Below is my column in the New York Post on the growing claim of a “constitutional crisis” over the Trump reforms. It is the latest political jump scare to see if it will rouse the public. It seems, again, to be backfiring as polling shows Trump with record approval levels and widespread support for reducing government.
Here is the column:
Forty years ago, a radio personality coined the phrase “jump the shark” in reference to the episode of the sitcom “Happy Days” in which the character Fonzie (Henry Winkler) jumps over a live shark on water skis. The term is often applied to dying franchises that turn to sensational language or scenes to try to revive the fading interest of the public. More often, you jump the shark and land in utter obscurity.
This week, the Democratic Party jumped the shark.
For years, Dems and their allies pushed the absurd claim that democracy was about to die if Joe Biden or Kamala Harris was not elected president. The public wasn’t buying it. In 2024, Donald Trump won a majority of the voters as well as control of both houses of Congress.
Rather than examine its messaging, Democrats decided to double down. After the election, politicians and pundits announced a new “constitutional crisis” surrounding the effort to downsize the federal government led by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Kris Mayes, the attorney general of Arizona, declared this week, “We are on the brink of a dictatorship, and America has never been in a more dangerous position than she is today.”
The same media that carried the breathless accounts of the imminent death of democracy with the last election are now running “constitutional crisis” articles with many of the same “experts.”
Despite Trump repeating that he “will abide by the courts” while appealing opposing decisions, NPR insisted that Trump’s circle has indicated it is “willing to ignore court orders and defy judicial authority.”
During his first term, Trump repeatedly lost cases — as did his predecessor, Barack Obama, and successor, Biden — but he continued to comply with those rulings.
The fact is that we have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in history. It has repeatedly survived challenges from political to economic meltdowns that would have destroyed other systems. That Madisonian system relies on an independent judiciary, including Trump appointees who regularly ruled against the Trump administration, including on the Supreme Court.
For many citizens, what is most striking is not Trump’s actions, but how Democrats are seeking to prevent the very reforms that a majority of voters supported.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) warned that this “is a really, really sad day in America. We are witnessing a constitutional crisis. We talked about Trump wanting to be a dictator on day one. And here we are. This is what the beginning of dictatorship looks like when you gut the Constitution, and you install yourself as the sole power. That is how dictators are made.”
Actually, that is not how dictators are made but how democracies work. Trump ran on reducing the deficit and size of the government. The public is worried about a crisis — though it is not one of democracy but debt.
In 2024, the $6.75 trillion budget exceeded our tax receipts of $4.9 trillion. The rest, $1.8 trillion, had to be borrowed. As a result, the national debt has ballooned and, if left on its current trajectory, would amount to 250% of gross domestic product within three decades.
We are becoming a debtor nation where every citizen now shoulders a $106,000-per-capita burden to pay for our out-of-control spending.
Nevertheless, in the first DOGE subcommittee hearing in the House, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) insisted that he would “defend democracy,” which is “under attack” by DOGE and the effort to carry out Trump’s campaign pledges.
What is truly in danger is the status quo. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) may have ironically had the most honest moment when he joined one of the daily protests and yelled how Musk’s government efficiency efforts are “taking away everything we have.”
By declaring a constitutional crisis, these figures are using “rage rhetoric” that gives a license for extreme conduct and messaging.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has declared a “coup” is being carried out.
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) insisted “God d—-it shut down the Senate! … WE ARE AT WAR!”
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called on citizens “to fight back” as Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) called for a fight in the streets and for citizens “to rise up.”
Not to be outdone in the rage-fest, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) yelled, “We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a–es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it.”
Biden was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, including with unilateral actions through executive orders. Courts called him out for it. None of these Democratic members declared a coup or collapse of democracy. Such court challenges are common and often these early initiatives shake out with new guarantees and judicial guidelines.
The courts may oppose certain moves by Trump and DOGE, but these are decisions of process, not policy. Eventually the president will be able to pare government spending, which is what the Democrats are really upset about — not the invented “constitutional crisis.”
Judging from the polls, the public sees that. The Fonz saw it, even if he still does not get it. Just before the election, Winkler mocked Trump’s huge Madison Square Garden rally and told NBC, “That’s his life’s bread; his life’s blood is the sound of appreciation or adulation or whatever.” That “whatever” is called public support. It is a lesson that the Democrats may want to learn if they ever want to see happier days.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
On Feb 11, at a rally for American Federation of Government Employees, NJ Democrat US Represenative Donald W. Norcross (elected in 2012) exclaimed proudly:
“You can’t make ugly pretty. I’m from Jersey, so I look at it a little differently. I say, ‘F*ck Trump!’
He was followed by new Oregon Democrat US Represenative Maxine Dexter:
……That’s exactly right, there is no way I can follow that mic drop…..I’ve been told I have 30 seconds, so I am going to tell you — I don’t swear in public very well, but we have to f*ck Trump! Please don’t tell my children that I just did that.
Democrats are proving to Americans daily that they are scary cultists and are a threat to Americans and their families.
https://www.youtube.com/live/SFmSBlyYXno?t=2475s
https://www.youtube.com/live/SFmSBlyYXno?t=2475s
Estovir,
I think their rhetoric displays their desperation. They are trying to rally the “resistance” movement but it is falling flat. A recent poll finds 86% of Americans view reducing fraud, waste and abuse in the government as important. They really dont seem to get it and are out of touch with what average Americans want. That being said, I think the reason for all their rage rhetoric is Musk and DOGE are going to uncover a lot more fraud, waste and abuse proving Democrats not only wrong but as the instigators of this corruption. It does in fact seem they would be willing to continue to call for violence if it means shutting down DOGE and any investigations.
Im glad we left Richmond with its very high rates of violent crime, corruption, dysfunction, obviously run by Democrats for decades, that the Left run the city into the ground, and that we live away from these Leftists. I’m also glad my family is safe, we have made friendships with neighbors, and now we go to the shooting range together. We are very fortunate to have been embraced by locals so quickly, a true comradery. Americans are exhausted of Democrats stoking violence with their primal scream Neanderthal behaviors, all the while they suck on the teet of Government. Communists by no other name
At this point I’d like to see the US government defunded except for military defense, US borders and essential welfare programs like Medicare, Social Securty, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, etc. As far as I’m concerned, Trump / Netanyahu should consider dropping napalm on Gaza, push the residents (they’re all terrorists in my book) into the sea, Egypt, Iran, (their choice), and convert it into a major port with thriving business and tourist activities. I’m not even Jewish and I’m sick of Hamas, Hezbolah, ISIS, so called “Muslim” terrorists. Eliminate these βα*tαrds already
Sounds like you moved to the paradise of Kansas. Or is it Mississippi?
A rural area in VA, where sane and normal is the norm. Moron.
It affects young people. Soon everyone who ever knew the US will be gone. The young have been corrupted and are immoral. It’s the young who’ll inherit the ruin. The young will inherit the ruined economy
Nah, Turls, trying to deflect about the trump administration ignoring of court orders now by saying they obeyed in the 1st administration is beyond lame. Pretty much the worst of abusing anecdotal information, which seems to be standard practice for you.
We’ve been in a constutional crisis since courts found trump guilty of emoluments violations in his first term and he flaunted the fact no one had drawn up for the penalties for scum like him violating on the level he did.
Truth is, as trump and hegseth did their best to destroy NATO in one day yesterday, if anything, the Dems are doing nowhere near enough to raise the alerts required to deal with what president Musk and first Lady trump are doing to destroy our form of government.
Might be we have to completely rewrite the Constitution after this freak show should we survive it. We’re certainly due for it after the work hacks like you are doing to destroy it.
Party on!!
You said nothing when Obama and Biden ignored SCOTUS rulings and federal laws.
Many presidents have ignored SCOTUS rulings and federal laws. Trump ignores the rule of law at levels that approach a breakdown of the system. You can’t cry “corruption” every time something doesn’t go your way. USAid may be wasting money, but its budget was legally established. The proper course is to legally undo it, not claim that judges who are ruling on the details of the law are corrupt because they didn’t rubber stamp whatever you want.
You blighters need to learn to read. There is no Constitutional prohibition against owning a business(e.g. a hotel or golf couse) that is patronised by foreign customers.
Unless you can show a conflict of interest or unusually large payments for the business’ services by specific people who also benefited from decisions made by the office holder then you’re barking up the wrong tree.
The emoluments clause prohibits an office holder from using the powers of their office to profit. Basically that means that office holders cannot accept bribes. Duh.
As a side note, the popularity or notoriety of an office holder might drive some customers to seek out their business. Not a quid pro quo, not a problem.
So tired of you lubetards.
I wish you lived next door to me so you get throttled intellectually every day by a Reagan Republican. There are retards… then about 10 notches below that there are Trumptards.
Unless you can offer rational point by point discussion your comments are uninteresting.
C’mon Old Fish you know you want to move to a trailer park and argue politics with your neighbor Carl!
this was absolutely proven by foreign diplomats paying exorbitant prices above market value for hotel rooms at Trump’s hotel… But yeah, just stay in your bubble.
In woketopia that might have been true.
In the real world prices per room did not vary based on the guest.
ATS – you are clueless – no court found Trump violated the Emoluments clause – that was always a loser claim from the start.
Supreme Court dismisses emoluments cases against Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html
What DID occur is slowly over time as the case proceeded the court REMOVED claims by the plantiff until they finally dismissed the case because there were no legitimate claims left.
‘
Trump LOST numerous attempts to get the case dissmissed quickly – but drip by drip he won the case ENTIRELY.
Every single emoluments violation claim was dissmissed by the court – one at a time.
Further this case did not go to a jury or trial – because all the claims were matters of LAW, And the LAW and Constitution were on Trump’s side.
I would note that should have been obvious from the start – as the incredibly overbroard interpretation of the emolumnets clause the plantiffs were arguing would have had George Washington in violation of it. Yet no one ever made such a claim against Washington.
No one is destroying NATO.
That said the importance of US involvement in NATO has been declining since the end of the Cold war.
The US will not leave NATO. But our role in funding and leading NATO has been diminishing for some time.
The Nations of Europe clearly no longer face a threat that requires the same committment from the US.
One of the OBVIOUS lessons of the Ukraine War is that Russia is a paper tiger. Ukraine has fought Russia to a near standstill.
There will be a peace deal shortly – but lets immagine ther was no deal and that Ukraine collapsed tomorow.
Are you so stupid to beleive that Russia would be capable of Attacking Poland in less than a decade ?
This war was Russia’s last gasp. Russia will not recover. It can not replace the casualties it has experienced. Russia is likely within a decade of collapse.
“Might be we have to completely rewrite the Constitution after this freak show should we survive it. We’re certainly due for it after the work hacks like you are doing to destroy it.”
Congradulations – aside from Spin you are starting to get it right.
Trump IS following the constitution.
He is NOT destroying the government our founders gave to us – he is restoring it.
He IS destroying the unconstitutional mess that left has tried to create over the past 75+ years.
