On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) repeated the talking point of Democratic politicians and pundits that the courts are stopping President Donald Trump’s lawless actions taken after his inauguration. Raskin declared “we’re winning in court…we’re winning across the board.” The boast was dubious at best on Sunday given earlier losses, but became embarrassing on Monday and Tuesday as additional courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases.
For weeks, some of us have expressed confusion over the basis for some of the Democratic challenges and initial injunctions in court. President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures in the executive branch. After losing both houses and the majority vote, Democratic groups sought to use the courts to block such executive actions.
There was obvious forum shopping as these groups went to many of the same courts and judges for relief. However, even judges viewed as decidedly hostile to Trump like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington ultimately balked at the demand for an injunction and allowed the access and actions to continue.
On Monday, Judge Randolph Moss, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a blow to groups seeking to block the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to data from the Department of Education on student borrowers. Judge Moss found in his ruling that the University of California Student Association failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to receive such immediate relief.
He, however, left the door open a crack: “The Court leaves for another day consideration of whether USCA has standing to sue and has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Those questions are less clear cut and are better answered on a more complete record.”
These and other setbacks do not mean that new cases cannot be brought with new records and parties. However, it is a far cry from the claim of Democrats “winning across the board.”
Of course, Raskin is not alone in the perils of premature celebration:
For those members like Raskin opposing the freeze on hiring and payouts, there is even an example of losing to the Freeze due to a premature celebration:
The race is far from over so both sides may want to stay focused on the finish line in the ongoing litigation.
RASKIN HAS A PROBLEM PREMATURE Ejac..tion
It certainly does seem like President Trump actually wants court challenges, all the way up to the Supreme Court, to clarify the extent to which the President has effective control over the Executive branch and all Executive branch agencies.
(See Kimberley Strassel in today’s Wall Street Journal for more details.)
Dennis McIntyre posted: Now we know DJT is not a frequent visitor of our national parks. The only outdoor activity he likes is playing golf. So what does he care about closing our national parks?
Now we know that Dennis McIntyre and the street animals that are his fellow Democrat street thugs in Black Liars & Marxists and Antifa wouldn’t go anywhere that didn’t have a sidewalk they could defecate in public on, or a commercial block they could riot in and burn down. And yet Dennis claims he’s fearful and disturbed that a park employee who was Keeper Of The Bathroom Keys was laid off.
Somebody should remind Dennis and Jamie Raskin that they and their dear leader The Oval Office House Plant already found a solution to this just four years ago. The same advise they offered to the employees and business owners they put out of business four years ago:
Learn To Code
Our Govt. is WAY OVER BLOATED and needs Down-sizing… Biden kept hiring more & more people, creating more & more programs, giving away more & more funding and printing more & more money.. the National Debt and Inflation is Out Of Control…. We have 2 men, Trump & Musk, who think like successful Corporate Businessmen and Down-sizing is always part of the game plane in any attempt to bring order out of chaos in Business. We need to run Our Govt. like a Business and not like a Charity Mission. RASKIN et al by complaining, are simply showing HOW GROSSLY INCOMPETENT they are to be running anything.. TY Prof. Turley for another Excellent Analysis
So many wins…. Oops.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/20/ninth-circuit-denies-government-request-for-emergency-relief-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So many losses – let’s deflect to pointing out and celebrating this ONE win!
BTW, in other news, Kash Patel is now your new FBI Director.
No need to thank me for that Dennis McIntyre piece of breaking news!
The 9th Circus has a 79% reversal rate at SCOTUS. I’d say the odds are in Trump’s favor, n’est-ce pas?
Seems like a reasonable decision re. the 9th. Wish that kind of thinking had been applied to the NOT emergency of the Fauci Flu. Or, that the EUA kept (still?) being renewed even when it was obvious it was endemic. Note that there was NO sign of anything going off the rails until the declaration of a “pandemic.” There would have been early signs, and blood sample tests show it was around for months before a “pandemic” was declared. It was a bullspit “pandemic” caused by out-of-control testing and deadly/toxic treatment protocols. EUA my booty,
Here’s what the conservative Heritage Foundation said in 2017:
“The power to enact, amend, or abolish these executive departments and agencies and their functions belongs to Congress”.
