Below is my column in the Hill on yet another letter from law professors declaring a “constitutional crisis” over the Trump policies. Despite the claims that this is a rogue president ignoring the rule of law, the Administration continues to prevail in some of these cases, including another ruling in favor of the Department of Government Efficiency late on Friday. As stated in the column, it has also lost some cases as did the prior Administration. The point is that, rather than witnessing the collapse of the constitutional system, these cases show that it is continuing to function as designed in sorting out these disputes.
Here is the column:
It’s only March, and we have yet another declaration of a “constitutional crisis.”
The latest dire declaration comes from roughly 950 law professors, who refer generally to actions and policies implemented by President Trump as “beyond his constitutional or statutory authority.”
So — what happens if the “experts” hold a crisis and no one shows up?
After years of such claims, the perpetual crisis has left a dwindling number of people inclined to panic. Many simply have more pressing matters at the moment and have the same reaction of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: “There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.”
The latest letter follows a familiar pattern that has played out like a political perpetual motion machine since the first Trump impeachment. It works something like this: A legal academy composed of largely liberal academics announces a “constitutional crisis” caused by conservatives, and then a largely liberal media runs the story with little scrutiny or skepticism. On most echo-chambered media sites, the public rarely hears an opposing view.
The purging of conservative and libertarian faculty from most universities has been a long-standing problem. In self-identified surveys, professors confirm that some departments lack a single Republican. A study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found that only 9 percent of law school professors in the top 50 law schools identify as conservative.
In other words, it is embarrassingly easy to get 1,000 law professors to sign off on letters claiming endless constitutional crises caused by Trump or conservatives.
Those letters are then fed to eagerly awaiting media outlets. The perpetual machine then whirls and spins as liberal professors feed liberal reporters, who then feed liberals in Congress, who cite the unchallenged consensus of academia and the media.
The New York Times rushed the news to its viewers that “Trump’s Actions Have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say.” The Times interviewed Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who previously called the conservative justices “political hacks” and just published a book titled “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
Chemerinsky breathlessly explained “We never have seen anything like this.”
The problem is that we have. Presidents often negate the prior executive orders of their predecessors, fire their appointees and implement sweeping new changes. Those actions are frequently challenged and some are found to be procedurally or substantially unlawful. Others are upheld.
President Biden was repeatedly found to have violated the constitution without most of these signatories expressing a peep of concern over the mounting “crisis.”
Indeed, some pushed for unconstitutional actions against the overwhelming views of legal experts. Take Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, who also signed this letter to express alarm at Trump pushing the Constitution to the breaking point. Tribe has attacked conservatives in profane diatribes and supported packing the Supreme Court to engineer a liberal majority.
When Biden wanted to circumvent Congress and implement billions in student loan forgiveness payments before the election, Tribe was there. Even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted that Biden could not constitutionally wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars of student loans without congressional action. However, Tribe assured President Biden that it was entirely legal.
It was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and lower courts.
When Biden wanted to impose a national eviction moratorium, he admitted that his own lawyers told him that it would be flagrantly unconstitutional. Pelosi then told him to call Tribe, who assured Biden he had the authority to act alone.
This was also quickly found to be unconstitutional.
Biden was also found to have engaged in racial discrimination and other flagrant constitutional violations.
Of course, none of that is a crisis, and none of these signatories ran to blast fax a letter to the legal academy.
Other signatories, such as Professor Heidi Li Feldman, have declared that conservative justices and lawyers are “lawless” due to their opposing constitutional views. She has called upon law professors not to fall “into complicity with lawlessness.” In other words, conservative jurisprudence, followed by roughly half of the bench, is simply unacceptable and should not be recognized.
If you view conservatives judges and justices as “lawless,” then every decision that they issue can be construed as a “crisis” in failing to adopt your own interpretive approach.
There are good-faith reasons to challenge some of Trump’s actions, as there were under Biden. I have criticized some of those measures. However, Trump has repeatedly pledged to follow adverse court orders while he seeks appeals. That is precisely what he did in his first term, where he complied with opposing rulings, including some issued by his own appointees.
Trump is also prevailing in some of these cases and will likely prevail in many others. Democratic groups have forum-shopped around the country to bring challenges before favorable judges. Some have issued injunctions, while others have not. Others have already been reversed.
For example, the media made great fanfare over restraining orders issued to limit the actions of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. Less coverage was given to later opinions reducing those orders or setting them aside, including a recent order refusing to bar Trump from firing many government employees at USAID.
Likewise, the media and many professors lionized Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger for suing to stop Trump’s firing. When Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington issued her opinion, some of us expressed skepticism over her cited legal authority. Within four days, the D.C. Circuit had reversed her, ruling for Trump. Dellinger then dropped his own case rather than multiply adverse rulings.
None of this means that Trump will prevail in most such lawsuits or that these are not good-faith challenges. However, the record does not suggest a constitutional crisis. It suggests the opposite — a constitutional system that continues to function efficiently and fairly.
The real “crisis” seems to be that Trump is winning in some of these cases. To make matters worse, he is complying with adverse rulings. After an election where many of these same voices declared the imminent death of democracy if Trump were elected, the constitutional system seems to be, inconveniently and stubbornly, very much alive and well.
Of course, opposing these actions on policy or conventional legal grounds would generate little press. It has to be a “crisis” to get headlines and segments on cable news. Stanford law Professor Pamela Karlan and co-signatory described Trump as different, a president “for whom the Constitution [is] essentially meaningless.”
Karlan, who previously testified in favor of impeaching Trump in his first term, ignores the fact that our system does not depend on how Trump feels about the Constitution, even if she did have an insight into his inner self. We have the oldest and most successful constitutional system because it does not rely on the good motivations or values of those in government. It has survived centuries with often hostile presidents due to its checks and balances.
In the end, the seeming unanimity is not reflective of the merits but the membership of the legal academy. From calls to pack the court to curtailing free speech to trashing the Constitution, law professors are like priests who have kept their frocks while losing their faith. And their crisis of faith is the only crisis these professors are facing.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
What do the so-called “Originalists” on the U.S. Supreme Court think about denying constitutional due process to over 40,000 Americans from 2001 until today? This tactic could be used against any American, guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it.
A U.S. citizen without any criminal record can simply be destroyed by the “Originalists” on the U.S. Supreme Court. Denied confrontation and denied all constitutional due process.
As an armchair “Originalist” these Cointelpro style blacklisting tactics sounds more like the actions of King George III than James Madison and the Framers of the Constitution.
Does “Originalist” mean a foreign model of government and not ours? Is the constitutional crisis on the high court itself?
What are you talking about ?
Turley,
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.96.0_5.pdf
New York v. Trump.
The Biden administration never disobeyed a court order. His student loan forgiveness actions were absolutely illegal, but he never violated a court’s explicit order like Trump did in his second month in office.
Under the most conservative definition of the term, a “constitutional crisis” occurs when the Executive branch fails to respect the authority of the other branches of government, including the authority of the courts to adjudicate executive actions. This creates a problem for which our federal government has no answer outside of impeachment (which is a political, not legal remedy).
By focusing on talking heads who often cry wolf, you fail to see that this is no wolf in a sheep’s clothing. This the real deal.
Please cite the Constitution for any power of Congress to tax for “student loans,” understanding that Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for and fund ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare, and the admonition by Thomas Jefferson:
“Taxation”
“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.”