If that is what you want – you need a NEW CONSTITUTION.
John Say,
Well said.
Agree. Very well said.
GEB
Whenever Trump does something illegal that has any plausible defense, Turley writes about that defense as it is obvious and uncontroversial. Turley had been silent about what Trump/Musl is doing. Instead we get these smoke and mirrors posts criticizing the Ds. Trump is ignoring the Constitution and federal law on a massive scale, with more happening every day. In truth the Ds are using too soft of language.
Trump is not doing anything illegal or un-Constitutional. That is just DNC/MSM talking points that are falling flat with Americans. It is all Democrats have as they have nothing else.
It is illegal for Trump to fire workers the way he is. There is a pre-defined process that he is ignoring.
Trump is cutting money from the budget that has been allocated by Congress. That is unconstitutional.
And this is the stuff we know about.
That process needs to be streamlined. He is cutting money that has been hijacked by unelected bureaucrats for pet projects, funding things Congress did not approve of or was even aware of. Musk and DOGE will find more fraud, waste and abuse.
All federal employees with decision making authority are supervised by political appointees. DOGE has so far identified few if any actual improper payments. But what they did do was destroy the CFPB, as Musk wants to add peer-to-peer payment to X.
And the firing of employees is illegal.
“All federal employees with decision making authority are supervised by political appointees.”
And that changes what ?
If a federal employee in the Biden administration conspires with a political appointee to do something that is improper – the impramatur of a political supervisor is no protection. If you have decision making authority you have responsibility for your decisions.
“DOGE has so far identified few if any actual improper payments.”
ROFL.
Between actually fraudulent, unauthorized (by congress), sometimes blatantly illegal, and egregiously wastefule – such as spending a Million Dollars on an NGO to deliver 1000 in direct aide, DOGE found that 90-95% of USAID funding could be cut while still meeting the policy directives of congress.
Levitt and Musk and rump are publicly airing the most egregious spending – because that scores the most political points.
That does not mean the bad spending that is being made public – but NOT featured in the news is not also improper.
“But what they did do was destroy the CFPB”
I certainly Hope so. The left likes to Tout CFPB, but = it was created as part of the post Financial crash reforms – it and all the other post financial crash reforms do NOT address the causes of the financial crises – because the cause was Govenrment.
Nor do they address the faux causes that democrats claimed.
Contra claims regarding CFPB – it has actually been DESTRUCTIVE of the interests of the people it was intended to serve.
One of the problems with left wing nuts – is they do NOT understand that what markets do is constantly and dynamically balance risk and return. If you insert regulations for some purportedly good purpose – there is ALWAYS a negative result – things cost more or they become more scarce are the most typical. F#$k with the return on “payday loans” and poor people can not get payday loans.
I would strongly suggest reading up on Coases law – in a friction free environment with strong govenrment protections for proterty rights free market bargaining ALWAYS produces the best acheivable outcome.
We do not have perfectly friction free environments – but progress quite litterally is the process of reducing friction in voluntary transactions. credit cards replaced vendor issued credit or bank letters of credit – because they were more efficient.
Crypto will ultimately displace credit cards – because it is more efficient.
Or you can look at CFPB another way – it is just a system of price controls – price controls violate the law of supply and demand.
Again one of the few things that nearly all economists agree are bad is price controls. There is no real world example of a working price control over the long run. And pretty much everything CFPB does is a price control.
CFPB is now and always was a stupid mistake. It is a reflection of the common place lunatic left view that some small group of elites disconnected from the lives of people their regulations actually impact can decide for people better than they can for themselves.
The CFPB particularly – but the regulatory state generally is rooted in the presumpiton that people are too stupid to look after themselves.
To be clear in the real world people make mistakes. Sometimes stupid mistakes.
But CONTRA the left people- no matter how well educated who do NOT have “skin in the game” – people who are not directly effected by the decisions they make – Make WORSE overall decisions that the great unwashed.
There is a reason that so many of the Covid related decisions were made badly often as wrong as it was possible to get.
One of the significant reasons is that those making the decisions were not themselves directly effected by the decisions.
Just one egregious example was Newsome Dining at the French laundry – while that was hypocritical.
It is not just the hypocracy that was the problem.
People who will not have to live with the consequences of their decisions – no matter how well educated make BAD decisions.
Newsomes ability to dine out with his peers, Nancies ability to get her hair done, all the various “experts” and politicians making covid related decisions, were not going to have to deal with the contraints on their lives they were creating for others.
That is NOT just hypocracy – it results in bad decisions.
It is estimated that Trump’s EO that required striking two old regs for each new Reg during his first term resulted in a $1T increase in GDP. That is a $1T increase per year in standard of living.
even if every single Dollar of that increase went to the uber Wealthy – it STILL means $1T in standard of living increases for ORDINARY people. For every single Dollar that Elon Musk has – he HAD to provide someone else a dollar in value – in point of fact with an ROI of 10% for every Dollar that Musk made he had to deliver $10 in actual value to the rest of us.
Outside of those who swill at the government trough No One gets rich without delivering even more value to others.
Again Adam smith noted this 250 years ago.
“Musk wants to add peer-to-peer payment to X.”
So ? Why is that governments business ? If you wish to pay through X – do so. If not don’t.
If Musk does a $hitty job – are you going to report him to the CFPB and keep using his service ?
Or are you just going to find a better way to pay?
If Trump actually ripps you off – Sue him.
If you think you are too small to sue him – I am sure there is a mass torts law who will be glad to file a class action lawsuit.
“And the firing of employees is illegal.”
Not in the real world.
“It is illegal for Trump to fire workers the way he is. There is a pre-defined process that he is ignoring.”
That is irrelevant. Thisis still something those of you on the left do not seem to grasp.
The executive power of the untied states is vested in the president.
To an enormous extent the pre-defined processes are whatever the president says they are.
The president is constrained – not by pre-defined processes – or left wing nut perceptions of what those processes should be,
But by the constitution – first and foremost, and SOME laws passed by congress – not all, because Congress can NOT infringe on the executive powers of the president. They CAN put strings on the congressional powers they delegate.
The president is bound by Civil service laws with respect ONLY to those federal employees that civil service applies to.
I beleive there are between 3-4M govenrment employees – I beleive the top 100-400K are NOT covered by Civil service.
They are also not covered by Union contracts. They can all be fired at will – and that is ALL of those who have been fired so far.
Using “corportate” terms – they are the MANAGEMENT of the federal government – and like managers everywhere they have far more power, are far better paid and have far less protection from being fired – like really NONE.
But Trump will get past firing management.
The buyout offer was a way to address civil service employees that are harder to fire. You are still free to make them and offer they can’t refuse in return for quitting – and Trump has done that. And after all the ranting about how evil that was – the courts backed down – because it is perfectly legal and constitutional and a long fight would make them look politically corrupt.
No Judge today wants to the the Next Judge Enmoron or Judge Merchan – to have the national spotlight as politically corrupt.
What is likely the next “fight” will be layoffs. in my lifetime – and probably not since Civil service and public employee unions came into place has anyone ever “downsized” the federal govenrment – it is Likely that Civil service law does NOT address that. It is likely that Union Contracts do not address that.
Which means it is Plausible for Trump to beleive that he has Significant power to layoff federal employees as he downsizes the Fderal Government. I would not that he does NOT have to shutter Congressionally authorized agencies to do so.
All he has to do is Direct that they are to do the Job Congress asked them to do more efficiently and with fewer employees.
But hopefully there WILL be departments being shutters – those that are not “authorized” by congress can be shuttered unilaterally by the president.
There are going to be some legal battles because there are government agencies like DOGE – that are created by the president and finded essentially with discretionary funds. Those can be shuttered at will.
Those that are created by Congress can be downsized, but they can not have their mission reduced or eliminated without the consent of Congress. That too is likely to become legally and constitutionally complex – because “Silence is consent”
As I have noted in other posts – Congress has standing to sue the president over some of his current actions – in most instance NO ONE ELSE DOES. Trump can close a congressionally created agency – and absent congress acting to stop him – no one else has jurisdiction to interfere. Again – silence is consent.
There is also some complexity – because over 1000 government agencies – many budgeted by congress have lapsed authorizations.
Congress has not re-authorized them in decades. Trump can close those and that will create another legal firestorm.
Congress did NOT reauthorize them, but it did budget money for them.
There is zero doubt it is not illegal for Trump TRY to close those. But it is not certain what the courts will do.
And again – properly the courts have no jurisdiction unless congress sues.
In SOME instances – the really popular ones – I expect congress will act to grant Trump the authority to eliminate these agencies.
But it is likely that the primary tactic of Congress will be to duck the issue. To consent to Trump’s actions with their silence.
That makes it easy to take credit if things go well and to avoid blame if they do not.
But my point is that the alleged illegality of Trump’s actions is not nearly so obvious as the left claims and in many instances the left is OBVIOUSLY wrong.
In what world as an example do you see SCOTUS ruling against Trump efforts to reign in Waste and Fraud without Congress opposing him.
If the case in court is James vs the US, and Congress is not a party – the President is going to win if the issue is Waste and Fraud.
The decision could easily be 9-0.
“Trump is cutting money from the budget that has been allocated by Congress. That is unconstitutional.”
No he is cutting waste and fraud – that by definition is NOT allocated by congress.
As an example Congress may have given USAID a budget of 44B. But they did NOT direct USAID to spend that on Trans Operas or Politico and BBC, or Chelsea Clinton. Those are executive decisions made by Biden not congressional decisions.
There is an open constitutional question as to whether the President MUST spend the entirety of a congressional budget item.
What SCOTUS decided int he Nixon impoundment case is that the President could not “impound” funds to thwart the legislative intent of congress. Congress budgets money for a purpose – it very rarely budgets money to a person or entity outside of govenrment.
The president is (somewhat) obligated to deliver on that purpose – you know like enforcing immigration laws.
The Nixon decision was specifically that the president can not refuse to spend money replace his policies with those of Congress.
it is Highly unlikely that SCOTUS is going to rule that the president can not reduce the spending of a department by eliminating waste and Fraud. As I beleive Scalia once said – the constitution is not a suicide pact.
“And this is the stuff we know about.”
Do you really think you do not know EVERYTHING ?
The history of Trump’s prior presidency is not only did everything leak, but that 90% of the leaks were lies.
In fact one of the DOGE discoveries was that USAID was coordinating and funding leaks with CIA for the purpose of kneecapping Trump.
I can pretty much gaurantee you know everything there is too know.
Sammy,
It is unwise to be arguing process as your ONLY argument.
Criminal defense attorney’s argue due process – because we define legal fairness as getting due process.
Once in a while very bad people escape justice on due process grounds – or as they are sometimes called “legal technicalities”.
But most criminal appelate lawyers KNOW that your odds of winning on a legal technicality are GREATLY improved if there is also a perception of injustce.