As a broad statement that is correct.
The executive can NOT eliminate a department established by congress and currently authorized by congress.
DOGE itself as an example was NOT established by congress – it is purely an excersize of legitimate executive power.
There are over 1000 federal agencies that may or may not have been established by congress but are not currently authorized by congress.
They spend more than $500B/yr. The president has the authority to eliminate every single one of those.
If congress does not like that – it can re-authorize them.
But the real problem with the Heritage statement is that it is only BROADLY correct.
Congress does NOT micromanage the executive. SCOTUS has repeatedly re-affirmed the presidents power to hire and fire within the executive.
The constitution delegates NO power to interfere with the presidents power to fire whoever he pleases.
The courts has inconsistently found in the past that the President can not fire the heads of very specific agencies without cause.
Those are agencies like the FCC that are run by a board with multiple appointees. Those are the ONLY people in the executive branch where the president must show cause to fire. And that is based on a FDR era SCOTUS decision that presidents since Carter have been seeking to overturn and that SCOTUS is likely to toss shortly. Trump whittled away at “Humphries executor” during his first term – as had Obama before and Biden in his 2nd. and Trump has cases already headed to SCOTUS that they are likely to rule in his favor that will likely result in overruling “Humphries executor” which will leave ONLY the federal reserve board as outside the presidents authority to fire.
REgardless aside from these few positions, SCOTUS has nearly universally ruled – since the founding, that the advise and consent clause ONLY applies to specific apointments and ONLY to hiring not firing. That beyond that the presidents power to hire and fire is unrestrained by congress.
And that is MUST be – that hiring and firing are EXCLUSIVELY an executive function.
Congress can create agencies – it has ZERO power over staffing them.
Congress can give agencies a mission and funding and dictate the purpose of that funding.
The president is obligated to perform that mission and where funding is assigned to a purpose the president must use that funding to accomplish that purpose.
But unless congress specifically authorizes trans operas in Columbia – it is within the executive powers of the president to spend or not spend that money – so long as he is spending it for a congressionally approved purpose, and the spending is not iteself unconstitutional or illegal.
Unless Congress has given specific directions regarding funding. The president is not obligated to spend funds in a SPECIFIC way.
And the NIXON impoundment case is not nearly as clear as those on the left are trying to make it.
The Nixon impoundment case established that the president can not thwart the policies of congress by refusing to spend money they had allocated for a specific purpose. Essentially they rules that the president could not effectuate a line item veto by refusing to spend money congress budgeted.
SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that presidents are obligated to spend every dime budgeted – and SCOTUS absolutely never will do that.
That is an absurd claim and it would make the country non-functional.
There is a reason that both this country – and most corporations have an executive and a board.
Because neither legislatures nor corporate boards are capable of the day to day management of any enterprise.
One last point – which Republicans./Trump is using effectively and where the control of the house and senate are critical.
Only congress has standing to challenge a presidents spending cuts. Some republicans may disagree with Trumps actions.
But unless the house or the senate or preferably both join these lawsuits – nearly all of them should die for lack of standing.
Congresses power of the purse can be excercised by legislation. But just like corporate boards it can also be excercised by choosing not to stop what the executive is doing when they have the power to do so.
Trump IS currently acting with the consent of Congress. How do we know ? Because if they wanted to they could sue or pass legislation to stop what he is doing.
Partly congress is behaving cowardly – they SHOULD embrace what what Trump is doing, but congress is notoriously willing to allow presidents to do as they please and only challenge it when it goes badly.
Regardless Congress can embrace this or stop it. They have done neither – therefore the courts are obligated to stay out of it.
Courts have jurisdiction over cases and controversies. Congress has chosen to do nothing – there is no case or controversy.
Outside of unions in the employment specific issues no one else has standing.
Ironic that the United States Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights were designed as a counter monarchy and kings.
The American system was created to correct the weaknesses of the earlier Articles of Confederation (governing by committee) by creating the office of president (Executive Branch).