“It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”
– Thomas Jefferson
#74. IMO you’ve made a good point. States can create student loans with State money would be more appropriate but I doubt it would be constitutional.
Originally banks gave SLs but the default was extreme. If the Union needed engineers of every kind I can see giving out SLs for that purpose only for perhaps a period of 5 years or doctors etc. That would be for grad schools of course.
Thomas Jefferson is making it clear that government is severely limited and restricted by the Constitution, in particular, Article 1, Section 8.
Congress has no power to tax and fund “ad libitum.”
The Constitution does not say to Congress, “Do whatever you please.”
That would make Congress omnipotent.
“This the real deal.”
And yet the hysterical Left can’t cite a single example of a “constitutional crisis.”
It tried Ali, which merely revealed the Left’s ignorance of the details of that case.
Then it tried NY v. Trump, a case that was settled some three weeks ago.
Still waiting for an actual wolf to appear.
“Under the most conservative definition of the term, a “constitutional crisis” occurs when the Executive branch fails to respect the authority of the other branches of government, including the authority of the courts to adjudicate executive actions. This creates a problem for which our federal government has no answer outside of impeachment (which is a political, not legal remedy).”
False and distorted. You note impeachment as a remedy – a constitutional crisis – is a constitutional issue not a legal one, and impeachment is a constitutional remedy.
We have had exactly one constitutional crisis in US history – and that was resolved by the civil war.
You talk about respect for authority – as if it is sacred – it is not, it is also not constitutional.
The oath of office reuires fealty to the constitution and the law – Not to idiot Judges.
Regardless, Trump has followed even STupid court orders.
Any plantif or lunatic left wing judge can claim otherwise.
Any lunatic left wing nut judge can order the impossible.
The Judge Amir Ali case appears to have fizzled – despite the SCOTUS tiff – because while SCOTUS did not tall Judge Ali to pound sand which was the correct decision with respect to judicial TROs PRIOR to evidentiary hearings onissues of money and fact.
They did Tell Ali that he could not just order made up payments from plantiffs claims – that invoces had to be provided and magicaly most of the plantiffs disappeared and the $2B in claims for completed work turning into 137,000.
That alone should have you questioning the Judge not DOJ ? Judge Ali initially ordered the payment of $2B because it was ALLEGEDLY owed for work completed. Yet when evidence was required – only a teeny tiny fraction of that was actually owed.
Trump/DOGE/Rubio have now been able to complete the overhaul of USAID – but for a handful of employees it has been shutdown or moved into the State department and after cutting more than 48B in waste and Fraud – about 5% of its budget is left for the actual purpose that Congress budgeted.
Judge Ali has been effectively sidelined – because he has no jurisdiction EXCEPT
REAL PLANTIFFS who are ACTUAL USAID contractors who have COMPLETED work and not been paid, and the reality is that is a pittance.
SCOTUS has not yet grasped that there is a major problem with the authority of the courts.
We defer to judges – even when they are wrong BECAUSE they follow the constitution, the law, the caselaw and they RARELY screw up.
But what we have seen – not just at the moment, but over many years is that judges are NOT following the constitution, the law, and the caselaw – they are acting arbitraily and capriciously and way beyond their authority.
This is a serious problem – it is destroying the authority of the courts.
YOU say that Trump can not just ignore a court decision. As a rule of thumb that is supposed to be correct.
But is there no order that a court can issue that the president can not chose to disobey ?
What if Judge Ali ordered Trump to resign as president ? Or murderthe house majority leader ?
While these are absurd hypotheticals – they hopefully make a point.
Fealty to judicial orders is NOT absolute.
That is the unconstitutional idiocy we see in banana republics.
It is what we have seen repeatedly in south and central american and elsewhere.
Courts in Romania have just banned the lead candidate int he 2025 election.
In Brazil we have the Courts ordering social media to shutdown the accounts of political opposition.
In the US we saw democrats try every trick in the book to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 or to defeat him
be means other than a free and fair election.
These actions destroy the public trust in the courts.
The authority of a court comes ONLY from the widely held beleif that the court is NOT acting outside its authority and that it has followed the constitution and the law.
WE WANT presidents to obey court orders they do not like – while appealing them.
That REQUIRES that courts act within their actual authority, it requires they do their best to follow the law and constitution.
One of the reasons that Alito was correct and Roberts and Barrett were wrong, was that the CORRECT action for a court is to NOT interfere with acts that do NOT cause irreparable harm, until they have been FULLY adjudicated.
The USAID case before Judge Ali was Trivially handled constitutionally and lawfully – accept briefs from the plantiffs and DOJ.
remove any plantiffs from the case that cant not establish they are USAID contractors. Then hold hearings where both parties present evidence as to whether a contract exists, whether it was completed and whether it was paid.
As Alito correctly pointed out – once a judges order to pay $2B is complied with – if the judge erred, getting that $2B back is next to impossible.
That is why the law does NOT order defendents in contract disputes to make payments until AFTER a hearing.
Judge Ali erred – Judge Ali acted outside the constitution, the law and his authority,
and in doing so undermined the “authority of the courts”.
It was SCOTUS’s job to restore trust in the courts – by saying STOP!
No TRO’s on equity issues – such as contract disputes – that is a long standing matter of law.
No plantiffs that do not have standing.
The courts are not god, and when they behave as they are – it is the COURTS authority that is undermined.
And eventually it is the presidents constitutional duty to disobey the court.
It should never happen that the executive does not obey the judiciary.
But the burden of avoiding that is NOT exclusively on the executive.
Just as the courts can not grant TRO’s except to prevent irrepairable harm, they can not risk irrepairable harm by issuing an improvident TRO.
In most instances they executive should obey anyway.
But NOT in all.
I am deeply concerned about what the law schools are turning out because the faculties have become so leftist. I fear we are already seeing it with some of the judges that Biden and Obama nominated. Our legal system is the bulwark of the protection of our liberty and if we have lawyers and judges who do not believe in the system, we are in deep trouble.
A Memo to Someone:
Somebody here posted a youtube video from a movie called An American Carol (2008). I ordered the DVD, and me and Penelope watched the movie on Prime yesterday.
Here are my thoughts. The Movie was NOT funny, and it was disturbing. I think that in 2008, it would have been hilarious, because it was so over the top, But in 2025, the things the movie satired were no longer over the top, and are quite ordinary – the hatred for America, for example.
But it is a great movie to watch, and very well done, and it was sad to see how far we have fallen as a country – that something thought to be ridiculous in 2008, is the norm in 2025.
Thank you whoever for posting the video!
Squeeky, glad you liked it. I mentioned the song about the liberal faculty thinking it’s still 1968, in response to you saying the radical Dems singing “we shall overcome” in the House well were in a time warp.
Trump is trying to stop the war in Ukraine .. . and the old 68′ hippies are determined to stop him.
*give war a chance
Pocahontas shook her head yes.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/87K1GgUa_oQ
Pocahontas says yes.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/87K1GgUa_oQ
The real constitutional crisis is 20+ years of covert blacklisting tactics – like employment tampering!
On many levels this is far worse than a wrongly convicted person being sent to prison (overtly).
Overtly a citizen can hire an attorney and challenge mistakes or outright prosecutorial fraud. A citizen can get constitutional due process.
In the covert world, an innocent American receives a lifetime of punishment – with no criminal record, no charges, no indictment, no judge, no jury and no overt guilty verdict.