I think you are obviously wrong about the requirements of process. As I noted constitutionally in most cases process if whatever the president says it is.
But again – decisions that are rooted in process almost always ALSO have some obvious injustice underneath them.
The courts are not going to see injustice in cutting waste and fraud.
I was honestly surprised that the court has already tossed the challenge to the offer to buy out federal employees.
While I expected Trump to ultimately win – again there is no clear injustice, and making an offer that people are free to accept of reject is not something courts are likely to want to interfere in.
At the same time – the court tossed the case on standing grounds – and this is the case with the STRONGEST standing grounds.
Federal employees have contracts through their unions with the federal govenrment – the Union has standing on ALL matters related to the employment of represented govenrment employees.
If The Unions lost the standing argument with a democrat judge, the likelyhood that the States will survive a standing challenge through appeals for a mere 30 day pause in grant funding is near zero.
Regardless, my core point is though the courts often fixate on process, They do so because process is ultimately supposed to be the way they ensure fairness.
Process for its own sake – even if you are right – which I do not think you are is still going to be a loser – though at what level that loss occurs is in question.
Sammy – Trump does not have a plausible defense – he is constitutionally correct.
What he is doing is OBVIOUSLY not illegal.
Are you claiming the constitution and budgets and laws passed by Congress REQUIRE the president to fund waste and Fraud ?
Can you cite where in ANY appropriations measure congress has REQUIRED the president to fund waste and Fraud ?
regardless the closest thing to a constitutional crisis in this is the courts radically overstepping their authority.
The courts jurisdiction on questions regarding federal spending have only two legitimate domains.
A dispute between congress and the executive. Congress is not suing so such dispute does not exist.
A dispute between a govenrment contractor and the executive over that contract – such dispute has ZERO nexus with congressional appropriations.
Congress is free to challenge Trump’s decision to suspend payments, and/or his funding choices as they related to statutory budget compliance.
Such a challenge would NOT be a constitutional crisis. It would be the constitution working as intended.
The government has people whose job it is to ferret out government waste, they are the OIGs. Trump fired them. Trump does not care one lick about government waste. But it is an issue he can use to distract people like you from what he is really doing.
Those OIGs were not doing their jobs as Musk and DOGE are proving. Trump is not distracting anyone from anything. He is doing exactly what he campaigned on and we voted for.
And the good professor and John Say are way smarter than you when it comes to legal analysis. And you just so happen to prove them right with your simplistic, uneducated comments.
How marvelous!
Sammy, did you see newly appointed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has exposed what appears to be a massive Biden-Harris administration and NGO money laundering scheme, with upwards of $20 billion of taxpayer funds “tossed” into shady non-profits with “reduced oversight” under the guise of climate change.
How is it Zeldin, who has only held the position for what? A week or two? Has already done more than those OIGs?
“The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” the official emphasized, adding, “The American public deserves a more transparent and accountable government than what transpired these past four years.”
Zeldin will be launching an investigation.
Absolutely!
EPA Administrator Zeldin promises to retrieve $20 billion the Biden admin rushed out the door
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/epa-head-zeldin-promises-retrieve-20-billion-biden-admin-rushed-out-door
You do understand that if something has a plausible defense it is presumptivly legal.
If and Only if the FINAL court adjudication determines that the plausible defense is insufficient that it become illegal.
I would note that the keyword is PLAUSIBLE.
As an example it is clearly plausible that the president has the power to end Waste and Fraud – in fact Obama WH staffers were lamenting that somehow Trump is accomplishing things they Tried to do but failed in terms of cutting waste and fraud.
While forgiving student loan debt unilaterally as president is NOT plausible.
I would also suggest to you that the issue with Trumps actions is NOT whether they are legal or not – the actual actions – as opposed to what the media reports or what Trump says he WANTS to do, are legal.
The outrage is specifically because he may well succeed.
As noted Obama staffers tried to do some of the things Trump is accomplishing.
Why did they fail ? My analysis – not theirs.
Because Trump is an outsider and because first the Tea Party and now MAGA have made significant portions of the GOP outsiders.
Obama promised to get us out of Gitmo, Afghanistan and Iraq in 90days – as president he did not even try.
Was he lying to get elected ? I do not think so. He took office and likely quickly and possibly was taught by the Deep state as Chuck Schumer said – Don’t mess with the deep state – they have 9 ways from Sunday to take you out.
Trump was elected – and Comey was tasked to send the same message to Trump – the famous meeting where Comey dumped the Steele Dossier on Trump. What was Trump’s response ? He fired Comey. Trump spent the past 8 years at war with the Deep state – and ulimately won.
Trump can go in and slash and burn waste and fraud because the efforts to turn him by the deep state FAILED – they have shit their wad at him and failed.
In 2016 Tulsi abbard – then a DNC chair spoke out about the DBI rigging the primaries against Sanders. Bernie defender her – heaping her with praise for her integrity. At near the same time Bernie was investigated for fiscal improprieties. Bernie went from the Lefts Trump like outsider to an insider that often spoke like an outsider – but voted as expected. That is also when Bernie went from refusing corporate and Big Pharma money to one of those taking the most of it. Bernie was turned he realized fighting the powers that be would land him in jail. Or he could cooperate – still speaking much as he wanted – but not actually posing a threat and he could get rich and not have to worry about going to jail.
And this week in a profile in lack of courage – Bernie who Tulsi stood up for – not only voted against his friend and defender but viciously attacked her.
Trump and many of his nominees are unassailable.
The attack on Gabbard – she is some Putin stooge is just stupid.
While I do not always aree with her she is clearly a person of great courage and integrity – in other words she is NOT sanders.
She is a huge threat as DNI – or pretty much anything – because she can not be threatened and she always acts with integrity.
From Russia Edward Snowden told Gabbard she should call him a traitor and disavow what they had said favorably about him to secure the DNI nomination. But Tulsi refused to compromise her integrity.
Why does Gabbard strike fear in DC ? Because they have nothing on her – no leverage.
No one has leverage over RFK Jr. either – or Elon Musk, or Trump.
You can be critical of Hegseth’s choices – but he has been open and no one has leverage on him.
Trump has brought in the outsiders. While they have not all endured the failed attacks that he has – they are mostly all immune to being turned – as Obama was.
So When Obama talked about reducing waste and Fraud in Government – those benefiting from waste and Fraud in government winked and nodded. Because they KNEW nothing real would happen.
Trump and his crew Terrify those same people – because they have already tried to stop Trump, they have thrown everything they had at him and FAILED. They have nothing left to stop him with.
And that is Why the holy war against Trump’s efforts to cut spending and reduce waste and fraud.
Because Trump is the first politician in a position to keep that promise that can not be stopped from doing so.
So this last gasp effort at lawfare – and that is all it is more of the same lawfare that characterized the Biden administration,
That is the last rampart, the last barrier to success.
Also different from 2017 is that House and Senate Republicans are near all outsiders too.
One Republican voted against Gabbard, one Republican voted against RFK jr. Sen. McConnell.
McConnell is the evil genius of the GOP. No one has been more effective as Minority and Majority leader at gaming the system for the benefit of Republicans. But McConnell is still an one of the ultimate insiders.
Aside from a few like McConnell there are no insiders left in the GOP – while a significant portion of Democrats are insiders.
There is some common ground between Obama and Trump – not a huge amount but some.
Obama did campaign as an outsider.
He did campaign AGAINST the Deep State.
He did Campaign Against the endless wars, and government waste and Fraud.
He was nearly as much of a populist as Trump – but he was NOT as president the person he was as candidate.
Professor Turley,
3 days ago a federal judge said that Trump’s administration violated a court order lifting a broad freeze on federal spending. On Jan. 31, the judge issued a TRO blocking Trump’s administration funding freeze, and apparently, Trump ignored the TRO by continuing to freeze federal spending.
Regardless of how you feel on the merits of Trump’s action, in no way does that demonstrate that Trump “will abide by the courts” as you put it in your blog.
By ignoring the fact that Trump is ALREADY openly rejecting the authority of the judicial branch of our government, your entire argument is undermined. Did you actually not know that this had already happened?
If you did not, then you should revise your article. If you did, then why would you hide that fact from your readers?
One rogue judge does not represent the entire judiciary. Do you remember trust the science led to I am science from Fauci. The sensationalism is off the charts.
You miss the point. Even if is a “rogue judge” – Trump can just ignore him. You obey the order and appeal.
Not sure how the aside about Fauci is at all relevant. He’s neither a judge nor a president.
ATS – please cite specific cases and orders – as they matter.
The Judge TEMPORARILY suspended as SPECIFIC order, for a SPECIFIC Department.
Ignoring the FACT that the court did not have nationwide authority.
And that inarguable the president can constitutionally TEMPORARILY suspend most anything.
And that the court likely does not have jurisdiction nor the plaintiffs standing.
At MOST a federal court has jurisdiction over the SPECIFIC case before them.
This court suspended a SPECIFIC presidential directive. There are a number of similar directives in different departments some by the president and some by the heads of those departments.
The ONLY directive blocked TEMPORAILY by the TRO was the one being challenged in that case.
I would note that this is deliberate – even on the part of the plantiffs. The broader the challenge is the broader the Judges TRO is the more rapidly it will move through the courts.
A blanket TRO covering all Trump administration orders to suspend spending would likely end up infront of SCOTUS nearly immediately and they would with near certainly reverse and remand.
All of these TRO’s are both Binding – but only with respect to the specific NARROW matter before them,
and it is near certain all will be reversed quickly as they are all actually unconstitutional.
The left Rants that Trump is causing a constitutional crisis – but that is false.
WORSE as we see as these TRO’s are lifted – it is the COURTS that are behaving unconstitutionally.
The TRO on Trump’s offer to buyout the employment contracts of federal employees was OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional from the start.
A TRO can ONLY be granted when there is a VERY HIGH probability of the moving party succeeding on the merits.
A judge Dropping the TRO – and effectively in this instance the case in a matter of a week, means not only was that dandard Obviously not met,
But the plantifs case was so weak is fell apart nearly instantly.
The Suspension TRO’s are going to have the same or even worse problems. The Buyout TRO actually had the closest situation to a plantif that actually had standing.
There are only TWO parties that would have standing with regard to suspending federal spending.
The first would be congress that budgeted the money – and Congress is NOT suing the president.
The second would be a government contractor with a valid contract that is breached by the suspension.
Government Aid as an example is NOT by definition a contract – it is a Gift.
I would further note that even a government contractor whose contract was suspended – while having standing,
Would only prevail in court if they were harmed by the suspension in a way that could not be remedied.
As an example if the constractors cost went up as a result of the suspension – that Might result in wining the lawsuit.
But it would NOT justify a TRO – increased costs can be addressed at a later date.
A TRO is only granted when the moving party with near certainty will prevail, and the harm is immediate and can not be repaired by the court at the time of final judgement.
Generally a TRO requires a fundimental constitutional right to be breached.
Not only has Trump NOT violated these TRO’s but he likely could not even if he wanted to.
