Judicial Coup
- Thread starter TigerGrowls
- Start date
Democrat judges are being used to protect their crimes.
BREAKING: Multiple corrupt Minnesota judges are under fire for dismissing a FLURRY of recent Somali fraud cases
- Judge Sarah West: Abdifatah Yusuf
- Judge Amber Brennan: Yusuf's wife Lul Ahmed
- Judge Hilary Caligiuri: co-defendant Abdiweli Mohamud
MILLIONS of dollars stolen, but the conviction wasn't allowed. Because the judges say so.
These judges won their recent races entirely with no opposition.
BREAKING: Multiple corrupt Minnesota judges are under fire for dismissing a FLURRY of recent Somali fraud cases- Judge Sarah West: Abdifatah Yusuf
- Judge Amber Brennan: Yusuf's wife Lul Ahmed
- Judge Hilary Caligiuri: co-defendant Abdiweli Mohamud
MILLIONS of dollars stolen, but the conviction wasn't allowed. Because the judges say so.
These judges won their recent races entirely with no opposition.
For those fuming that Trump's DOJ hasn't made high-profile arrests yet...
There are still 478 active Obama-Biden federal judges sitting on the bench just waiting for a chance to toss cases on technicalities like the Clinton-appointed judge did for James Comey.
President Trump knows the minefield better than anyone.
He's playing the long game.
Patience, patriots.
Trust the plan.
God bless
Okay. So **** doesn’t go your way and you blame the judges. Now an actual jury, cornerstone of our judicial system, finds a particular way and you don’t like that either. Basically, everything that doesn’t go your way is problematic in some, way, shape, or form to you. I think you and your ilk are the common denominator, not the system.
For the record, the check and balance for judges and their application of the law is called an “appeal”.
Right. That’s why dozy donald sits on a hair trigger to sue everyone. Also why he takes things to SCOTUS so often. Because it’s been weaponized against him.
So yeah, we can agree it’s been weaponized. Just have to disagree by whom.
Accurate.
We have a serious, structural problem in this country that every elected Republican has failed to do anything about. We have ideologues embedded in Article III courts.
For nearly 250 years, American jurisprudence has survived because the judiciary was designed to be restrained, principled, and institutional rather than political. Judges were meant to interpret law, not reshape society according to theory, grievance, or political fashion. Once that line is crossed, the rule of law stops being law and becomes power wearing a robe.
History is clear on this point. Revolutions do not begin with tanks. They begin with courts. Authoritarian and communist systems do not seize legitimacy by force alone. They co-opt the judiciary, hollow it out from within, and convert legal interpretation into ideological enforcement. When courts stop serving as neutral arbiters, every other institution becomes downstream of politics.
This is not about left versus right. It is about whether law exists independently of ideology. A judiciary that views itself as an engine for social transformation rather than a constraint on power is incompatible with constitutional government. When judges believe outcomes matter more than process, precedent becomes optional and rights become conditional.
If this continues unchecked, we are not talking about a single bad ruling or even a bad decade. We are talking about the erosion of a legal tradition that has sustained one of the longest running constitutional systems in human history.
Courts are meant to protect the republic from ideology, not advance it.
Republicans in Congress, please grow a spine.
We have a serious, structural problem in this country that every elected Republican has failed to do anything about. We have ideologues embedded in Article III courts.
For nearly 250 years, American jurisprudence has survived because the judiciary was designed to be restrained, principled, and institutional rather than political. Judges were meant to interpret law, not reshape society according to theory, grievance, or political fashion. Once that line is crossed, the rule of law stops being law and becomes power wearing a robe.
History is clear on this point. Revolutions do not begin with tanks. They begin with courts. Authoritarian and communist systems do not seize legitimacy by force alone. They co-opt the judiciary, hollow it out from within, and convert legal interpretation into ideological enforcement. When courts stop serving as neutral arbiters, every other institution becomes downstream of politics.
This is not about left versus right. It is about whether law exists independently of ideology. A judiciary that views itself as an engine for social transformation rather than a constraint on power is incompatible with constitutional government. When judges believe outcomes matter more than process, precedent becomes optional and rights become conditional.
If this continues unchecked, we are not talking about a single bad ruling or even a bad decade. We are talking about the erosion of a legal tradition that has sustained one of the longest running constitutional systems in human history.