This is pure evil and both parties do it! This is the real crisis!
Jonathan: It’s remarkable that over 950 law professors around the country signed a declaration saying we are in a constitutional crisis. The Q is where are your conservative brethren on the other side? No where to be seen. Of course, you blame this on “the purging of conservative and libertarian faculty from most universities”. It’s a claim you make frequently without any evidence. You have been teaching at GW Law for years. Any attempts to “purge” you?
As to Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketelly’s order denying a TRO that doesn’t mean the litigation is over. You also ignore the fact that in a separate parallel decision Judge Jeannette Vargas granted a TRO requested by 19 attorneys general to prevent the DOGE twenty-somethings from accessing Treasury data. That order remains in affect nationwide. You also ignore the 5-4 decision by the SC last week that requires DJT to pay USAID contractors for over $2 billion in contract worked already performed and authorized by Congress. And then there are the 12 other cases with TROs in place against other unlawful actions by DJT and Musk. Seems you have missed a lot of the important cases.
And it looks like some MAGA Republicans who are beginning to stand up to DJT’s unlawful orders. Yesterday, MAGA Senator Rick Scott declared: “Elon Musk does not have the power to fire people. The president of the United States is Donald Trump, and the agency heads are the ones who mange each of their departments…”. This comes after the big fight between Marco Rubio and Musk at the Cabinet meeting last week where Rubio told Musk he had no right to fire workers in the State Dept. That prompted DJT to tell Musk that Cabinet heads of various agencies would make staffing decisions.
In the statement you cite by the over 950 law professors they point out: “The illegality of these actions, even when the illegality has be adjudged in federal courts, does no seem to be deterring the President’s actions. Instead, the President and his administration are openly flirting with disobeying judicial rulings against him. In fact, the President has proclaimed, ‘He who saves his country does not violate any law'”.
The Q is whether the federal courts can actual restrain DJT’s authoritarian and unlawful actions. If the courts are powerless to enforce their rulings then we are definitely in a constitutional crisis!
Mr. Stupid
No, it would be remarkable if you could NOT find 950 law professors to sign such a document. What you are saying is the same as saying “It would be remarkable to find 950 prostitutes to give a BJ!” No, you could find that many in Las Vegas alone.
Law professors have become a cheap bunch of wh0res, and you can find ones who will say anything that promotes the Democratic Party, such as Larry Tribe or Chemercheapsky, whatevah. I would not trust that ho as far as I could throw him! Hmmm. Lawrence Tribe??? Chunk a ho??? EUREKA! An Irish Poem
The Ho-Chunk Tribe???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There was a professor named Larry!
Who for ethics, he really had nary!
He’d lie for a buck
And not give a fvck,
And the theories he spewed were quite scary!
Note: There really is a Ho-Chunk Indian Tribe! They are from like Minnesota or somewhere up in that region. I remember because we used to laugh at the name back in high school.
@squeeky
For some of us it’s a gross mischaracterization because we are a millimeter to the center from the progressive left; for you: you are an actual bigot. The years prove it. Enough, whitey. You hive us all a bad name.
‘give’
@ Dennis McIntyre: “Of course, you blame this on “the purging of conservative and libertarian faculty from most universities”. It’s a claim you make frequently without any evidence.”
Yes I know, reading is hard. But try reading what Turley wrote again, and if you need to “sound the words out”. It’s also OK to move your lips if that works better for you. And to help, because I appreciate the concept of paragraphs can be tricky for beginners, here’s the passage from Turley:
“The purging of conservative and libertarian faculty from most universities has been a long-standing problem. In self-identified surveys, professors confirm that some departments lack a single Republican. A study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found that only 9 percent of law school professors in the top 50 law schools identify as conservative.”
BTW that study comes from “Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 112, 111-189 (2023)” and you can take a look at it (I don’t expect you to read it since it does have some big words) here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4182521 .
Turley’s figure of 9% might be slightly off (I think he’s taking an average of several cohorts) but he is not wrong. The survey results from the top 20 schools – evidently ranked by US News – shows that 81% of their sample of law profs– call themselves “liberal” and only 7% “conservative.” 12% say the are “middle of the road.”
Is that the evidence your looking for?
Dennis – all you have done is prove that nearly 1000 law school professors are MORONS and should not be teaching law.
A “constitutional crisis” is a governmental problem that can not be solved by the constitution.
We have had exactly ONE of those in our history – the issue of slavery and that was solved by the civil war.
Your belief that a president is acting unconstitutionally or lawlessly is NOT a constitutional crisis.
Your naked claim that the president is not obeying court orders – is NOT a constitutional crisis.
Frankly even a president refusing to obey a Supreme court order is NOT a constitutional crisis.
We want presidents to act lawfully and constitutionally – but we have a LONG list of checks and balances to
protect against presidents acting lawlessly and unconstitutionally.
We ALSO want courts to act lawfully and constitutionally.
While there is a strong presumption that in a dispute between the president and the courts that it is the courts that must be obeyed.
That is NOT anywhere in the constitution – nor does it need to be.
A claim by someone that a court oder is not being obeyed is first adjudicated by the judge issuing the order.
That is SOMETIMES resolved by the court modifying its order – we saw that in the Rhode Island case – where the judge revised his order 3 times before dropping the case – because the plantiffs did not have standing.
Anyone not a moron understands that the ERRROR was on the part of the judge – issuing repeated court orders for the benefit of a party that had no legitimate cause of action. But idiots like you think that it was the President who erred.
BTW each of the RI judges orders were obey – as written, and the reason the Judge kept modifying the order was they were written badly.
One of the reasons the case was dropped was because ultimately he figured out that the reason he could not craft a legitimate order was because he did not have a legitimate case.
Put differently the left wing nut judge rediscovered hundreds of years old caselaw and finally followed it and tossed he case.
Similar things have happened with nearly all these 100+ democrat lawfare cases.
There have been relatively few TRO’s issued – nearly all of those are now gone – as the courts entered them improperly.
I would note Trump OBEYED them – until they were withdrawn.
It is a problem – if the president does not obey a cort order.
It is a problem if the court orders something unconstitutional or lawless.
But NEITHER of those is a constitutional crisis.
It is NOT a constitutional crisis – if the president does not obey a supreme court order.
It is NOT a constitutional crisis if congress refuses to impeach and remove a president that has disobeyed a supreme court order.
It is just our system of checks and balances at play.
Where are conservatives – they are busy writing the briefs that have resulted in Trump winning nearly all these 100+ cases – either at the trial court level, the appeals court level or at the supreme court.
Even Trump’s losses – such as the Judge Ali USAID case have ultimately proven WINS.
While Roberts and ACB got it wrong. Ultimately Ali was unable to direct $2b in funds to be spent,
Because in REALITY there was a teeny tiny fraction of that in contracted, invoiced, completed work.
Contra your claim – the “constitutional crisis” is that ultimately the courts are NOT letting left wing nuts prevail.
There are 3 major sequences of cases
First – Trump’s birth right citizenship EO. Trump will lose that at the supreme court for multiple reasons,
he is wrong about the constitution and the issue is outside the powers of the president regardless.
Meanwhile a court has stayed trump’s order and the stay is being obeyed.
Next are the spending cases.
If you honestly think there is any doubt that the president can audit federal spending – your brain dead.