The TRO covers not only Trump but everyone in govenrment from the president thru to the plaintiff for THAT specific plaintiff and order.
John Say,
Thank you for that legal analysis.
legal analysis? he didn’t cite a thing
I do not need to – I made a specific Logical and Legal ARGUMENT.
One that is BTW echoed in myriads of supreme court decisions.
as I said – the TRO is absolutely Bogus – it will with near certainty be vacated quickly – probably today or tomorow.
Most of these TRO’s were granted ex-parte – itself a massive problem.
But that is irrelevant. The president – and the entire executive are Bound to obey a court order UNTIL it is lifted.
But the courts authority is ALWAYS limited to the SPECIFIC case before it. Again ignoring that there is no legitimate plantiff in these cases and that there are few circumstances in which federal district courts have nationwide jurisdiction. These are reasons that appeals courts will toss this shortly – if it lasts even that long.
What the court did not do – was enjoin ALL spending freezes. All orders to freeze spending were NOT before it.
Trump can not re-issue the same order to circumvent the court – and he did not. He could issue a new order – directly addressing whatever the courts asserted the error was in the prior order, and such new order would be in effect unless the court expanded their order.
This court – nor any federal court can NOT order the president to not order any spending freeze of any kind for any reason.
The TRO MUST block a specific order and the TRO MUST specify WHY that order is blocked.
That is important – because that allows the party subject to the TRO to modify the act that is subject to the TRO to correct the alleged defect.
Without addressing this specific EO and this specific TRO but posing a GENERAL but related hypothetical.
If the president issues a TRO stopping ALL federal spending. The Court could respond with a TRO that blocked that order, BECAUSE it prevented federal employees from being paid for work they had performed. The president would then be free to issue a NEW EO that stopped all federal payments EXCEPT federal employee salaries.
There are atleast half a dozen EO’s regarding Spending that were issued. Following that Trump appointees issued they OWN Orders – which have power similar to an EO except limited to their own departments.
This Federal court on an Ex-Parte basis blocked a single Trump EO. It did not and can not block EO’s that were not challenged by the plantiff. The court can not issue a TRO without providing a basis, and the defendant is ALWAYS free to address the basis for which the TRO was granted and issue a new EO that corrects whatever the court identified as the defect.
All of this is NORMAL due process.
It is NOT a constitutional crisis.
As Prof Derschowitz noted recently in the entire history of the US there has been ONE and only ONE actual constitutional crisis,
THE US CIVIL WAR.
Constitutional questions – even violations are NOT a constitutional crisis so long as the issue is resolved by the courts – ultimately the supreme court and that resolution is FOLLOWED.
There is not a constitutional crisis – even if the Supreme court gets it wrong.
A constitutional crisis occurs when a constitutional issue is resolved with Finality by SCOTUS and one party Refuses to follow SCOTUS’s decision.
John Say,
Have you read the TRO?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.50.0_10.pdf
“During the pendency of the Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants shall not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.”
The TRO is still in place. It “shall be in effect until further Order of the Court.”
Further, the judge said on Monday that the White House had defined the order to release billions of dollars in federal grants.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.96.0_5.pdf
“The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds. See Exhibits A-C of the States’ motion, (ECF Nos. 66-1, 66-2, and 66-3). The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud. See ECF No. 70. But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.”
On Tuesday, a federal appeals court rejected the Trump’s push to reinstate the pause on federal funding.
This action was brought by 22 State AGs as it affects federal funding that all States receive from the federal government. The imposition of a nationwide TRO here is therefore not very controversial as it literally affects every State’s receipt of federal funds.
Nothing the court has done here is unconstitutional. Was it unconstitutional in 2023 for Judge Kacsmaryk to impose a nationwide TRO restricting abortion pill access? I agree that nationwide TROs are sometimes hard to justify, but I don’t think fighting it with respect to an action involving the President’s unconstitutional freezing of federal funding to every US state is the hill you want to die on.
For some reason, you raise standing — how exactly would a State not have standing to sue regarding its receipt of federal funds? This was not even an argument that was made by the defense here because States obviously have standing to sue when they are the recipients of federal funds. That makes no sense. Do you have any support for your argument that a recipient of funds has no standing to sue when the recipient does not receive the funds? That is bonkers.
For some reason, you cite the fact that the action was made within a week to suggest that the action is unlikely to be successful on the merits. That makes no sense because TROs are emergency actions.
As the court notes the likelihood of success is high. The first count is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is a foundational statute for all of administrative law. Congress has not delegated unilateral authority to the Executive to pause financial assistance without considering the statutory and contractual terms governing these grants. His universal freeze is also clearly arbitrary and capricious. Trump therefore clearly did not follow the APA. What is your argument for his attempt to follow the very clearly defined procedures required for APA compliance?
Additionally, the Executive has overridden Congress by refusing to disburse already-allocated funding for many federal grant programs, clearly violating the separation of powers. It is additionally a violation of the Spending Power, the Appropriations clause, and the Take Care clauses of the Constitution.
ATS
#1
READ YOUR OWN TEXT
The TRO you cite is SPECIFIC to Federal Grants to THE STATES.
It does NOT effect ANY other Federal Spending.
The TRO is clearly unconstitutional – because the States do NOT have standing with respect to FEDERAL Spending Statutes.
It is also improvidently granted because the requirements for a TRO are extremely high.
But that is irrelevant for the moment – unconstitutional court orders are STILL binding until they are removed by the court, or by a higher court.
“the judge said on Monday that the White House had defined the order to release billions of dollars in federal grants.”
The Judge can SAY whatever he wants.
“The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds. See Exhibits A-C of the States’ motion, (ECF Nos. 66-1, 66-2, and 66-3). The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud. See ECF No. 70. But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.”
The court has litterally got it BACKWARDS. The EXECUTUVE can issue a broad suspension. A TRO can Block that broad suspension, for SPECIFIC reasons – in this case asserting that the president does not have authority to suspend grants to the statee – the plantiffs in this case – who inarguably DO NOT HAVE STANDING – but again the error of the court in accepting this case at all, is a matter for this or higher courts to address later.
Next – the courts subsequent claim – regarding Exhibts A-C – is still overly broad. The States can Use exhibts A-C to claim the original TRO is being violated, But the COURT must Clarify the TRO to specifically state what IS covered by the TRO.
The court CAN find the EO overly broad. But it can NOT respond with an overly broad remedy.
What is CLEAR from your back and forth is that – ignoring the actual merits of the EO or the TRO that the Trump administration and THIS Court are TRYING to find the limits of the TRO. It is the COURT – not the Trump administration that is FAILING to be clear.
I have not idea with the states allegations in Exhibits A-C are – but the courts CORRECT response is to EXPLICITLY clarify that whateve funding was suspended in Exhibits A-C is ordered NOT suspended.
Again – the president CAN issue a broad EO – though that increases the likelyhood of courts thwarting it. The COURTS can NOT issue a broad TRO – they must specify EXACTLY what is being blocked so that the Executive either knows what part of the EO is still in force, or can issue a NEW EO that addresses the alleged defect.
I would further note that the courts Claim that Waste and Fraud are insufficient justification for a 30 day suspension of payments is almost certainly ERROR. Again to Get a TRO the plantiff must prove they will to a very high degree of certainty prevail AND that there will be irreparable harm. I can not see how Either can be established here.
Suspension does NOT mean cancellation. The EO does NOT say states will not get paid. It says that payments will be delayed for 30 days for a Fraud and Waste review. The state is free to fund those grants during those 30 days. and they are assured they will get every single penny of those grants – Except what is deemed fraud and waste – which if the state spends on its own, it is liable for.
If the state has to borrow to fund those grants – then the federal govenrment is on the hook for the interest.
But that is likely a wash as the federal govenrment is on the hook for the interest when it borrows to fund the grants anyway.
My point is there is ZERO possibility of irrepairable harm here – so the court EGREGIOUSLY erred in granting a TRO.
Again it is NOT sufficient for the plantif to prove they will win to get a TRO, they must prove IRREPAIRABLE HARM.
There is almost never a situation where disputed over money result in irreparable harm.
Irrepairable harm is almost always when a constitutional right is violated and that can not be fixed after the fact.
All of my argument above is about why this court has erred greatly – ultimately that is just a reason this TRO is vacated int he long run.
In the meantime it is in effect, and the Executive MUST follow it.
But that does NOT mean that the Executive is obligated to read the TRO as broadly as possible,
It means the OPPOSITE.
In this case the court is saying that in aparently 3 specific instances that the administration thought the TRO did not apply the states and the courts think it does.
I can not address the merits of that claim – because the court cited exhibits – those are EVIDENCE, they are NOT a revised Order.
The COURT was obligated to respond by saying X,Y, and Z are covered by this TRO.
The COURT appears to have muddied the waters by instead of clarifying that the TRO covers X, Y and Z just issuing a blanket claim that the Executive was not following an unconstitutionally overly broad TRO.
Put simply this judge is a moron.
“The imposition of a nationwide TRO here is therefore not very controversial as it literally affects every State’s receipt of federal funds.”
Of course it is controversial – no federal district court has nationwide jurisdiction.
What we obviously have is unconstitutional venue shopping.
There are a number of states – NOT ALL states suing – that alone shoudl tell you there is no need for a TRO – the states that are NOT suing clearly either think they have no case or think there is no harm – irrepairable or otherwise.
So the absence of 50 states suing along means this is NOT a basis for a Nationwide TRO.
It also means there is not a valid claim before the court for every state in the nation.
Next the court should have excluded every single state that was not within its federal district from the list of plantifs and told them to sue in their own federal district.
That was not done specifically because the plantiff states KNEW they would win in some places and lose in others.
AGAIN a reason that no TRO should have been granted. Unless these states can convince the Federal district courts in Every single Federal District that they are near certain to prevail AND irrepariably harmed then you do NOT meet either of those two REQUIREMENTS for t a TRO.
The Standard for a nationwide TRO is “the plaintiff is likely to prevail in connecticutt” it is the plantiff is likely to prevail in every district court in the nation.
“Nothing the court has done here is unconstitutional. ”
Of course it is.
“Was it unconstitutional in 2023 for Judge Kacsmaryk to impose a nationwide TRO restricting abortion pill access?”
Probably. Though the details of the case would matter, and I am not familiar with those details.
But addressing what I can Guess – abortion pill access is NOT about money. No matter what you may feel about abortion that case is about either an actual constitutional right or a false claim of a constitutional right – therefore the irrepairable harm criteria is highly likely to be on the table. You can not undue an abortion. And a blocked early abortion results in a more complicated and risky one later.
Irreparable harm is clearly on the table.
“I agree that nationwide TROs are sometimes hard to justify”
I am not prepared – nor is SCOTUS to say they are NEVER justified – but no they are not SOMETIMES hard to justify – they are ALMOST never justifiable.