Courts are meant to protect the republic from ideology, not advance it.
Republicans in Congress, please grow a spine.
To prevent fraud, we asked states to provide receipts before sending taxpayer money for child care.
Five blue states sued and an activist Biden-appointed judge just ordered us to stop asking.
What are they afraid of?
We will comply with the court, but we will fight. We will appeal. We will keep asking questions.
We will stop the fraud.
@HHSGov @ACF_Adams @ACFHHS
Yeah. I think the second part of the either option is already in play. Massive part of the problem.
I do hope when the worm turns the exuberance for impeachments steadfasts.
They will not bother to Impeach the activist judges in the house because it would fail in the senate. The judges are free to do what they want.
well, in the case of one of those, the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty. The judge then overturned the verdict saying the evidence used to convict was circumstantial.
The state is appealing, but remember we're talking Minnesota.
doub't dozy would pardon this one. Point is jury convicted.....
Important detail from today’s Supreme Court ruling:
The opinion telling courts to stop second-guessing asylum decisions was written by…
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
And the vote?
9-0.
When even the most divided court in America agrees unanimously, it usually means the lower courts got a little… creative.
(article below)
The U.S. Supreme Court just handed President Trump a unanimous win against activist judges.
The Court struck down the judge’s attempt to shield an illegal immigrant from being deported after the migrant claimed he would face persecution if returned to his home country.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court sided against the activist judge and reinforced the law on deportation.
- Terrence K Williams
So activist judge Brian Murphy, besties of Elizabeth Warren and appointed by Biden, made himself HHS Secretary and said the CDC cannot change recommendations concerning childhood vaccines, which it is explicitly tasked to do. Instead, he is the expert and you must listen to him.
This same judge also tried blocking Trump from fast tracking deportations and was overturned by SCOTUS.
Peak ridiculous. Ignore these people. They have zero legitimacy.
Thank God for the judges...
Pentagon policy limiting independent press access is unlawful, judge rules
A federal judge on Friday voided various parts of a restrictive press policy rolled out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last year, ruling that they trampled on the constitutional rights of reporters who seek to cover the US military from within its sprawling headquarters.
The ruling from senior US District Judge Paul Friedman is a major blow to Hegseth’s effort to exert greater control over press coverage and comes as reporting on the Defense Department has ramped up amid the war in Iran and the US operation earlier this year in Venezuela.
It voids several provisions of the new policy that enabled the Pentagon to suspend or revoke credentials based on reporting, but leaves in place other parts of the policy that had been in effect in earlier iterations and were not subject to the legal challenge.
“A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription,” Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote.
“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech,” the judge added. “That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”
The New York Times challenged the policy late last year, arguing it violates its First Amendment and due process rights.
The parts of the policy Friedman struck down required beat reporters to sign a pledge not to obtain or use unauthorized material. Scores of news organizations, including the Times and CNN, declined to agree, resulting in reporters being denied press badges that give them access to the Pentagon.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/16/media/trump-carr-hegseth-fcc-media-iran-war
“The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected,” Friedman wrote. “But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing – so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election.”
so, they've moved the media to a facility outside the Pentagon, given them access through the public affairs organization and must be escorted when in the pentagon. In effect they'll have basically the same access they had before...press briefings.
What Hegseth did originally was not well thought out. They could have accomplished exactly the same thing the court ordered and still kept the lid on what the media has access to.
I don't support politicians of either party ignoring lawful court orders. If this actually happened, DeSantis should be held in contempt and jailed.
Why shouldn't it?! Do you not understand the well established principle of "judicial review?" It's been a feature of our democracy since 1803, when the Supreme Court case of Marbury vs. Madison was decided. You should read Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in that case. Probably the most articulate and foundational legal opinion that exists. Better yet, your Orange Guru should read it.
Judges can and do have the inherent power to tell an activist president what to do.
In theory it's separation of powers. The dems have placed activist leftist militants into judge positions and they are doing stuff obviously not supported by law and reality vastly over reaching their purpose and are in effect just part of the resistance thus this thread about the judicial coup attempt.
Scotus told them no more attempts to issue nationwide injunctions but apparently they are still attempting to do it in defiance.
So what about the rulings of Eileen Cannon and Matthew Kacsmaryk? Are those also "judicial coup" attempts? Are they also "activist judges" who are "vastly over reaching [sic] their purpose?"