Do you honestly think there is any doubt the president can stop wasteful fraudulent or corrupt spending ?
There is absolutely no way that you win on either of those issues.
There are a few lessor related issues.
Cancelling existing contracts has a number of contractual issues.
There is ZERO doubt cancelling contracts is within the power of the president.
But that does not alter the fact that the contractor MAY have a claim for payment for completed work and for damages.
These are NOT matters that ever justify a TRO, or even a court order without an evidentiary hearing.
The next is whether the presidents actions thwart the will of congress as established by the budget.
Cutting waste, fraud and corruption DO NOT.
Using waste Fraud and corruption as a pretext to thwart the will of congress does.
But the courts do NOT have authority to address that until CONGRESS challenges the cuts.
It is NOT for random 3rd parties to decide that the president is thwarting the will of congress.
If and Only If congress challenges a presidents spending cuts – then does the court decide if the presidents actions are a pretext
or just eliminating waster fraud and corruption.
Next Temporary pauses on spending have been routine in the past. Presidents have used them for many reasons including negotiating leverage and they are free to do so. It is only when temporary becomes permanent that there is an issue, and then only if congress makes a claim.
Again – judges can not take up claims against the the executive EXCEPT by those who have standing. For budgets that is solely congress.
The next major issue is federal employment.
But for a few specific constraints put on the president by congress the president can fire anyone in the executive branch at any time for any reason or none at all. There is absolutely no doubt or issue with respect to that.
There are a FEW places where congress has passed laws. This applies to a tiny portion of Trump’s firings.
Humpry’s executor – a new deal scotus ruling with Trump – like presidents Carter and Biden sought to get tossed, bars the president from firing the bipartisan board members running a so called independent agency. Trump fired a board member on the NLRB, a district court has issued a TRO, eventually this will be decided by the supreme court. A long line of recent cases strongly suggests Trump will win and Humphrey’s executor will get reversed. Regardless there is no constitutional crisis.
Separately Trump has fired the heads of agencies that Congress has legally precluded the president from firing. Numberous cases before these have found that congresses efforts to restrive the presidentc power to fire agency heads are unconstitutional. These decisions are both well established and recent. Even the DC court of appeals could not find Trump did not have the power to fire the head of OSC.
And Dellinger was so afraid of the ruling that would result he dropped the case.
again no constitutional crisis.
Next – buyout offers are perfectly legal – you are nuts if you think SCOTUS will find otherwise.
Firing probationary federal employees is perfectly legal – even congress has not prohibited that.
Next the president has unfettered power to fire pretty much any federal employee at anytime. HOWEVER union contracts and civil service laws MIGHT result in successful damages claims by the employee – they will NOT result in reinstatement.
That is pretty much all the lawfare against Trump – and there is not a constitutional crisis within 1M miles.
“As to Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketelly’s order denying a TRO that doesn’t mean the litigation is over.”
Actually it pretty much does.
It means that DOGE will be allowed to audit treasury starting the day the TRO was dropped.
There is no putting the genie back in the bottle.
” You also ignore the fact that in a separate parallel decision Judge Jeannette Vargas granted a TRO requested by 19 attorneys general to prevent the DOGE twenty-somethings from accessing Treasury data. That order remains in affect nationwide.”
For the moment, but unlikely for long. You fail to understand that TRO’s are TEMPORARY.
Vargas will either drop the TRO or there will be an easily apaealable split with Kotar -Kelley.
Regardless, it MAY be withing the courts power to enforce privacy requirements.
It is not in her power to prevent an audit.
One of the reasons that Trump won in the Kotar-Kelley case is because the DOGE 20 somethings are bound to as high or higher standards of disclosure than treasury officials.
Do you really beleive that the Supreme court is going to rule that the Treasury can not be audited ?
” You also ignore the 5-4 decision by the SC last week that requires DJT to pay USAID contractors for over $2 billion in contract worked already performed and authorized by Congress”
Actually while ACB and Roberts got it wrong – that case FIZZLED – becaus eACB and Roberts did REQUIRE that Judge Ali confirm with contracts and invoices that only completed work was being ordered paid, and low and behold – all but a teeny tiny fraction of the $2B disappeared.
I beleive as of end of the day yesterday that case is done. USAID has been dissolved. Most of the spending is stopped, most of them employees are laid off. Whether you like it or not the courts ultimately decided Trump’s actions were constitutional.
“And then there are the 12 other cases with TROs in place”
If you say so – I am not aware of 12 TRO’s still in place – regardless there were over 100+ cases – and according to YOU only 12 resulted in intact TRO’s. That means in something like 88 cases the judges determined that there was not irrepairable harm or the plantiffs were unlikely to win or the plantiffs had no standing.
“against other unlawful actions by DJT and Musk.”
That is a legal conclusion that have not been established. The fact that there is a TRO in place and the case has not died tells us very little about the end result of the case.
Most of the 100+ cases and TRO’s have been resolved wither entirely or mostly in Trump’s favor.
Even your alleged SCOTUS win was a fizzle.
” Seems you have missed a lot of the important cases.”
Not that you have pointed out.
“MAGA Senator Rick Scott declared: “Elon Musk does not have the power to fire people. The president of the United States is Donald Trump, and the agency heads are the ones who mange each of their departments…”.”
This is correct, No one has claimed otherwise. Musk has not fired anyone.
Musk is conducting an audit and making recomendations to the president and the head of agencies.
Scotts remarks are an expression of frustration with idiots like you that have no clue what is actually happening.
“This comes after the big fight between Marco Rubio and Musk at the Cabinet meeting last week where Rubio told Musk he had no right to fire workers in the State Dept. That prompted DJT to tell Musk that Cabinet heads of various agencies would make staffing decisions.”
Rumours and gossip. Trump has confirmed that as you portrayed this did not happen and that Musk and Rubio are on the same page.
And Rubio confirmed that USAID has been shutdown – nearly exactly as Musk recomended.
“In the statement you cite by the over 950 law professors they point out: “The illegality of these actions, even when the illegality has be adjudged in federal courts, does no seem to be deterring the President’s actions. Instead, the President and his administration are openly flirting with disobeying judicial rulings against him. In fact, the President has proclaimed, ‘He who saves his country does not violate any law’”.”
The problem with the above remark is that it is from an alternate reality. The 100+ left wing lunatic lawsuits were anticipated. The EO’s were crafted lawfully and constitutionally. Trump has already prevailed in most cases. He has had MINOR constraints in a few, but he has not LOST a single case.
Nor will he.
SCOTUS is not EVER going to rule that Trump can not order DOGE to audit the federal governemtn.
SCOTUS is never going to rule that Trump can not cut waste and fraud and corruption.
SCOTUS is never going to rule that Trump can not fire nearly anyone in the executive he pleases.
What MAY happen is SOME spending cuts will be restored – as going beyond waste and Fraud and corruption.
Federal contractors ultimately will get paid for work performed and possibly some damages for work canceled.
That does not change the fact that the work can be canceled.
Some federal employees may get back pay for imperfect firing.
None of that is a constitutional crisis.
“The Q is whether the federal courts can actual restrain DJT’s authoritarian and unlawful actions. If the courts are powerless to enforce their rulings then we are definitely in a constitutional crisis!”
First this would not be a constitutional crisis. Congress would be free to impeach – or NOT.
Next – Trump’s actions are neither authoritarian nor unlawful.