There are 94 district courts in the US. There are 13 federal circuits. In important cases of nationwide issues We WANT mutliple different courts to address an issue. Appellate courts WANT all issues to be thoroughly examined at the lower court level.
One of the reasons that the US supreme court tends to make good decisions is that before a case gets to them numerous usually very smart judges have weighed in AND the issues have been whittled down to a FEW narrow ones.
“but I don’t think fighting it with respect to an action involving the President’s unconstitutional freezing of federal funding to every US state is the hill you want to die on.”
Then you would be wrong. Further your statement makes claims NOT in evidence – what is unconstitutional about a 30day freeze on SOME spending while a waste and fraud review is taking place ? Please cite a section of the constitution that asserts that the executive must spending all federal budgeted funds ASAP ? Or that the president MUST make fraudulent or wasteful payments ?
I do not think this is the hill YOU or the left want to die on.
I do NOT think this gets to SCOTUS – it will be moot first. So long as the audits are allowed to proceed.
There is absolutely no way that SCOTUS is going to stop the audits, and there is no way they are going to require wasteful and fraudulent spending.
“For some reason, you raise standing — how exactly would a State not have standing to sue regarding its receipt of federal funds?”
Because the funding is GRANT – exactly as your Federal Court claims – and that GRANT is by Congress.
This is NOT a contract dispute. It is essentially a dispute over charity.
Standing broadly abused by the courts. A hughe portion of the 2020 Election cases were improperly dissmissed for lack of standing.
I have no problem with a court saying – X is not the correct Plantiff for this case. But the 2020 election cases turned into NO ONE is the correct plantiff for this case.
In the case of the Presidents EO the correct plantiff is crystal Clear – Congress.
While we have botched some of the common law on this,as a guide Standing requires that the there is a duty of the defendant to the plantiff, and that the plantiff in question is the one with the highest duty owed. Congress created by law a duty of the president to disburse these funds to the plantiff, But that duty is to CONGRESS – While a contract is not the only way to create a duty that is sufficient to have standing, it is the most common way, and these is no contract here. There is essentially a contract in the constitution between Congress and the executive. But not one involving the States with respect to federal funding.
“This was not even an argument that was made by the defense here because States obviously have standing to sue when they are the recipients of federal funds.”
There were lots of arguments not made by DOJ because this TRO was granted exparte over the weekend and DOJ had two days to address it. There are Myriads of arguments that SHOULD have been heard in this case – which is WHY you do not grant a TRO and why the TRO is what is unconstitutional.
“That makes no sense. Do you have any support for your argument that a recipient of funds has no standing to sue when the recipient does not receive the funds? That is bonkers.”
Trivial. If every Sunday I give you $5 for 9 months – and then I stop – do you have standing to sue me to force me to keep paying you ?
The mere payment of funds does NOT create a duty.
But this case is actually worse.
A more accurate hypothetical would be a church allows me to draw on a bank account with $520 in it and directs me to pay $8/week to a drug addict for Rehab and I get to keep $1, and after 30 weeks I temporarily suspend payments for a month to verify that the drug addict is actually spending the $10 on rehab.
Clearly I owe a duty – but it is to the church not the addict. And while I owe the church a duty to pay $10 each week, I also owe the church a duty to assure that the money goes to Rehab – not Fentanyl.
The church MIGHT be able to sue me for suspending payment – though whether they win would depend on the contract.
But no drug addict could sue – as I owe No duty to them.
“For some reason, you cite the fact that the action was made within a week to suggest that the action is unlikely to be successful on the merits. That makes no sense because TROs are emergency actions.”
Correct – TRO’s are emergency actions – that is part of why it must be near certain that the moving party will prevail.
As YOU note DOJ did not make lots of arguments. They had limited time to prepare and far less time to address the court.
This case could easily generate reams and reams of arguments and consume months of court time trying to sort out complex constitutional and legal issues. That is why the irreparable harm standard – you used the abortion pill case as an example. I will not address the decitions – but it is inarguable that Both parties have a claim that there is excellent reason to RUSH. Decisions involving Money very rarely involve irrepairable harm. No actual rights are typically involved.
The CORRECT decision of the court would be to remove all plantiffs not in the district courts jurisdiction and the schedule the case for hearing. It would likely be moot before the arguments could even be presented – to be clear moot NOT just because the funding was resumed in 30 days but moot because there was no harm from the delay. If there was ANY harm the case could continue after the suspension expired so that the plantiff could have that harm remmedied.
And that is the point – there is no irrepairable harm.
It is NOT the courts job – whether with private parties or with govenrment to micromanage decisions of the parties.
It is not the courts job to insert itself and assure that the BEST decision is made.
The defendant is allowed to be absolutely totally completely WRONG – the court STILL has no role at all – unless there is harm.
Fundimentally We have 3 main areas of law, that are the duty of Govenrment under the social contract.
We have criminal law. Criminal statutes are abut the use of force or fraud to infringe on the rights of others.
If no rights are infringed on – then there is no crime and a criminal statutes that is not about the infringement of rights is a violation of the social contract. That makes it unconstitutional. There is no alleged crime here.
We have contract law. The constitution itself is a large multiparty contract. Various terms in that contract apply to the branches of govenment and to the states and to the people. But every provision of the constitution is not something that grants standing to the states.
SCOTUS in 2020 refused to grant standing to the states suing for violation of their constitutional rights to a fair election.
I think SCOTUS obviously erred in dismissing that suit. Regardless inarguable the election clauses of the constitution involve the states.
The clauses dividing feral powers between congress and the executive do NOT involve the state.
There is arguably a contract that is impacted by the President’s EO to suspend funding. But the clear parties are the executive and the congress – not the states.
The final domain of law is Torts. Torts covers instances where there is a harm, there is a public duty, but there is no contract.
The states could argue a torts claim – but they would have to prove a duty and they would have to prove actual harm.
There is no more duty to the states to issue them federal grant funds, than there is to give charity to a drug addict.
Maybe there is real harm – but it is not irrepairable, and you still have to get past a duty by the executive.
It should be clear from the above that there is no basis for a TRO.
Something is not an emergency – just because you claim it is. The president did not cancel funding to the states. The world was not coming to an end because of a temporary delay.
made up emergencies are not real emergencies.
There is absolutely no reason that the court could not have taken the time to allow both parties to address all their arguments before coming to a decision.
The president MUST obey improvidently granted TRO’s – which this OBVIOUSLY is.
Nothing in the arguments you have made or the orders of the court meet the standard for a limited TRO much less a broad nationwide one.
If the president was totally completely wrong – there is still no emergency and little to no harm.
Courts do not exist to assure that other people make the BEST possible decisions – in the opinion of some judge – that is litterally giving them the power to micromanage everything.
People do not even agree on what is best.
“As the court notes the likelihood of success is high.”
As I pointed out above the court has made innumerable errors – its credibility is piss poor.
Again this is why you do NOT grant nationwide TRO’s. It is also why you do not allow plantiffs from outside the circuit into a case and you confine the case to your district.
That allows the other parties to make their case in other courts. You can generally trust the decisions of the courts on nationwide issues when ALL circuits arrive at the same decision. That is an important means by which the courts assure credibility on major issues.
This is inarguably an issue of national concern. Yet here you have a single Judge pretending that he knows better than the president and the DOJ – that MAY be right, but it would be far more credible if all states and especially congress joined the case, and it was decided the same in each of the 13 federal circuits.
You keep noting that the court found – that means a SPECIFIC JUDGE found – after very limited inquiry on an emergency basis, when there is no obvious emergency.
We WANT our courts and judges to weild enormous power and credibility.
Court orders MUST be obeyed until higher courts overrule them.
That is ENORMOUS power.
That is also why the courts are OBLIGATED to eild that power CONSERVATIVELY
They are OBLIGATED to err in favor of not acting or limited action. They are OBLIGATED to be absolutely certain when they make decisions.
There are high expectations of congress and the president in their actions – but these are not even close to the obligations on the courts and judges.
The courts are NOT supposed to get involved in political or policy dispute.
I have yet to hear a CONSTUTITUTIONAL argument for this courts decision.
The Judge FAILED to establish a constitutional basis for his decision.
He FAILED to establish standing for the plantiffs.
He FAILED to limit both the plantiffs and the decision to his jurisdiction.
He FAILED with respect to the TRO because there is no emergency. It is near certain the Plantiffs are going to lose – standing alone is enough for that, and there is no duty to the states in a federal grant. And finally there is no irreparable harm.
Each of the above is a REQUIREMENT that the court must meet – and I would bet that given sufficient preparation, DOJ will find even MORE requirements that must be met.
If EVERY SINGLE requirement is not met – the court acted improperly,
The more frequently the courts act improperly the less trust we have in them.
One of the huge issues that is being raised is should the executive obey the court order.
When the court does its job properly – and CONFINES itself to its legitimate domain – rather than second guessing executives.
It assures that is has the credibility required to compel the executive to obey.
It is not necescary for every american to beleive the court was right – though it helps greatly if the error rate for lower courts is incredibly low and their behavior is not viewed as political.
It IS necescary for nearly all americans to beleive the courts are NOT partisan and are NOT exceeding their authority.
As keeps coming up too often – this is NOT a banana republic. Courts in the US have great power in a LIMITED domain.
When we see courts elsewhere in the world substituting their political views for those of the rest of government – that undermines trust in govenrment, that increases the likelyhood that courts will not be obeyed and that the country resolves desputes in violence.
READ the declaration of independence – Next year is the 250th aniversary. – a substantial portion of the declaration is rooted in the loss of trust of the people in those governing them. The king, the courts, the governors.
“The first count is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is a foundational statute for all of administrative law. ”
False, the constitution is the foundation for everything in the executive and as SCOTUS has ruled REPEATEDLY the APA has no application at all to the exclusively executive powers of the president.
“Congress has not delegated unilateral authority to the Executive to pause financial assistance without considering the statutory and contractual terms governing these grants.”
Of course they have. They have quite literally delegated the power to administer spending.
All federal spending is issued over the signature of the president. OBVIOUSLY congress has delegated spending authority to the president.
The only question is the boundaries of what Congress has delegated and what it has retained. The APA is relevant to that, though likely much less than you claim. But so is the specific laungage of budgets.
One of the things that DOGE has found is that over 1000 government “agencies” have authorizations that have expired.
About 700 of these account for 500B in spending.
So how do we deal with a Budget that allocates money to an agency that Congress has allowed to expire ?
I am not trying to answer that question. Just pointing out to you that this whole area is about as clear as Mud – not nearly as obvious as the left claims.
You are absolutely NEVER going to get SCOTUS to agree that the president does not have the authority to look for waste and Fraud, or that absent crystal clear direction from Congress the president is allowed to spend budgeted funds wastefully or fraudulently.
There is no reading of the constitution or the APA or the budget that is going to result in SCOTUS deciding that is NOT within the power of the president.
I would further note that VP Biden went to Ukeaine and threatened to cut off a Billion in aide if Ukraine did not do as he demanded and Fire Shokin.
