Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
...
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a slim majority, the power to impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. But, like a presidential impeachment, any removal requires a vote from a two-thirds majority from the Senate.
...
“What we are seeing is an attempt by one branch of government to intimidate another branch from performing its constitutional duty. It is a direct threat to judicial independence,” Marin Levy, a Duke University School of Law professor who specializes in the federal courts, said in an email.

Only one day earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “I have not heard the president talk about impeaching judges.”

UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 1:06 pm Roberts rejects Trump's call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
...
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a slim majority, the power to impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. But, like a presidential impeachment, any removal requires a vote from a two-thirds majority from the Senate.
...
“What we are seeing is an attempt by one branch of government to intimidate another branch from performing its constitutional duty. It is a direct threat to judicial independence,” Marin Levy, a Duke University School of Law professor who specializes in the federal courts, said in an email.

Only one day earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “I have not heard the president talk about impeaching judges.”

And on karoline leavitt's statement. Does she not read her boss' Lie Social posts?

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 4:33 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 1:06 pm Roberts rejects Trump's call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans

And on carolyn leavitt's statement. Does she not read her boss' Lie Social posts?

So how did the other 8 justices vote in this case?

UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 4:44 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 4:33 pm
So how did the other 8 justices vote in this case?

What case? This was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States commenting about the Radical Right Lunatics calling for the impeachment of judges.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:24 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 4:44 pm
What case? This was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States commenting about the Radical Right Lunatics calling for the impeachment of judges.

This is the ‘2025 SCOTUS Decisions’ thread.

“The judiciary is a coequal branch of government, separate from the others with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law, and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president,” Roberts said at an event in his native Buffalo, New York.

The judiciary’s role, Roberts added, is to “decide cases but, in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.”
...
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in his earlier statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

During Biden’s presidency, the court’s conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can’t decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people.

The concept — known as the “major questions doctrine” — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump’s unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices’ willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 4:11 pm Trump tariffs face threat at Supreme Court — over rulings that blocked Biden

During Biden’s presidency, the court’s conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can’t decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people.

The concept — known as the “major questions doctrine” — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump’s unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices’ willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 4:30 pm

Pwns wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 6:31 pm Finally, a judge steps in to keep Trump from throwing another grenade into the global economy.

Not So Fast: Federal Circuit Halts Trade Court Ruling on Trump Tariffs
https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/05/2 ... s-n2189788

Going to end up before SCOTUS..

Also even if the Citcuit Court and/or SCOTUS rules against him

2 laws Trump could use to reimpose his tariffs (and why he might use both)

….The most prominent quick strike option is the so-called balance-of-payments authority derived from Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That power could allow Trump to move quickly, but with a 150-day limit on how long any tariffs can be in place.

The second route is a possible renewed focus on sectoral duties such as "Section 301" or "Section 232" tariffs.

These long-established tariff authorities (one derived from the Trade Act of 1974 and another from a separate Trade Expansion Act of 1962) are ones Trump has used in the past, but with the downside, from his perspective, that they can take time to implement….

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/2-laws-t ... 42332.html

Supreme Court sides with US gunmakers in case centered on Mexican cartel violence
The high court’s decision was unanimous, finding that Mexico cannot sue seven gun manufacturers over allegations they aided cartels

In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits.

The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn’t qualify for the religious exemption to the state’s unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported.

State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits’ work did not serve “primarily religious purposes.”

In Thursday’s unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others...

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 1:52 pm
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus ... k-case.amp

imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 9:51 am YUGE! win for Trump!

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 9:54 am

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 9:51 am YUGE! win for Trump!

May not be a terrible ruling. We’ll see. The issue is a two way street.

Aside…anyone remember when R’s were anti federalism?