Presidents fire people – as Biden did.
Presidents cancel contracts.
Presidents cut waste fraud and corruption.
All that is unique here is the zeal with which Trump and DOGE are proceeding.
And there is nowhere in the constitution that says Zeal in exceuting executive power is unconstitutional.
Professor Turley,
When was the last time you read Federalist #78? Key to the entire system of checks and balances is the independence of the judiciary:
FEDERALIST 78: “Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
If the judiciary cannot rely on the Executive to ensure the efficacy of its judgments, the entire basis for our separation of powers crumbles. This is why an Executive that ignores the judiciary – even one at the District Court level – is in fact a constitutional crisis.
Trump has ALREADY disobeyed court orders. Biden never did. If the judiciary cannot depend on the executive to aid in the “efficacy of its judgments,” we entire the realm of a constitutional crisis. This was not the issue with Biden because he never disobeyed a court order (including during the student debt fiasco).
THE POWER TO ADJUDICATE, NOT EXECUTE
The judicial branch is vested NO executive power by the Constitution and can produce no legal basis to usurp or exercise executive power.
The judicial branch has no authority to exercise executive power in any aspect, facet, degree, or amount.
No legislation or adjudication that usurps and exercises executive power is constitutional.
The executive Power, all of the executive Power, is vested in the President, in exclusion of every other individual, branch, or entity.
The court’s decision can only be that the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, has the power to adjudicate but not exercise executive power.
The Constitution distributes the unassailable, absolute power of the King in distinct and particular areas of governance.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,…” and those judges must be impeached and convicted “during [bad] Behaviour.”
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
What are you talking about? What “executive power” has a court claimed?
Are you trying to say that an injunction or TRO is an executive power? (It’s not.)
The judicial branch has the vested power merely to adjudicate; its adjudication shall not exercise any facet, aspect, degree, or amount of executive power.
The judicial power is vested in the judicial branch—the judicial power, the whole judicial power, and nothing but the judicial power, so help you God.
The executive power is vested in a President – the executive power, the whole executive power, and nothing but the executive power, so help you God.
Any adjudication by the judicial branch that constitutes any facet, aspect, degree, or amount of the exercise of executive power is unconstitutional.
Next question?
This said absolutely nothing. What is your argument? That judicial review is not a thing?
Anonymous, you post such drivel and lies when you state Biden never disobeyed court orders. Nonsense. The Biden Administration was the most lawless administration in history–from disobeying court orders (e.g.. the student loan rulings that he didn’t have the legal authority to forive loans) to the complete failure to enforce immigration laws or protect the border.
Biden first used the HEREOES Act of 2002, which allows the Secretary of Education to waive or modify provisions of federal student loan law if necessary during an emergency. The Supreme Court disagreed 6-3.
Biden did not continue to cancel debt using that program. He then expanded loan forgiveness for specific groups (i.e., people who went into public service or who attended fraudulent schools) and used a new income-driven repayment plan to offer relief, which were also blocked by the courts.
These were NOT a defiance of the SCOTUS case from 2023 because SCOTUS did NOT rule that the Biden administration could not cancel all student loan debt. It merely held that Biden could not cancel student loan debt in a specific way, namely the HEROES Act. The other two routes were invalidated under the Higher Education Act of 1965.
What court order did Biden defy? I am happy to acknowledge I am wrong, if you can cite a single judge’s order that chastises Biden for failure to obey an order. But, you can’t because it never happened.
You then enter a non-sequitur superlative by claiming Biden was the most lawless administration in history.
I never claimed that the student loan forgiveness programs were legal – THEY WEREN’T! But, your statement suggests you misunderstand the point of the argument. Many presidents take actions which are illegal following a court’s adjudication of the case. That does not create a constitutional crisis.
A constitutional crisis occurs when the executive IGNORES the court order and takes an action anyway. Absent impeachment (which is a political remedy, and therefore cannot be relied upon when the same party controls the legislature and the presidency), there is no way to check the authority of a president who simply ignores the courts.
That is what has ALREADY happened in the first days of Trump’s presidency. Do you understand the difference?
“That is what has ALREADY happened in the first days of Trump’s presidency.”
Care to cite a single case?
If you use Ali, you’re showing your ignorance of the facts of that case.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.96.0_5.pdf
New York v. Trump, Judge McConnell: “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.”
Is that specific enough?
“Is that specific enough?”
That was resolved some three weeks ago.
Try to keep up.
Care to try again?
“Trump has ALREADY disobeyed court orders.”
Care to cite and explain a single example?
If you try to cite Ali’s orders, then you do not grasp the facts of that case.
See above. New York v. Trump.
“See above. New York v. Trump.”
Resolved three weeks ago.
As the above commenter noted, your hysteria is clouding your sight.
You read Federalist 78 but clearly did not understand it.
Contra to what you were claiming – Hamilton was saying that if the courts do not have the support of the executive or the judiciary they are impotent. That there is NO constitutional crisis that comes solely from ignoring the courts.
That if the executive ignores the courts the legislature can step in or NOT. that BOTH choices are acceptable.
But all that said – we are NOT anywhere near there.
We do have a crisis – a crisis in the confidence in the judiciary. The ACB Roberts decision turned into a fizzle. USAID is dead and only a tiny part of the alleged $2B was paid – the rest was typical of the left – “fake news”.
But the reason Alito not ACB and roberts are correct is SCOTUS missed an oportunity to tell the lower courts to return to sanity.
Ultimately some of these cases will get to SCOTUS.
In what world do you think SCOTUS is going to decide that the President can not audit government spending ?
In what world do you think SCOTUS is going to decide that the president can not cut waste, fraud and corruption ?
In what world do you thing SCOTUS is going to decide that the president does not have broad powers to fire ?
If Trump loses at all – he loses on the far edges.
It is likely that SCOTUS will reverse Humprhy’s executor. But if it does not – the NLRB board member Trump fired will be able to remain.
The unconstitutionality of laws restricting the presidents power to fire the single person heads of agencies was established with the CFPB case and the SS administrator case in the prior Biden and Trump presidencies – but even reversing that is small potatoes.
At best you get a handful of firings that are rejected.
With certainty SCOTUS is going to require completed work to be paid for – though in the Case of USAID that turned out to be a bit more than 100K not $2B – why anyone beleives those on the left I do not know ?
It is likely there will be small damages for some cancelled contracts.
But there is no world in which SCOTUS decides that the president can not cancel contracts.
The big case that does not exist is whether the president can using waste fraud and corruption as a pretext eliminate entire budget line items as a policy matter. That case does not exist – because only congress can bring it.
So long as they do not – their silence means they do not oppose Trump spending cuts.
You seem to expect the Judiciary to stop Trump from doing things that there is very little doubt he can do.
And where the best case scenario for those challenging Trump’s actions is tiny wins arround the edges.
Regardless, contra the left – Trump is not ignoring the judiciary. He has no reason to. He will get what he wants on apeal,
and even when his own polls are dropping slowly – Democrats are dropping even more. Trump is nearly twice as popular as congressional democrats.
Constitutionally, legally and politically – Trump is winning.
But lets say the courts present more than a speed bump. Trump will obey – because that is a big political win.
“This is why an Executive that ignores the judiciary – even one at the District Court level – is in fact a constitutional crisis.”
That is false in that it is not happening, and false in that it is not a constitutional crisis.