NO ONE has argued that the executive does not have BROAD power to leverage congressionally authorized spending to accheive other policiy and or national security goals. – Nat Sec BTW is the exclusive domain of the president.
The Argument regarding Biden is not that his actions were outside the power of the VP.
It is that they were excercises of legitmate federal power performed because he was Paid for by Burisma.
Trump was impeached over delaying funding to Ukraine. The delay BTW was NORMAL – Obama took as long to release payments.
Trump[‘s delays WERE contingent on conduct from Ukraine – so were Obama’s. All president leverage aide to foreign countries.
The iimpeachment argument was NOT that the president could not withhold or delay aide.
It was that the purpose of that choice was impermissible.
While I would state unequivicolly that the VP can not withold aide unless the party receiving the aide does something that persoanally benefits himself or his family – that is both a crime and impeachable.
At the same time it is also unwequivally tues that aide can be withheld and that aide can be withheld in order to get an investigation of misconduct by a political opponent – SO LONG as there is a legitimate foundation for said investigation – which obviously there is.
HOWEVER it is also unfortunately true that the house can impeach on that – or honestly anything. I was with Truely on arguments regarding what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor – but ultimate I and Turley LOST.
The constitution imposes NO check on impeachment power. The house can impeach for ANY reason. The party being impeached has no apeal to the courts. The house can impeach for any partisan basis it wishes.
Regardless the point here is that there are thousands of examples of presidents halting, delaying, suspending or even deciding exactly who gets funding. Congress RARELY provides detailed direction. Failure to do so leaves everything unspecified to the president.
To the extent the APA even applies – it does not apply in specifically the way you claim.
Brandishing the APA as some unlimited sword that allows you to oppose eveything the executive does will only result in SCOTUS finding the APA unconstitutional or establishing that it has a narrow scope.
Those of you on the left are CONSTANTLY trying to argue broad powers – but only as they benefit you.
Congresses power is broad – when you control congress. The APA’s power is broad when you control neither congress nor the executive.
The presidents powers are broad when you control the presidency, the power of Judges is broad when you are using their power to thwart your political opponents.
But the reality is NONE of these powers are broad. They littlerally can not be. Broad interpretation of everything results in unresolvable conflicts all over the place. And results the politics of those with power determining everything.
Presidents ARE political – though there are constraints.
Congress is political – though there are some constraints.
The Courts are NOT political PERIOD or they lose trust and authority.
I would note that NOT political ALWAYS means – reading the power of Government NARROWLY and the rights of individuals broadly.
That does NOT resolve government/government conflicts. such as this – but the requirement to follow the law NARROWLY still exists.
That means not accepting plantiffs from out of your district, and not issuing court orders – not even final orders than are broader than necescary, It means deciding all issues NARROWLY.
Whiel that is a good idea for those in government – it is a REQUIREMENT for the courts.
” His universal freeze is also clearly arbitrary and capricious.”
No universal means NOT arbitrary. BTW the freeze was NOT universal – Medicare and SS were formally excempt and several other entitlements were made exempt by clarification. To the extent the court should have issues ANY orders at all – it merely should have extended the things that were exempt – given that it could meet the requirement of irrepairable harm and likelyhood of prevailing.
“Trump therefore clearly did not follow the APA. What is your argument for his attempt to follow the very clearly defined procedures required for APA compliance?”
Triviaal – your argument is OBVIOUSLY wrong – myriads of instances where the executive has delayed or otherwise leveraged payments over the court of the history of the united states demonstrates that you do not understand the law, the constitution or the APA.
You are trying to FORCE this specific EO to fall outside the law the constitution and the APA while making room for all the other isnances of similar executive conduct without any explaination for why the APA works one way at one time and another at a different one – when the ONLY rational distinguishing feature is POLITICS.
As noted before – the congress and the executive are POLITICAL – the COURTS are not.
Further – you keep citing the APA – onlyh Congress has standing regarding the APA.
If they do not wish to make an APA claim – no one else can.
“Additionally, the Executive has overridden Congress by refusing to disburse already-allocated funding for many federal grant programs, clearly violating the separation of powers. ”
False – it has DELAYED disbursing funds. I beleive the latest CR was passed in December – was the executive obligated to distribute the entirety of that funding in december ? Did congress specify precisely when each payment had to be made ?
What Congress does not specify is within the discretion of the executive – this is NOT knew.
While a government wide suspension of payments is somewhat unusual (it does happen when the debt limit is hit EVEN though congress has authorized the spending – in fact left wing nuts have argued that the debt limit is unconstitutional because Congress authorized the spending. So far the courts have not agreed. Regardless hitting the debt limit suspends authorized govenrment payments therefore it is crystal clear the executive authority to suspend payments exists.
As is typical of leftists – your arguments do not address reality. One can and conservatives often do Argue that some action that is currently occuring is unconstitutional. But they do NOT ignore the fact that there are instances of that allegedly unconstitutional conduct occuring accross decades.
Past history is not proof of the constitutionality of something – but it does create a PRESUMPTION of constitutionality that must be overcome in court.
The left did not admit that this only unusual in breadth.
“It is additionally a violation of the Spending Power, the Appropriations clause, and the Take Care clauses of the Constitution.”
If that was the case – you would be able to clearly and concisely and convincingly argue each of those. AND you would be able to argue why those arguments did not apply to myriads of other instances in which presidents did not pay whatever congress budgeted on the day the budget was signed into law.
The FIRST rule for this type of constitutional interpretation is does GOVERNMENT have the power to do X.
Then you move to addressing whether it is an exclusively executive power, an exclusively congrssional power or a congressional power that was partly or wholely delegated to the executive.
Generally congress and the courts have allowed the executive TOO MUCH power.
But this is an absymally poor choice to address that.
There is zero doubt that Congress has ultimate authority over spending.
But there is also no doubt that whatever fiscal power they do NOT excercise devolves to the executive.
As an Example – congress CAN provide a payment schedule for some budget item. If it does not – the schedule is determined by the executive. The executive is obligated to accomplish the budgeted purpose – that does NOT mean spend every appropriated dime.
A Budget is a ceiling on spending, not a floor, but it is a directive to advance the budgeted purpose.
Regardless, My point is that congress constitutionally has as much or as little control over the details of spending as it wishes.
What it does not address falls in the power of the executive.
Congress can go to court right now to challenge the suspension.
Or it can pass legislation to direct the executive to pay all or some of the suspended spending now.
This is part of WHY standing is important.
CONGRESS has the power to override – not the courts, not the states.
It can do so by going to court or passing legislation NOW, or by having CLEARLY done so in the past.
Spending decisions that congress did not clarify – are delegated to the president.
That is not only how it works – it is how it MUST work.
John Say,
What a way to own ATS!!! Well done!
I have no idea what you are talking about. But can you cite a single authority for any of the wild claims you made?
How about standing and the APA? Any source to suggest that the only plaintiff with standing to sue for APA violations is… Congress?
Let’s take a recent SCOTUS case (that was applauded by conservatives) – Loper Bright (2023), which overruled the landmark case, Chevron v. NRDC. Who was the plaintiff?
Is your argument that the fishermen didn’t have standing to sue because they aren’t… CONGRESS?
I have written a long reply – but the gist is simple – ALL your analysis and that of the court is shallow, ignores reality, ignores existing law and past practice. Founding examples that undermine your claims is trivial.
It is common of left wing nut claims that they IGNORE most of the facts and law, that the misread the law – worse they read it one way when republicans are in power and another way for democrats.
Absolutely no doubt constitutional spending authority is the exclusive domain of Congress – not the president, not the states, not labor unions, not executive employees.
At the same time for almost 250 years the president as signed the checks, authorized payments functions as CFO of the United states.
Congress can delegate as much or little spending authority as it wants to the president.
But there are only two choices regarding anything that congress does not address – and that is that choice is delegated to the president OR that spending can not happen – take your pick. Neither gets you where you want.
Courts are restricted to cases and controversies – constitutionally there are only TWO choices – Congress delegated this power to the president – or it has not. The only legitimate plantiff would be congress. The only time a receient of federal spending would have standing would be if there was a contract.
I would note that SCOTUS has ruled dozens of times regarding entitlements – that they are NOT contracts, that those receiving them have no standing. How exactly does a state get standing when it is merely the bank teller distributing the payments ?
ignores existing law? You didn’t cite a single law!
Just because an activist judge goes after Trump does not mean that activist judge is acting in good faith or within their perview. Democrats set the precedent of ignoring judicial lower court rulings until it goes through the SCOTUS, and then ignore even those rulings, right Biden? Canceling evictions defying SCOTUS, Loan bailouts is just 2 of top of head BS executive flauntig of settled law Biden totally ignored. Biden quote: ‘Supreme court may have blocked me, but it didn’ t stop me”. Activist judges will be impeached and your whiny complaints will be laughed at as is this one.
Take it up with Biden and get back to us skippy.
If only your claims were True.
As YOU say the court blocked a BROAD freeze on federal spending. That was arguably an unconstitutional act by a federal district court – only the Supreme court has nationwide jurisdiction. Both prior and subsequently NARROW freezes were NOT blocked.
The court is free to modify its order to also cover spending freezes at DOE or DOD or State, but todate it has not done so.
I would suggest that this has not been done – because the TRO is unconstitutional and improper on its face and it was a stupid and deliberate delaying tactic on the part of ONE Judge.
If I have the case correctly – this is not even the correct judge for the case. The judge in question had temporary jurisdiction for a few days and is being replaced by the correct judge either today or tomorow who is likely to vacate the TRO.
While that is not legally or constitutionally relevant. Even the illegality and unconstitutionality of the TRO is not relevant.
Trump must obey overbroad and unconstitutional court orders until they are overturned.
That does NOT prevent the executive from following other orders not covered by the TRO, or issuing new orders that are not in conflict with TRO.
No one denies that district courts have the power to enjoin a specific defendant’s conduct anywhere in the nation. A court has the power to order each of the parties to act in any fashion or in any place. An obvious example is a domestic violence dispute in NJ can be enforced against parties that work in NY. New Jersey state courts do not have jurisdiction in NY, but the scope of the remedy can extend there. The question that some scholars have raised is whether it should apply to nonparties nationally.
As a real SCOTUS example, take the case of Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. 40 284 U.S. 448 (1932). In that action, the Massachusetts district court initially enjoined the defendant, Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Company, from producing shoe lasts with hinges because it had violated a patent owned by the plaintiff’s estate. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. v. Belcher, 300 F. 834, 839 (D. Mass. 1924), aff’d as modified, 13 F.2d 796 (1st Cir. 1926). While abiding by the mandate in Massachusetts, the defendant, a Michigan corporation, continued to produce allegedly infringing products in other states. 42 Leman, 284 U.S. at 450. The patent owner brought another suit in Massachusetts to demand nationwide compliance.