The Founding Fathers wanted to clearly state that Congress (representatives of people) was listed first under Article I of the Constitution. Presidents who were not kings, were listed second in Article II.
Presidents were only supposed to be minimally powerful to correct the weaknesses of governing by committee. This is the “Originalist” view that Alito and Thomas claim to support.
In 2000, the Republican Party invented a foreign model of government called the “Unitary Executive Theory” (contrary to the so-called “Originalist” view.
In the Unitary Executive Theory, voters essentially elect a dictator or king every 4 years. Congress and the Courts aren’t co-equal branches providing checks & balances on the Executive Branch. In this foreign model Congress and the Courts are subordinate to the king or dictator.
This past week, Trump referred to himself as “King”! He appears to be joining forces with the kings of Russia and China to bully and colonize smaller nations. Denmark recently informed Trump that Greenland was not for sale and Canada announced they wouldn’t be colonized by King Trump!
Why should Republicans and Conservatives care? If Americans adopt this foreign model of government, any future American dictator can simply take away your 2nd Amendment gun rights, hunting rights and property rights through a simple Executive Order (gone in a single day). Only the American system protects those rights in court. King Trump is destroying that system which Reagan and Eisenhower strongly supported.
“In 2000, the Republican Party invented a foreign model of government called the “Unitary Executive Theory” . . .”
Politically, you’re off by about 20 years. That theory was touted by Reagan.
Historically, you’re off by about 220 years. That theory (which you mischaracterized) was articulated and promoted by Madison.
The rest of your delusional smear is equally accurate.
One of the earliest Supreme court cases – within 6 years of Ratification was specifically on the unitary executive and did congress have the power to interfere with the presidents power to pardon.
“Presidents were only supposed to be minimally powerful to correct the weaknesses of governing by committee. This is the “Originalist” view that Alito and Thomas claim to support.”
Incorrect
Article II
Section 1
The executive power of the united states is vested in the president.
Loosely speaking the US is structured like a Corporation – it has a board of directors – congress and it has a CEO – the president.
Bussinesses are structured this way deliberately and our founders did the same with the federal (and state) govenrments.
Because this arrangement WORKS. Countries going all the way back to atleast greece have tried to govern by committee and that FAILS universally.
From atleast the time of the romans all efforts at government without an absolute monarch have had a chief executive – such as Roman Caesars, and a chamber like the roman senate or congress.
one makes the laws he other enforces them.
This is not new. And the US was heavily modeled on the Roman republic.
Further at the time of our founding this structure was found in MOST governments.
So the structure was NEVER an issue. The issue that the constitution reflects is the powers of each branch of government.
The constitution makes it PERFECTLY clear – that EXECUTIVE power belongs exclusively to the president.
Presidents can NOT make laws – Trump will lose he birth right citizenship issue – first because he does not have the power to make laws, and 2nd because the 14th amendment bars his specific citizenship claims.
Congress makes laws. Congress has unfortunately abdicated a great deal of that power to the executive – the courts should have stopped that long ago, and they ARE slowly whittling it back. But congress has delegated a great deal of rule making power to the executive, and Trump can therefore undo the rules prior presidents have imposed – because congress delegated that power.
“In 2000, the Republican Party invented a foreign model of government called the “Unitary Executive Theory” (contrary to the so-called “Originalist” view.”
False history. The constitution LITERALLY as cited above states that the executive power of the united states is the presidents. PERIOD.
There is not and never has been any question of this. This is not some NEW theory. again it is LITERALLY in the constitution.
The only legitimate debate is over what constitutes “executive powers” – there is absolutely no debate at all that the executive powers whatever they are belong to the president.
You say the unitary executive theory is a creation of republicans in 2000 – but the supreme court decided that except where explictly stated otherwise in the constitution that executive powers such as hiring and firing were the exclusive domain of the president.
And they decided this within 6 years of the ratification of the constitution.
SCOTUS determined that while the president needed the consent of congress to HIRE for certain positions, that the president could fire them AT WILL. – that was more than 200 years ago.
SCOTUS decisions that limit the executive power of the president over the past 200 years are RARE.