“Trump has ALREADY disobeyed court orders. Biden never did.”
ROFL, Trump has had some problems complying with orders that were stupid or impossible.
The RI judge had to revise his TRO 3 times before dropping it – because Trump complying with the order created real problems.
Those of you on the left have been rope-a-doped.
Ordinary people my not be constitutional law experts.
But they KNOW that firing people is not a constitutional crisis.
That cutting waste fraud and corruption is not a constitutional crisis.
Bernie Sanders hires tranny singer a few days ago! Democrats really have an ear for good music!
Floyd,
I had to check to see that was not a Bee article but real. And they wonder why so many sane and normal people are leaving their party.
That is what I was talking about earlier – that stuff which would have seemed ridiculous a few years ago is the norm today. That is why me and Penelope quite doing Pansies for Plato. We could not keep up with the Democratic Party insanity. But it was fun while it lasted! We were also ahead of our time, it seems, by 10 years!
https://pansiesforplato.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/whiny-white-people-testify-before-senate-about-dead-relatives-white-lives-dont-matter-part-5/
Can’t wait to see this poser’s song against Muslims and Mohammed. Come on tough guy/gal, be a revolutionary and attack the religion of peace.
I guess Islam treats gays, and especially trans people, with respect and kindness. Well, if you don’t count the throwing off of roofs.
“If they don’t stand for something, they will fall for anything.”
– Dr. Gordon A. Eadie, January, 1945
“The road to hell is paved with Ivy League degrees.” —Thomas Sowell
Unfortunately…So it the New Silk Road….
I love that Lin! Pithy, perfect and on point.
Who the —- is Tomboy So well?
typical racist statement from a progressive liberal fascist
Were the American Founders and the Framers of the Constitution “racist?”
You know they say, “Birds of a feather flock together,” or, “Biological bipeds of identical plumage are gregarious.”
All seems pretty natural to me, comrade, in diametric opposition to the direct orders from your “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
If Americans enjoy the freedom of speech, do they not also enjoy the freedom of thought, opinion, perspective, distinction, choice, discrimination et al.?
You’re pretty —— up, huh?
“I would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Cambridge, MA phone book than by the Harvard faculty.” –William F. Buckley
William F. Buckley was a conservative. He’d vomit on MAGA.
It demonstrates how ignorant you are of William Buckley. You don’t understand his most basic thinking.
Give the choices we have today – between neocons, establishment republicans and MAGA – he would pick MAGA without any doubt.
Given a choice between MAGA and Woke – he would pick MAGA.
Given a choice between MAGA and democrats today – he would pick MAGA.
I am libertarian – and like LOTS of libertarians, and an increasing number of old school liberals like Turley,
I have very little time to criticise Trump or MAGA,
not because they are perfect, but because they are 10,000 times over the lessor evil.
But if I were to criticise Trump and Musk – it is they are NOT doing enough or going fast enough.
We need to cut the federal budget by $1.75T NOW, not over the next 10 years.
I find myself arguing with left wing nuts who say Trump is gunning for Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid.
Because that is a LIE.
But Trump SHOULD be targeting them.
It will be really hard to get rid of SS, HI and Medicaide. It will be even harder to keep them.
Regardless, Trump, Musk and Republicans did NOT make the mess that they are trying to clean up.
YOU DID.
Republicans have protected Social Security and Medicare – because it is popular.
That does not change that they are abysmally stupid ideas imposed on us by democrats.
Government can screw up just about everything. Given enough power and time it will screw up everything.
Mark Thornton –
Can you name ANYTHING that Govenrment has not screwed up ?
One of the reasons for Limited govenrment is that the less govenrment we have the greater our ability to keep a watchful eye on it.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”
Can you name ANYTHING that Govenrment has not screwed up that was not the brain child of democrats ?
One wonders when Democrats will start self-immolating
CNN’s Van Jones: “Listen, the Democratic Party is going through a massive set of internal crises. You have a party that got trapped two ways. one, defending a broken status quo that nobody likes because they thought that Donald Trump was going to make it worse. But when you’re defending the status quo, you’re going to lose. And then offending most people in the country, calling everybody sexist and racist and transphobic and every other name, and then saying, please follow us. That’s not a good strategy, folks. Defending a broken status quo and offending most of the country, turns out, is not as popular as my party thought it was going to be. And so it’s going to take a while for people to get it figured out.”
CNN? That’s Karl Marx’s Comrade Van Jones, as in anti-American, anti-Constitutionalist Van Jones, as in direct and mortal enemy.
That’s right, Turley, keep shoveling chum to the disciples so they won’t notice that the stock market is crashing, a government shutdown is looming, Republicans are trying to cut Medicaid to give more money to American oligarchs, which will cause Americans who are elderly, disabled and poor to die, Canada and Mexico have symbolically flipped us the bird and have enacted reciprocal tariffs, Trump tariffs have already caused prices to go up, performers are cancelling at the Kennedy Center since stupid declared himself the CEO and he has done 180 on American policy over Ukraine–despite widespread bipartisan support to help Ukraine. Trump has rescinded sanctions against Russia, cut off intel and all aid for Ukraine, and is doing everything he can to help Russia, not just defeat Ukraine, but including trying to get it reinstated to the G-7. Turley tries to make the hog sound reasonable by arguing that he is complying with court orders–so what? Does he deserve a cookie, too? People are SUPPOSED to obey court orders–but Trump has indicated he may not do so, and there’s evidence that he has flaunted some of them. The big difference between what Biden did that was reversed by courts and what the fat one is doing is who the intended beneficiaries are–Trump was put into office by American oligarchs, who set up MAGA media to spin facts and lies to get him elected to roll back regulations and for huge tax breaks; Biden’s actions were calculated to help middle class Americans. What’s really going on shouldn’t be a shock to anyone–it was spelled out in Project 2025–something else Trump lied about–but it’s all there–and most Americans STILL oppose it. So, Turley criticizes law professors who point out that Trump IS, indeed, a huge threat to democracy. They are right, and they aren’t being paid for their opinions by American oligarchs and MAGA media.
@Gigi
*Gigi post a bunch of incoherent chum and then accuses the person of providing a space for it of writing chum*.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are in 2025, or how it just pushes sane people (most of us) further, and further away?
Dear James: unless you have reading comprehension issues, you are aware that I KNOW that you MAGATS cannot be swayed by facts. You also should KNOW that, according to statistics Turley publishes, that tens of thousands more people read this blog than you devoted (or paid–more likely) MAGATS who call people like me and Dennis liars and dispute whatever we publish as well as the source. Of course the truth seems “ridiculous” to either a purchased MAGAT or a delusional one, but the stock market IS crashing, Republicans are trying to severely cut Medicaid, which will leave vulnerable, elderly, disabled and poor Americans with limited or no health care, Trump is trying to help Russia defeat Ukraine, and everything Trump is doing was already set forth in Project 2025 that he lied about. You MAGATS are not reasonable or even sane people because MAGA media has an answer for everything–they are pushing the lie that protesters at town halls and who call Republican and Democrat members of Congress to complain are being paid to do so. They lie about opinion polls, and cover up all of the Trump lies. Trump is flopping, badly, alienating our allies, insulting our closest neighbors, and all of the predictions about his tariffs destroying the economy are coming true. But, you MAGATs don’t believe it–I KNOW that. You don’t need to remind me.
GooGoo
Apparently you need to be reminded to STFU…no one cares what you think.