43 Id. at 450–51, 454 (explaining that the plaintiff had filed a petition for contempt of the district court’s injunction and that the defendant could not “successfully defy the injunction, by absenting itself from the district”). The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over the subsequent contempt proceeding, though it vacated the award of lost-profit damages. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. v. Leman, 50 F.2d 699, 702–07 (1st Cir.), aff’d on reh’g, 50 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1931), rev’d in part, 284 U.S. 448.
Although the defendant contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue relief. 44 Leman, 284 U.S. at 450–51, the Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that once the district court properly established jurisdiction over the defendant, it could issue a binding decree “not simply within the District of Massachusetts, but throughout the United States.”
“No one denies that district courts have the power to enjoin a specific defendant’s conduct anywhere in the nation.”
Last time I checked I am someone and I absolutely deny your ridiculously broad statement.
” A court has the power to order each of the parties to act in any fashion or in any place.”
Only if it the court has jurisdiction over the parties. Courts other than the supreme court do not have nationwide jurisdiction.
” An obvious example is a domestic violence dispute in NJ can be enforced against parties that work in NY.”
Only when the factual basis for the dispute took place in NJ.
“New Jersey state courts do not have jurisdiction in NY, but the scope of the remedy can extend there.”
Only regarding conduct that occured in NJ. That is litterally what jurisdiction means – authority over specific conduct.
“The question that some scholars have raised is whether it should apply to nonparties nationally.”
As is typical of those on the left – you ignore the issues and try to apply broad claims of authority to relatively simple issues of law.
“As a real SCOTUS example, take the case of Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. 40 284 U.S. 448 (1932). In that action, the Massachusetts district court initially enjoined the defendant, Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Company, from producing shoe lasts with hinges because it had violated a patent owned by the plaintiff’s estate.”
How is this relevant – the MA federal district court had jurisdiction over the violation of rights of a MA entity.
This is NOT a case where plantiff From GA sued a defendant in IA about acts that occured in FL in the MA courts.
No one doubts that the MA courts can issue an injunction that bars a defendant from infringing on the rights of an MA plantiff anywhere in the US.
I have not claimed there are no instances in which district courts do not have nationwide jurisdiction.
The MA district court does not as an example gain jurisdiction over every possible party that might have a patent infringment claim against Krentle-Arnold regardless of where they are.
Why is it that when debating left wing nuts – you ALWAYS drag in total irrelevances.
If a number of states wish to join and sue the federal government – in the instances that they actually can legitimately join states from different jurisdictions – they would do so in the DC circuit – because that is the juridiction that is common to all plantiffs and the defendant – the US govenrment.
To be clear – I am NOT claiming they can do that, only that they CAN not pick just any federal district court to sue in.
This is Blatant venue shopping.
This is wildly incoherent. I have no idea what in the world you are saying. Believe me, I tried.
“. . . the judge issued a TRO . . .”
Which of his TRO’s are you referring to?
The first one? The second one that amended the first one? Or the third one that rescinded the second one, and reaffirmed the first one?
A judge is supposed to be deliberative and thoughtful. Not a mad hatter.
We must watch the Democrats carefully. In years gone by and up until now, political movements/parties/ terrorists have turned to outright conventional crime to fund their activities especially when funding disappears. Examples are the Secret Army Organization in France and Algeria when De Gaulle was trying to break off Algeria from “greater France”, the Bader Meinhof Gang (Red Army Faction), and narco terrorists who all went to bank robberies and kidnappings and seeking drugs to fund their activities when their “legitimate sources” of revenue dried up.
I would hate to see roving gangs of Pelosis, Schumers, and Warrens and their minions out there knocking off banks and armored cars when they can no longer get money from their slush funds.
The mere thought of that scenario kind of makes me grin and chuckle but then I settle down and try to pity them (for about 20 sec’s) and then move on.
red army faction etc… really now. Lay off the sauce.
Anonymous 10:21AM, Check your history. (1970-1998, the Bader Meinhof gang was also known as the Red Army Faction) in Germany and was generally funded by the the Stasi (East German secret police) which was discovered in records after the wall fell and Germany was reunited. They were involved in a multitude of crimes, as well as deaths. Maybe your memory does not extend that far back. If not then I suggest you just consult Wikipedia. Even a left wing source like Wikipedia has an extensive article on them. I lived in Germany (Mannheim) in the 1950’s and as such learned some German and kept up on news from there long after I left. I have no idea what you were doing. Check it out Sauce Boy.
I wrote this poem many years ago, about stupid people, with poop for brains. I even made a short video (Less than 2 minutes.) I rededicate it today, to the Democratic Party!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ylMWBzAEzc
Die Scheisskopfen
A Poem Of Healing!
(Universal Version)
by Squeeky Fromm,
Girl Reporter
How oft I wish when I have heard
Some cretin wax moronic,
That for the cranium they made
A cleansing High Colonic.
Perhaps some sort of nasal spray,
With laxative included?
To roto-rooter out their brains
And leave them less deluded.
Or maybe take a Neti Pot
With crevice tool extending?
And they could name it “Nutty Pot”
And seek a “Patent Pending.”
There surely has to be a way
To sanitize gray matter.
And flush out idiotic thoughts,
Awash with foolish patter.
The Bi-polars and Borderlines
We treat throughout the Nation.
But did we under-rate the risks
From Mental Constipation?
And so to those with Poop for Brains,
Hold on, a cure’s a-borning!
Or better yet, just let it go!
But first, give us a warning!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
If I did not know any better, I would think you wrote that with Gigi specifically in mind!
Thank you UF!!!
I am glad you liked it! I hope the poem brings healing to the afflicted!
Squeeky appears to have an infantile fixation on excrement.
When the Democrats open their mouths, that is all that flows out.
Maybe I have gazed too long into the Abyss of the Democratic Party??? What was that poem about the Democratic Party,
The Ancient Moron-er???
Bullsh!t, Bullsh!t Everywhere!
And how the place did stink!
Bullsh!t! Bullsh!t! Everywhere!
I think I need a drink!
I love it. Squeaky Fromm. I bow to your skill and humor.
Thank you sooo much, GEB! I am glad you enjoy my stuff!
@Anonymous
‘Squeeky’ is yet another troll persona that used to haunt us here for years with abject stupidity. That she popped up again makes me think she is Svelaz et. al. I do not know, can’t, but seems awfully convenient, and the Professor’s archives are freely available, see for yourself if you are inclined to dig. If not, then yes, Squeeky is unequivocally another troll, or perhaps the same troll with a different name. Some of us have been here a long time, ‘Squeeky’.
No, James, it is just the old me. The Queen Bee of Irish Poems, and Empress of Abject Stupidity! How can you read my Irish Poems and not know that it is me??? I have just been preoccupied with other stuff, like moving and learning how to cook on wooden stoves, and work. Plus, drinking, which I have slowed down a bunch on. I am still young, and I have a life. This was not the first time that I disappeared for a while. It probably won’t be the last. Girl Reporters just want to have fun!
Squeeky,
Okay, gotta ask, how does one cook on a “wooden stove?” I have a cast iron stove that has a cook top and a insert that allows me to “grill” indoors.
Deport Omar.
Don’t deport her. Keep her around as a visible example of a DEI failure. Her rants only underscore her child-like understanding of the Constitution.
First arrest her for immigration fraud…then deport her.
How long before (D)JT: DINO Jonathan Turley finally admits to himself and the public that he wants no affiliation with the Democratic party? He is as Independent as I could imagine. Go JT!
Olly, Please be patient. As a rule transformations of this magnitude occur very very slowly and then suddenly.
It is often difficult to believe that the party you have given loyalty to your entire life is now something entirely different.
It is even harder to admit that you are not only wrong now, but in many ways were wrong then.
John, my question was “how long”, not “why not”. It was merely an observation.
Not looking to argue. I know your question was rhetorical.
My point is Turley is coming along SLOWLY.
At the same time Turley is part of a growing shifting tide.
Gabbard was just confirmed as Trump’s DNI – 5 years ago she was a Democrat candidate for president.
Kennedy was Running against Trump for President until August – in some states until November.
RFK Jr. was just confirmed to head HHS.
Myriads of others – Glenn Greenwald, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro – even Vance were Trump oponents int he past. now they are enthusiastic or reluctant supporters.
Joe Rogan was a Bernie Bros.
The center – even the center left, even what I would call extreme liberal left of the past is either getting behind Trump or seeing the moder left and democratic party as the real danger.
At this time I do NOT understand why the Democrats party has not gotten the message – that they have as Turley noted “jumped the shark”
John, we’re good. It’s a process and it’s going in the right direction. I find it somewhat humorous that the stroke victim in the Senate seems to have more commonsense than the rest of his party.
But once they turn, they have a tendency go whole hog (old southern expression) and lay waste to the group that previously they loved but then betrayed them. Nothing like betrayal to get your attention.
Generally true. Betrayal is unbelievably hard to forgive. I was ONCE betrayed by someone I love. I still love them – but I can not see any possible way to reconcile.
“Go JT!”
Agree. I don’t wish to complain about JT’s slow political reversal. He was and remains in a peculiar situation. Historically, he is on the left, recently changing, but his ability to buck the system as a professor and a lawyer places him in an awkward position when surrounded by cancel-minded Democrats. He has a family and job, so he has to tread carefully, especially after seeing what happened to Alan Dershowitz.
Perhaps he chose to stay somewhat behind the curve because of these factors and some naïveté. I don’t think that hurt the nation’s recovery because his voice likely would have been silenced if he had been in front or at the peak of the curve. Instead, his voice has helped the nation get to where it is today.
Allan, it may be better that he remains where he is, a beacon calling to a party lost at sea.
Olly I agree, but in a short time do you think there will be any place for any type of John Turley in the Democrat Party? I am going to watch the news on CNN and MSNBC and CBS. I am not interested in their talking heads rather if they can find anything of value remaining in the Democrat Party.
S. Meyer,
I would argue that the good professor is a traditional, JFK, Democrat. He did not leave the party. The party left him. Along with all the other traditional, JFK, Democrats, my own sister included. Traditional, JFK, Democrat are aghast at the woke leftists that have hijacked their party. They see their party going in the wrong direction as a recent poll show some 42% think the Democrat party has gotten worse since the election. Only 14% thinks the Democrat party has improved. The rest, dont know what to think. We know 86% of Americans, to include Democrats, think reigning in fraud, waste and abuse in the government is important. That is where one of the many points the woke leftists Democrats, whom seem to be still in charge of the DNC, lose. And they will continue to lose. They cannot seem to read a room.
How marvelous!
As I indicated to Olly, I think the Democrat Party has sucked out all the oxygen so that intelligent life cannot survive. I am mostly an independent relying on the words of Milton Friedman, but he never covered this type of eventuality.
I agree fully. I would further add that one problem faced by “60’s liberals” is that the problem with the modern left was present even in 60’s liberalism.