The question SCOTUS addresses is NOT is there a Unitary executive – but What constitutes and executive power and what constitutes a legislative power.
“In the Unitary Executive Theory, voters essentially elect a dictator or king every 4 years. Congress and the Courts aren’t co-equal branches providing checks & balances on the Executive Branch. In this foreign model Congress and the Courts are subordinate to the king or dictator.
False. The legislative power of the US always resides with congress. Congress makes laws – not the president.
While congress has delegated rule making power to the executive – it can take back that power anytime it wishes.
Regardless, the president can not make rules outside the statutes.
The executive power of the United states as article II S1 states has ALWAYS been with the president – with a very few exceptions such as the appointments clause, where congress is delegated a specific role.
I would note that Marbury V Madison – which established SCOTUS’s absolute power to interpret the constitution ALSO established that the executive power resided with the president.
“This past week, Trump referred to himself as “King”!”
I have no idea what Trump said and do not care and would not trust you to accurately report it.
Trump trolls you all the time. And you buy into it by lying about him.
Regardless almost no one cares about your idiotic TDS, and if Trump is having fun Trolling you – more power to him.
People with brains KNOW trump is not a king.
“He appears to be joining forces with the kings of Russia and China to bully and colonize smaller nations. Denmark recently informed Trump that Greenland was not for sale and Canada announced they wouldn’t be colonized by King Trump!”
National security and foreign relations are constitutionally the exclusive power of the president.
Trump is negotiating with Denmark, Panama, and Canada and Ukraine and the mideast and the EU.
Most rational people understand that. Truman tried to buy Greenland, The US controlled Panama for nearly a century, and the US invaded Canada in both the revolutionary war and the War of 1812. Frankly Canada more so than even mexico no longer exists as an independent country. They are almost entirely dependent on the US. If they wish to maintain the fiction of independence, ro they wish to make changes to establish REAL independence they are free to do so. But until they do so the US will have enormous power over Canada, and Trump as president has made it clear he is weilding that power.
I do not think that Trump expected Canadians to accept his offer to become a US state. But it is a reasonable offer.
It completely takes ALL issues betweent he US and canada off the table. The US would take over canadian border security – no one is crossing the arctic to enter canada – so that means ports and airports. The US international boarder with Canada would disappear. There would be absolutely no trade restrictions and tarrifs on canadian goods.
But if Canada wishes to remain an independent country – they are free to do so. And they are free to deal with the US unhappiness over their border security and trade policies, and the possibility of tarrifs that would destroy the Canadian economy. Canada’s population is the same as that of California. There GDP is about half that of California. There GDP is about the same as NY, FL, and TX – each with half the population of Canada. Canada is about half as important to the US as California. Trump has very successfully made that clear.
With respect to Greenland – since WWII atleast it has been absolutely clear that Greenland is critical to US national security.
Denmark controls Greenland by virtue of a historical claim through the vikings. They also controlled Iceland through a similar claim, but iceland is now independant. At one point they controlled Ireland, Scottland and England through the Vikings. The Danes were once a global Superpower
before the Spanish, before the english, before the US. They are not now.
They own Greenland through international law. And they are free to sell it to the US or not as they choose. I would note that the people of Greenland – who are mostly NOT danish, are not all that happy with Denmark. The US is much closer to them. Their supplies and needs are met almost entirely by North America – not Europe or Denmark.
But it is unlikely the US will invade Greenland.
However Trump has restarted a conversation and I would bet that Greenland ultimately ends up as officially and formally a US teritory as it is part of North america. I would note that Greenland is the ONLY part of the western hemisphere still controlled by a european power.
And that the US has been trying to end that since ….. The Monroe doctrine 200 years ago.
Trump is not off in some comic book world. He is following dozens of US presidents – Jefferson, Munroe, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, President Andrew Johnson, and President Buchanon before him, and president Truman – just to name a few.
With respect to panama – the big deal is the national security problem of China being able to Choke the Panama canal in the event of a conflict – such as over Taiwan.
The other problems with the Panama canal will likely be solved differently.
The Nicaraguan canal dream is older than the Panama Canal. And while a longer canal overall, it is otherwise a better location.