Gigi: I truly wonder whether you could survive without the “chum” you glean everyday from your chosen media sources, then transfer to this blog. Do you think on your own at all? My inquiring mind wants to know. thanking you in advance, yours truly, lin.
Lin, I am convinced Gigi is seriously mentally ill. It is futile to engage her, and a waste of time to read her comments.
Hello there NotSoOld: I only read her first line, which is what prompted my comment.
-While I got you here, did you read any of Tribe’s contributions when in law school? (I did not-not intentionally at least; I just don’t recall his name at all until into the 2000s, -and even then, my inference was that he was fairly biased. It seems that lately, he has gotten much more acerbic, as has “Gigi.”
Hi Lin. I was never assigned a case book by Tribe. His treatise on American Constitutional Law has been around since 1978. I recall using it as a reference one or two isolated times, but that was it. That was in the early 1990s (I went to law school mid-career). Although the book may have had a liberal bent at the time, it struck me as within the lines of sanity. Not sure that can be said anymore, at least of Tribe himself; he seems to have gone crazy and tarnished his reputation. The latest edition of his treatise is the Third Edition, but I don’t have a copy of it nor have I looked it up online for any legal research, so I don’t know if the treatise itself is still sane. I would bet so because of pressure from the publisher not to be overly wacky, but what do I know?
Yeah, I was thinking of JT’s line, “… law professors are like priests who have kept their frocks while losing their faith.”
I went to a Jesuit law school. If you could see under the frocks of the Jesuit monk professors, you would probably see khakis and loafers. If Tribe were a monk, you might see baggy sweats and Olukai sandals, ha ha. (just kidding, I love Olukai).
Lin – my new favorite Dem senator is John Fetterman. He wears the sweats on the Senate floor, but without the cloak.* As the Bee reported recently, Fetterman has caused a relaxation in the dress code, so now the octogenarian senators are showing up in their hospital gowns.
*My theory is that Fetterman had a near-death experience shortly after arriving in the Senate, when he was hospitalized for a while, and he was red-pilled in a dramantic way.
Lin and Oldman, I have never run into any of Tribe’s writings except when reading political absurdities that he promulgated under Biden and laughable examples of his insanity on this and a few other sites.
True. and to think that he was referred to Biden tells us all that we need to know about his reputation for where he might go on an issue….instead of forum shopping, we have expert shopping, don’t we
(burst out laughing at Bee reference, thanks! gotta go now
Time, if not carefully observed and respected, makes fools of otherwise brilliant people. Tribe is an example in the legal profession similar to the cardiac surgeon who had to rely on his residents to continue operating. We have had that in Presidents such as Biden, who was non-campus mentus, though the Democrats didn’t notice because he was always stupid.
There comes a time when all of us should step down.
OldManFromKS,
Well said. Anyone with a case of TDS like Gigi has, is seriously mentally ill.
Old man and lin: tell me–is the stock market crashing–is it at its lowest level in months–since before the election–or is mainstream media making it up? Explain how my pointing out these and other facts makes me not just “mentally ill” but “seriously mentally ill”. Insults are cheap for people like you who believe in a convicted felon who constantly insults other people and who is a chronic liar. But that doesn’t change the facts or the truth.
The stock market is down as Trump would not rule out a possible recession over the weekend. As I have stated here on the good professor’s blog more than once, we are going to see a recession in 2025. Biden used government spending to keep the economy afloat, aka Bidenomics. Bidenomics, which also gave us Bidenflation, favored a very small group of people at the expense of everyone else. We all knew it. We all saw it at the grocery checkout at the gas pump. Now that Trump is in the WH, he stopped that spending. And he is cutting useless Biden government jobs and fraud, waste and abuse. Myself and other economists are predicting a sharp but short lived recession. Some say six to eight months. I am thinking more like a year. But once we get on the other side, our economy is going to be much stronger. Trump is moving the economy from a public/government economy to a private economy. The re-shoring of jobs due to the tariffs will also provide more American jobs. Unlike the Biden economy where wages failed to keep up with Bidenflation, the emerging private based economy, wages should exceed inflation.
I am not an economist, but as a farmer, I understand markets. Last year of the Biden admin, I only did 9% in the stock market. I average 14% I saw and knew what was going to happen with the COVID lockdowns. I pulled out of the stock market before the crash, then got back in when I called bottom. That year, I dodged a -16% loss and ended the year up 23%.
Upstate, I don’t look at the stock market as a metric for what the future holds. Its ups and downs represent the market players who make money buying and selling with the money of others. Of course, the market will look bad when pain is near, but all the players know the stock market will look much better in a while. The big players make money in two ways. One recognizes that stocks will fall and rise, so they sell to buy more of the same stock during the fall. If they are correct, the outcome for them is a big boost in profit. The second way is that regular people fear selling and then buying later. The brokers make a profit on the ups and downs. We would not see such rapid fluctuations if one is not permitted to rebuy the same stock for a year or two.
There are other things to look at. Demographics and energy are two important ones, but not the only ones. Demographics help predict long-term events. Young people and older adults, in general, are not creating wealth. There is an age sector where most wealth is created (outside of the aged billionaires). If the working population creating wealth is small even without excess spending, the government has trouble keeping up. The West, including Japan and China (I am not sure about India), will soon find this imbalance. However, for many reasons, the US will be able to manage it better than the rest, and its wealth will rise.
Energy supplies, primarily carbon-based, are another thing that will cause the US to thrive better than the others. China, our most significant enemy, lacks them.
I should mention AI because China has the people to beat us, but we have the energy to outperform China.
It may take a slight dip in the future and a wealthy America for decades. Trump is doing his part by making the government expenditures fall so that when the severe dip in working people occurs, we don’t have such a big nut to crack.
My take for the future is that the US will do exceptionally well for decades. The rest of the West will likely not be as fortunate.
That’s all low class MAGA knows how to do. Take credit when anything goes right. Blame when things go wrong. Trump said he’d balance the budget in 2016 and it would be easy. He outspent Obama. He said he’d bring inflation down fast and it would be easy. Of course. low class MAGA ignores this and does what it always does… blame.
“Old man and lin: tell me–is the stock market crashing–is it at its lowest level in months–since before the election–or is mainstream media making it up?”
DJIA
3/11/2025 41,333
1/10/2025 41,925
11/1/2024 42,052
9/6/2024 40,345
8/6/2024 38,703
3/11/2024 38,768
These are all recent lows, but lows happen, one is happening now.
If the market does not recover after a CR is passed – THEN you can start to worry ?
Is the media making it up – not exactly. Are they distorting the facts to suit a narrative – absolutely.
But unless you are a day trader the current stock marker does not matter unless it is even lower in 6 months.
Or unless it drops far more than this and far faster.
“Explain how my pointing out these and other facts makes me not just “mentally ill” but “seriously mentally ill”. ”
Because most of your facts …. Aren’t.
There was not russian collusion.
The hunter biden laptop was real.
Biden and Obama were engaged in mass social media censorship.
Covid almost certainly came from a lab in china.
N95 masks do not work against repiratory viruses – cloth masks do not work against most anything.
Lockdowns, social distancing, did nothing.
The vaccine was an amazing accomplishment in 6 months.
Its risks outweighed its benefits for anyone who was not over 55 and/or had multiple comorbities.
Regardless it was never going to stop the spread of Covid.