60’s liberalism was a mixture of strong support for individual rights – it is Liberals that fought Joe MacCarthy’s 1950’s cancel culture – it is odd because Sen MacCarthy has proved to be right that communists are a very dangerous threat to the country. He was just wrong that we deal with them by silencing them. The price of liberty is eternal vigalence.
The Free speech movement was Born at UC Berkeley on the FAR left.
But the cancer that poisoned 60’s liberalism – and communism, is the mistaken beleif that government is a tool for good.
Government is a necessary evil.
The modern left has LOST completely the strong value for individual rights.
While amplifying the beleif that Government is a force for positive good.
The fact is that individual rights and greater govenrment power for ANY purpose are irreconcilable.
“He was just wrong that we deal with them by silencing them.” (Senator Joe McCarthy)
In what way did he silence them. He wasn’t my favorite guy and there was a lot wrong, but you are laying the blame on one individual. HUAC did far more damage to individuals than the Senate.
“But the cancer that poisoned 60’s liberalism – and communism, is the mistaken beleif that government is a tool for good.
Government is a necessary evil.”
These statements are easy to agree with.
The usual suspects, they look the same and speak the same lies. You would think by now their constituents would have sent them packing. I have yet at anytime heard one of them say “yes it’s true our nation is facing great debt and we must be more judicious with your tax dollars”. Instead they’ve found their new Babayaga in the form of Elon Musk as if he’s the cause of loss and fraud. Spreading fear is all they have now but maybe it’s personal fear we’re witnessing? I sense Musk’s investigation might be coming close to the those usual suspects who protest the loudest.
the Democrats are fighting their 2nd Civil War against America and they are led by insane people!
The party needs to be smashed…DEFUND IT
End Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits, colleges
ban public unions
my wealthy state of NJ has been SHOWERED with billions in Federal Money…for being a FAILURE. $22 Billion this year…on a budget of $52…so about 40% of their THEFT is from other taxpayers!
“This is what the beginning of dictatorship looks like . . .”
Perhaps someday D’s will learn that words have a precise meaning.
Dictators *increase* government control over an individual’s personal life and over the economy. They don’t *decrease* those controls, as Trump is doing.
From the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt to Putin today, there is not a single example of an all-powerful leader who reduced the power and size of government. Perhaps the Left can provide such an example.
Or continue playing games with words, so as to spread irrational fears.
Sam you are correct,
But I would note – as observed by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty”
That real dictators are LESS of a threat to individual liberty than the tyranny of democracy.
Accross the world – today and in the past there have been relatively hard limits to the size of the governments of dictators.
Even a dictator REQUIRES atleast the willingness of the people to endure tyranny.
Otherwise you get revolution.
A dictator can increase the scope of the power they wield in TWO ways. By force – a police state.
Police states are horibly inefficient, because it requires a fairly large body of “police” to keep everyone in line, and there is always the danger that the “Police” will toss you and become the next dictator.
The other way is through religious fervor. Humans are inately religious. The left may think of the country today as predominantly atheistic or agnostic – but it is still incredibly religious. Humans crave a god. When Moses left the Israelites in the Desert they greated sacred calves to worship. The left has destroyed theistic religions, but is oblivious to the fact that the ideology of the left today is just a religion.
And that is a necescity. You can not have big government without either a police state or religious obediance.
But back to my point. As mills noted – no “dear leader” can get away with the infringement on peoples rights, that your neighbor in a democracy can get away with imposing on you.
The most dangerous tyranny is the tyranny of he majority.
“The left has destroyed theistic religions”
Yes, but not all and in some areas the trend toward religious observance is increasing. It appears that religious observance among Jews is increasing, but that is difficult to evaluate. Many Jews are turning toward the Chabad.
As you say the left is a religion more of the Jim Jones type where people are willing to destroy themselves.
There are some foreign leaders that reduced the power and size of government, but unfortunately I don’t remember their names. Pinochet might be included. However, I think a good American example is George Washington. He had the ability to be King with all the Kingly rights, but he chose otherwise.
To all of those complaining that Trump is changing the walls in the maze 🤣🤣🤣.
You are a joke, go read “Who Moved My Cheese”
The dems really hate the fact that it’s happening so transparently, too. All of their lies are unraveling. Thank you for the post, Professor.
Trump is the first dictator in the history of the universe who is trying to identify ways to reduce state power.
What cracks me up is that the worst offenders, the primary beneficiaries of the corruption, are identifying themselves by screaming louder than anyone else.
OldFish,
Schumer said it best, [they] “taking away everything we have.”
How marvelous!
A shout out goes to “Mad” Maxine Waters:
“We don’t know what all they have on us.”
Nothing Trump has done so far lower state power. But he is ending all the internal oversight organizations the government has. Why would Trump get rid of the OIGs who police funding, and the agency that polices ethics for federal employees?
But he is ending all the internal oversight organizations the government has. Why would Trump get rid of the OIGs who police funding, and the agency that polices ethics for federal employees?
I don’t believe I can drag you across the finish line, but you are a l m o s t there. We’re $36 trillion in debt. Why? Start there. Are any of the traditional checks and balances checking and balancing expenditures? It took DOGE nanoseconds to reveal that IG’s weren’t “policing funding” or expenditures. Given where the money has been going, ethics has clearly not been on their radar as well.
President Trump has not ended oversight, he’s supplanted it with DOGE to get to the root cause of our national debt. They are being very transparent on the results, showing exactly where waste and abuse is occurring. Further investigations will expose where fraud and corruption exist and who is responsible. There is no constitutional crisis. There is on the other hand an existential crisis for anyone that will end up in the crosshairs of those investigations. My opinion, based on the absolute hysteria coming from the political Left, is they know it’s only a matter of time before they will be held to account. The Democratic party has collectively decided this is the hill they will die on. Trump’s response: Challenge Accepted.
I find amusing the buzzwords that Dems use. Reminds me of the “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” scene from the Wizard of Oz.
Somebody comes up with the “motto” and it is parroted by the rest of them.
Using media to manipulate populations has been a very powerful technique but does anyone actually think that the manipulated would be static and never evolve at least some degree of immunity to the psychopath’s poison?
Given what We all went through (4 years of Biden) and corresponding depth of corruption by the DEM State. Makes me wonder if Hillary would have been ushered into Office in 2016:
Would We know what We know now?
Would Trump have been elected in 2020 or a second Hillary term?
Would We be in the midst of World War III?
Would We have Quadrillion Dollar deficits?
For my generation it was often said: What would the World look like if John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy had lived.
I feel that anything would have been better than what we got from 2016 to 2024, Because of the way the DEMs & Media constantly badgered and smeared Trump 2016-2024, and the disaster the DEMs created with Spending and Greedy corruption (and Ukrainian war), or just plain ‘Bidens’ in one word. Maybe stomaching Hillary for 4 years, just to get it over with, may have been worth it.
But then again, We would know what We know now about the Swamp had we not been through the ‘stomach virus’ we had for the past 8 years (2016-2024).
Should of, Would of, Could of … Who Knows?
-It’s nice to be Home again- (Go Trump)
If either Hilary had won 8 years in the WH or Manchin and Sinema hadn’t held out against Schumer and ending the filibuster and subsequently packing the Court we would now have a majority of Sotomayors, Kagans and Katanji Brown Jacksons ruling in lockstep with these radical district court judges and the game would be all over.
Imagine 9 Sotomayors deciding what the Constitution means. The NGOs would be sacrosanct, gun rights would be gone, we would have “misinformation” agencies ending the First Amendment and we would have nationalized federal elections, i.e. the banning of voter I.D. and other leftist takeovers.
If the legislation leaves the spending to the discretion of the executive branch which is the bureaucracy, the President as the chief executive in the constitution should have full power to use his discretion on the expenditure. On the other hand, if congress mandates a specific expenditure, then the President would need congress to pass legislation to accomplish the cut. I would also think that the President would need congress to eliminate an agency specifically authorized by congress. Obviously, some bureaucrat decided which expenditure to fund and this was not specifically chosen by congress, so it being an executive department discretionary item, the President should be fully within his power to block or change any specific discretionary expenditure.
CORPORATIONS RULE, AS PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATED BY THE PRESENCE OF MADMAN MUSK AND HIS SPAWN IN THE OVAL OFFICE
Awwww….you sound pissed off. Too bad.
Of course Turley wil focus on one issue that is safe to criticize. He would not dare point out how many court’s have ruled against Trump or how DOGE has admitted to lying about their claims. It’s risky to criticize Elon or Trump because MAGA will turn on you like a rabid dog.
Spoken like a true liberal. You make Pelosi proud. Did you forget that Biden thumbed his nose at the courts after be told he could not “unilaterally ” cancel college debt?
According to Republicans and Trump What Biden did was perfectly fine. The Unitary executive theory makes what Bidend did exactly what Trump is doing. It doesn’t just apply whey a Republican is in office.
Just like Trump can unilaterally stop funding whatever he wants because he thinks it shouldn’t be.
The wheels of justice grind very fine but slowly. Don’t be too quick to count decisions by a few district court judges as victories. Most of them are probably just speedbumps on the road to wellness.
You may be thinking “at least speedbumps slow the bad man.” Be careful what you wish for, those speedbumps could force clarifying decisions by SCOTUS that could very well permanently defang your attack partisans.
OldFish,
That is a great point. But leftist Democrats dont have any critical thinking to think of things like that.
It is very early in the game, George. “lying”, misrepresentation, incorrect/poor assessments, and guesstimates are all part of the process in ANY investigation early on. Wait until the results are finalized and then we will see how much of your biased opinion is justified.
“court’s have ruled against Trump”??? So what? That is neither novel or a final read on any situation. And it ain’t over until the fat lady sings…..and the act has just begun.
GOD BLESS AMERICA WITH TRUMP YOU HAVE A CHANCE
TRUMP IS DISMANTLING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO MAKE HIMSELF DICTATOR
TRUMP SUCKS
Nope, not even close. Trump is dismantling the Democrat Party’s institutional power base.
If you can’t keep those in the Democratic base on-the-dole, how you going to keep them voting for Democrats? Especially, based on the Democratic Party’s ideology of racism, stealing, extortion, graft, censoring and law-fare? Those are powerful items and hard to resist for some but the base will require steady payments to swallow that manure. And where is Chucky, Nancy (is she still alive?) and Barry going to get that kind of money? George Soros? And that is what has Democrats checking their underwear.
# I was censored. So much for free speech.
Article 1 section 8.
Constitution
1 dollar for an ounce. 8 beans and 1 tbsp corn meal. It’s insane….Americans are paying 1 dollar per ounce.
Every 7 billion dollars spent, Americans, is 1 dollar to every man, woman an child worldwide. Trillions?
Let’s see what you do Mr . Trump.
^^^^^# article 1, section 8, clause 5….
The other part of inflation. Who’s checked the gas pumps lately? How many ounces in a gallon? Constitution– federal crime. Is 1 pound 15 ounces?
Anonymous 9:10AM is still pissed.