Several private efforts to restart construction have failed. The US does not have good relations witn Nicaragua.
But eventually a Canal there is near certain. It is probably cheaper to build a new state of the art canal in Nicaragua than to upgrade the Panama canal to solve its problems. It is a trade bottleneck today and that is only going to get worse.
The pacific to atlantic route through nicaragua is several days shorter which is alone worth billions.
But right now that is stagnant.
Separately there is real progress on the overland link in southern mexico. This is a massive rail link between two huge automated ports in the pacific and atlantic. This has the disadvantage of requiring unloading and loading, but reduces distances the most, and is uneffected by ship size. A supermax container can unload in the pacific andsmaller containerships can reload on the altlantic headed to different desitinations.
This is an active project and I am sure that Mexico would welcome US investment. But it does NOT allow the movement of warships between oceans which is an important national security matter. There is a similar port to rail effort taking place in Columbia – but that is of far less value to the US, but of greater value to south america.
Regardless, my point is that there is a huge issue involving ocean transport – both of comerce and warships between the oceans and the exclusive ability of panama to control that is near at end.
In the meantime you are a moron if you beleive that in the event of a US conflict with China that US troops would not take over the panama canal within hours – no matter who was president. The US invaded panama in Operation Just Cause under Bush I decades ago just over drug issues.
Which I would remind you with respect to both Canada and Mexico. There is plenty of precident for US military operations in foreign countries over Drugs. We sent troops to Columbia for decades. We invaded panama over drugs.
While you are ranting about Trump you should remember that many US presidents sent troops to Columbia and that Bush invaded Nicaragua.
US military operations in the western hemisphere are moderately common and will occur when our national security is threatened.
Over about 200 years the US drove european powers OUT of the western hemisphere.
This is OUR turf – we have been clear on that since James Munroe.
This is going to become MORE not less important in coming decades as the US becomes less globalist and shifts its focus to The western hemisphere and the pacific.
Since the Nixon and Carter in the 70’s the US has been shifting its foreign policy. We have shiftend to Energy from the US proper, form North America and then from South america. Increasingly the US is NOT tied to the mideast by energy.
Overtime the mideast will increasingly be a European problem – not an american one.
The same is happening with respect to Africa. The US did not F#$K up africa. We did not colonize it. We have little in the way of interests there.
Africa has vast natural resources, but it has crap for ports which is why even though africa was well known to europeans befor the western hemisphere was even on the maps, Africa remains undeveloped. The development of Africa is a European problem – not an american one.
The western hemisphere is going to increasingly become the US domain of power. From Norway to South Africa will be the European domain.
It is Europe that will have the need to deal with the mideast – OR deal with Russia for energy – NOT the US.
And US involvement in europe will diminish with each decade. England is the only truly consequential US trading partner in Europe.
The US will also be more focused on the pacific rim – the most likely US military conflict in the future is in the pacific not Europe.
Our aliances with Taiwan, Japan, AU, NZ and even india, philipines and Vietnam are more important than NATO
The US is reindustrializing. Europe is deindustrializing.
The world is changing – and those of you on the left are stuck practically in the cold war world.
Yes, the US is going to be a “bully” with respect to the world – every nation with the power to do so has ALWAYS been.
nations look after their own interests FIRST.
As to Trump bullying other countries – what exactly is it whenUSAID fund coups in foreign countries or fly’s pride flags in arab countries ?
The US has been meddling int he afairs of other countries for my entire lifetime – and universally done so BADLY.
Trump could NOT possibly do worse. Though I do not expect him to do better.
He is just OVERT rather than COVERT about it.
“Why should Republicans and Conservatives care? ”
They should not. Trump can be trivially reigned in by Republicans in congress whenever they want.
They have the power to do so, they have not. Trump is not king, he merely enjoys congress chosing not to interfere.
Executive orders are directives to the executive branch. They are NOT laws, They have no power outside the executive branch.
This is why the Trump EO on birth right citizenship will be struct down – and why most of the rest of his EO’s will be upheld.
The president can not interfere with the rights of individuals outside of govenment by EO.
“King Trump is destroying that system which Reagan and Eisenhower strongly supported.”
