approximately 500,000 individuals who were granted temporary parole under this program will lose their temporary legal status.
   
   The court's decision was brief and did not provide explicit reasoning, which is common in emergency applications.
   
   Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, expressing concerns about the potential negative consequences for the affected individuals.
   
   Impact:
   This ruling means that the Trump administration can proceed with its efforts to deport individuals who were granted temporary parole under the program
   .
   The number of people potentially exposed to deportation could increase significantly, including the 350,000 Venezuelan migrants whose temporary status had been revoked in a separate case.
   
   The ruling aligns with former President Trump's campaign promises to deport millions of people and his efforts to dismantle Biden-era immigration policies.
   
   Trump is working on promises...  And will fight to do so.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Willowarborposted 42 hours agoin reply to this

      Do the South Africans go?
      
      I'm not sure how much of a win this is. To qualify for this program, the individuals had to have a sponsor in this country to vouch for them and they were allowed to work. So we will be sweeping away a whole lot of workers... Whether  scotus lets him do it or not, doesn't really seem like the best move.   Yes, fulfilling a campaign promise at any cost.
      
      What will be the impact, particularly on employers?

      replyreport
4. 73

   Kathleen Cochranposted 14 hours ago

   elected by a majority of Americans
   
   77 million Trump
   90 million didn't vote at all

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 13 hours agoin reply to this

      Very true, but more voted in our last two elections than ever before in our history --- so this should give hope that more Americans are becoming interested in voting--- That's a good thing.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Readmikenowposted 10 hours agoin reply to this

         Shar,
         
         My position is that if the 90 million who didn't vote actually voted, President Donald Trump's win would have been even greater.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 9 hours agoin reply to this

            I agree. It was really encouraging to see such strong voter registration and turnout in the last few presidential elections. 
            
            1960 Election: Approximately 68.8 million Americans voted, with a voter turnout of about 63.8% of the eligible registered voting-age population.
            
            2024 Election: An estimated 156.3 million Americans cast ballots, marking a turnout of 63.9% of the registered eligible voting-age population.
            
            This indicates a substantial increase in the number of voters over the past six decades, reflecting a growing engagement in the electoral process.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Willowarborposted 9 hours agoin reply to this

            Well, the thing is, they stayed home because they didn't like either choice.  I highly doubt many of them are enjoying what they've been seeing out of this Administration thus far.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 8 hours agoin reply to this

               Over the last decade, the stats show more citizens are taking the time to vote --- this is a good thing, and great food for thought.
               
               The U.S. presidential elections with the highest total number of votes cast are as follows:
               
               2020 Election: Approximately 158.4 million Americans voted, setting a record for the highest total voter turnout in U.S. history.
               
               2024 Election: Around 156.3 million Americans cast their ballots, marking the second-highest total voter turnout.
               
               2016 Election: Approximately 137 million votes were cast.
               
               2008 Election: About 131.4 million Americans voted.
               The American Presidency Project
               
               2012 Election: Roughly 129.1 million votes were recorded.

               replyreport
5. 84

   Readmikenowposted 10 hours ago

   The left has to realize President Donald Trump won the election.
   
   He gets to implement his agenda.
   
   It is not up to unelected district judges to make nation-wide rulings.  That is against the law.
   
   The Supreme Court is the only court in the land that makes rulings for the entire nation.
   
   Rogue judges are trying to assert authority they do not have.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 9 hours agoin reply to this

      “He gets to implement his agenda.’
      
      Perhaps, but that does not include shredding the Constitution into confetti.
      
      Due process applies to everyone and I am appalled that Conservatives will shove this aside.
      
      Universal injunction is the only solution for protecting green-eyed people, who knows how many are harmed from the time of Trump’s illegal order to when the rights of green eyed people are firmly established by the Supreme Court. Who knows he might just send them somewhere from which he says later he is powerless to return them. He is already doing it. Me and my tribe might well be next, what is to protect us from extralegal Trump arrogance and tyranny beyond the courts? That is what did it in the past. Trump is the anachronism that will force us to raise Cain beyond the levels of 60 years ago.
      
      It is sort of silly that such an absurd example as this would really have conservatives scratching their heads questioning the legality of whether Trump can edict anything he wants with no immediate threat of challenge.
      
      Let’s face it you rightwingers believe that any ruling against Trump by the courts are considered rulings by “rogue” judges. Who says that it is against the law? This has been used over several administrations in the past. It is used more now as Trump is such a glaring example of abuse of his power and discretion.
      
      So, you want a president to have the ability to issue unlawful orders, do you? The lure of tyranny and despotism has its grips on so many Trumper types and you know that you all actually see this in a positive light.
      
      The current federal court system is the check and balance against tyranny by the Executive branch. The lily livered Republican congress are afraid of their own shadows. These sorts of blatant violations of the court’s mandate would have earned Trump impeachment by now. If our democracy can survive until Nov. 2026, and we can flip Congress, that may well be the outcome.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      Sharlee01posted 9 hours agoin reply to this

      I completely agree. President Donald Trump won the election fair and square, and he has the right to implement his agenda. It’s not the place of unelected district judges to issue nationwide rulings, that oversteps their authority and goes against the proper legal process. The Supreme Court is the only court empowered to make decisions that apply across the entire country. These rogue judges are clearly trying to take power they don’t legally have, and that needs to be addressed. I have faith that the Supreme Court will address this matter. They can't sidestep it much longer.

      replyreport