So many Judges from both parties, So many losses 93% - Most Losses by an admin ever

I'm not doing your research for you. There have been multiple stories from multiple sources that certain judges have been hand-picked, judges who have been overwhelmingly appointed by either Obama or Biden. The judges' political persuasion is likely unknown but who appointed them is not.

 

The Legislature would intervene... The Senate was going to vote on these Trump tariffs a few weeks ago but decided not to. Now it will be up to the SCOTUS to tell us if Trump can use the authority he used to make s=these trade deals.

Many lawyers say you might be right... and that the SCOTUS will force Trump to use another tool to apply tariffs. I will sit and wait.

The last time we had these big discussions about what the law is (lawfare against Trump) and how it's going to go against Trump before he won the election he walked away from jail time and not one real case against him stuck.

Ben and his friends even thought Trump would be in jail and some of these charges would stick, but that's different... This is about Trumps use of his powers in The Executive Branch of the government.

I do find it interesting that the judicial keeps telling the Trump in Executive Branch how to run his brach of the government. These tarriffs are NOT taxes, they are tools to make fair trade deals.

 

Why do you think there is a court of international trade?

 

It's funny how that was never established in a court of law... that Trump instigated an insurrection.

 

Wow, so you get to change titles and you don't even have to provide a factual basis to back your inserted claims? You claim that it is the OP's work to back your factual claims in his thread title (which was not inaccurate or unsupported)?

Once again, there is a simple solution: make your point in a post rather than via your mod powers and editing entirely within the rules threads to try to make your points. But that isn't enough for you, huh?

 

Exactly who are you to change otherwise factual content of thread titles?

 

I didn't change the thread title until after the OP did (again). It's strange the rules apply unequally among some of you. He made the point from post #296 in the title . . . so I clarified that title. Suddenly accurate titles, which were of major significance just hours ago, aren't important and it should be addressed in the thread? LOL!

Total Democratic Appointees: 18 (Obama + Biden + Clinton) = 81.8%.
Total Republican Appointees: 4 (Bush + Reagan + Trump) = 18.2%.

Actually, since Boasberg was "randomly assigned" two separate cases, I'd argue he should count as two and the percentages would be a little higher than just 82% democrat-appointed.

 

He changes the title to keep it current and relevant to the latest posts. He used to do the same thing with a thread about science which had nothing to do with politics.

Do OPs not have the ability to express thread titles in their own words, provided they don’t explicitly break any rules?

You are an awful moderator. Be better.

 

The thread title was accurate. Your commentary doesn't prove the inaccuracy. On the other hand, that other thread title, which you did nothing about for days, was inaccurate (as basic logic would tell you that legal status could not be stripped from those without legal status).

That is not consistent with the metric that he is using. So your supporting evidence does not address the statistic that he utilized in the thread title. To whom should I report your inaccurate title for a thread in which you aren't the OP?

BTW, not that you are interested in actual accuracy, but the post actually contained a link to the specific cases that were included (which include exactly 0 of the cases that you mentioned) along with the appointing party of the judge.