He is ? Eisenhower sent the first Troops to Vietnam. The Bay of piggs was planned under Eisenhower.
Reagan invaded Grenada, and meddled in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
Carter made unitary executive claims to the Supreme court and was mostly upheld. As did Obama and Biden.
Thank you for taking your time to explain the above. I truly appreciate you
Trump the Anti-Reagan says: Ironic that the United States Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights were designed as a counter monarchy and kings.
With that lead-in to the following Never Trumper “He Wants To Be A Dictator” histronics… we’re supposed to believe that The Framers were completely oblivious to the reality of the facts of the day: that the outrageous taxes levied on them, followed by war being made on them by their former country men were the actions of a tyrannical freely elected Parliament, put in power by their fellow English voters back in England.
Those dunces who were The Framers believed it was King George who actually was responsible for choosing to levy those taxes on them, and who decided to make war on them – not the elected Parliament of the day?
And therefore, what The Framers put together as our constitutional documents was aimed at the tyranny of a monarch who supposedly did all those things to them – and NOT to protect against the tyranny of a freely elected democratic government in Parliament? Like the tyranny we’re experiencing again under first Obama and the just completed Obama’s Third Term?
Why would The Framers supposedly write those documents to deal with kings – when we had already decided that there would be no monarchy in America, put in power by any means? When the proven threat they had survived was a tyrannical freely elected government of their peers, elected in a mobocracy governing arrangement?
This Democrat-flavored attack on Trump and smears of Justices Thomas and Alito bear the stench of Democrat apparatchik – one who was hating Reagan and calling him a Nazi, long before Trump even thought looked like he might dabble in politics.
I haven’t read all the Comments. However, it appears that nearly none have spoken to Prof. Turley’s point — claiming you have won when the finish line hasn’t been crossed is foolish to say the least, and as much as Raskin rubs a lot of people the wrong way, he should know better.
If I were ever to be in an Alley with Raskin … God Help me because only one of us will be walking back out.
The Biden administration killed the Keystone XL pipeline. With the stroke of his pen, Biden put numerous *private enterprise* employees out of work — many who were highly skilled (e.g., welders and engineers).
The administration’s callous advice to the highly-skilled unemployed was: Learn to code.
But suddenly, the Left cries crocodile tears over *public* employees (bureaucrats) being fired — including one whose critical talents included carrying bathroom keys.
Leave it to the Left to direct its sympathies in exactly the wrong direction.
# Bidens effort was to beat the US into a 3rd world country and then having no opposition Islam would rise and China. Barack was the name of Mohammed’s steed. Hint hint
Concurrent with the rash of hysterical lawsuits lacking any rational basis is that the NY Times and the Washington Post have become unreadable. The apparent requirement for every story to contribute to a programmed narrative of anti-Trumpism is close to ending any need at all to report news factually and to attempt verification of story authenticity.
Ditto the WSJ. Page one article “President Acts Swiftly to Upend World Order” belongs in the Op-Ed section. Long on opinion, short on reporting.
Trump was apparently mulling returning Washington to federal control and ending home rule.
Wonderful idea, I hope he does it. It is a disgrace as it is now. And a disgrace to the country. A pretty lady with a dirty face.
A better idea is to Return most of DC to Virginia or Maryland.
With the federal govenrment retaining only control of the Federal district – the mall, the capital, and the WH.
It’s spelled “capitol” with an o in accordance with your usage in this instance, John. Thats’s “capitol” when referencing a building, “capital” when referencing a city.
BTW, have you learned to spell “believe”, yet? It’s “i before e except after c”. 😃 🍎
When you have nothing to say pick on spelling, well done moron.
silly child – this is all posts on comments pages not edited manuscripts. You appeaar to be, in a loose comparison, looking at a page of information and then critcizing the color of ink in the print. ok, you get it and the rest of us missed the whole point. who knew it was all about spelling. that’s where the meat of each post resides.
pd: don’t fail to point out my failure to use a question mark in the correct spot of my post. remember, it’s all about spelling – no body brought up syntax.
EAT DOG(E) RASKIN!!!!!!!!!