Bidenomics was a disaster.
Biden has been non-compis mentis for probably atleast 8 years.
Conversely thus far Trump is as competent as ever and full of energy.
You have beleived and spread a long long laundry list of lies
So yes – you are seriously mentally ill.
approx 75% of white liberal women between 25035 self identify as suffering from anxiety and depression.
You may only fit a few of those demographic criteria – but you are clearly suffering from a disconnnect from reality.
“Insults are cheap”
They are – and you use them all the time – but get your dander up when you are justifiably insulted.
Gigi, Google says the DJIA is up 7.37% since this date last year.
Unless you are a day trader – fixating on daily swings is just going to drive you nuts.
the Stock market will be down until the government has passed a Continuing Resolution.
After that how much it comes back – will depend on what passes, The more that CR thwarts Trump’s efforts to cut waste Fraud and corruption – the less rebound their will be.
The stock market is also unhappy about the Tarriffs – in the short run.
I do not expect there to be a long run. i expect that Mexico and Canada will cave.
Because the consequences of trying to slug it out with the US economy are enormous.
‘
Whatever you think US problems are right now – this is the largest and strongest economy in the world – Biden was actually right about that,
but that has also been true for decades.
Canada has had little growth in 15yrs.
A country with the population of California and the GDP of Texas is not winning an economic contest with the US.
What YOU call “bullying” people with working class jobs in the US call “America First”.
Republicans do not as of yet Fully own the working class vote in the US.
But if those of you on the left want to keep fighting against them – they will.
Gigi – you lost the right to call anyone a liar.
In many colleges/grad schools, students used to have to practice “drills” and learn exit strategies for dangerous external forces (tornadoes, air strikes, fires).
Now the danger is from within, -for captive audiences (infiltration, indoctrination, punishment for resisting viewpoints).
(I should more correctly say “isolation” or “belittlement” instead of “punishment”
I would love to hear what you think constitutes a constitutional crisis, if an executive branch rejecting court orders does not somehow qualify.
In con law, this exact hypo was used when describing the pros and cons of the unitary theory of the executive. Absent impeachment, there is no way to stop an executive that does not abide by court orders.
With a majority of the GOP in Congress, impeachment is not possible. Thus, Trump’s rejection of court orders must qualify, no?
Turley conveniently leaves out this material fact of course above.
When did Trump ignore a Court order and did you ever notice Biden and the Student loan fiasco? The president, Biden, came out and stated publicly that “the Court said I couldn’t forgive student loans, but I am doing so anyway”.
Good answer, I’ll skip mine. (I think it’s from George.)
Really Lin? I thought you were a lawyer. How do you not see the difference here? No Biden action violated a court order. Can you please provide even a single example of a judge’s order, which in any way is equivalent to Judge McConnell directly defying his order to release billions of dollars in federal grants?
If there isn’t a similar court order (even in the student loan forgiveness context), then how can you possibly equate the two administration’s actions?
Surely, partisan bias must, at some point, give in to basic logic and reason? (As lawyers, we must often set aside our opinions to advance the client’s interests, so this cannot be a foreign concept to you)
No Biden action violated a court order?
Didn’t Biden continue his student loan forgiveness after the court ruled it unlawful…?
Bribery, fraud, extortion, income tax evasion, bank fraud and aiding and abetting illegal immigration are all another matter all together. You really can’t say lawful and Biden together…
George: sorry, had a meeting, just coming back.
No, my point was directed toward your and others’ statements that Trump defied a court order, not whether Biden defied court order. You and others keep bringing up Trump’s defiance. I was trying to quickly respond to your comment at 2:49 above before I left.
I believe Trump’s lawyers appropriately and timely filed leave to appeal the district court’s order, which generally accommodates a non-compliant party until grant or denial of the appeal is rendered, n’est ce pas? I think F.R. 8?
addendum: yes, I just had time to look it up; it is Rule 8
(I had relied on memory, which is not always reliable!)
In New York v. Trump, the judge held that the administration violated a court order. I don’t see any accepted Rule 8 filing that was made prior to that order to comply. So I have no idea what you are referencing.
An example of Trump disobeying a court order:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/trump-unfreezing-federal-grants-judge-ruling.html
Biden never disobeyed a court order with the student loan forgiveness fiasco. He took an act that was properly adjudicated as unconstitutional, and then he obeyed the court’s decision. He then subsequently used a completely different legal theory to wipe out more student loan debt. Crucially, nothing that he did following the initial court decision disobeyed the court’s rulings.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/22/politics/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court/index.html
If Trump stopped the funding freeze and allowed the cases to come to a judgment, then subsequently tried a different legal argument not discussed in the original cases to accomplish the same thing, then his actions would equate to Biden’s. And that would NOT be a constitutional crisis because no court order would have been violated.
The difference is pretty crucial.
For more color:
1. Biden first used the HEREOES Act of 2002, which allows the Secretary of Education to waive or modify provisions of federal student loan law if necessary during an emergency
2. The Supreme Court disagreed 6-3.
3. Biden did not continue to cancel debt using that program. He then expanded loan forgiveness for specific groups (i.e., people who went into public service or who attended fraudulent schools) and used a new income-driven repayment plan to offer relief, which were also blocked by the courts.
These were NOT a defiance of the SCOTUS case from 2023 because SCOTUS did NOT rule that the Biden administration could not cancel all student loan debt. It merely held that Biden could not cancel student loan debt in a specific way, namely the HEROES Act. The other two routes were invalidated under the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Lin or Hullbobby, please tell me how then can you say Biden’s actions are in any way equivalent to what happened last month with Trump’s failure to follow Judge McConnell’s court order?
your “color” is irrelevant.
Biden sought to spend money that the plantiffs claimed he was not authorized to do.
The plantiffs got a TRO because they established the likelyhood of TWO things.
First that they would previal in court on a hearing on the facts and the law,
and second that if Biden was allowed to spend money before final judgement there would be irrepairable harm.
The strength or weakness of Bidens claimed authority was relevant to the first test – and he failed multiple times.
But the 2nd was trivially met. The loan forgiveness was irreversable harm. It could not be allowed to occur until after a final successful adjudication – including appeals etc.
Trump sought to STOP payment – that means the Burden to prove they would prevail was on the plantiffs – not trump.
While it was near certain that SOME plantiffs would have a valid claim that they would win, it was also near certain that many plantiffs would not.
But that is not the only test.
You must both be likely to prevail AND there must be irrepairable harm if you do not.
The judge errors in granting the TRO because NOT spending money does not cause irrepairable harm,
spending it does.
This is common law regarding contracts for hundreds of years.
It is completely irrelevant what laws are being adjudicated.
Both of these are spending disputes and the Court is required to STOP disputed spending until final adjudication.
it is irrelevant whether this is a private contracts dispute or a govenrment spending dispute – the basic principles do not change.
Judges may not issue TRO’s just because they feel like it.
I would note the RI case is now dead. The Judge found the plantiffs did not have standing.
Clearly his TRO’s were therfore invalid – he should have established that the plantiffs had standing BEFORE issuing a TRO.
All these cases against Trump have very fundimental legal flaws in them Contract 101 errors or judicial process 101 errors.
These are a reflection of how screwed up the left judiciary is.
These are NOT close calls.
Even if it was Nearly beyond a doubt that Biden would previal – the court was required to grant a TRO.
Even if it was nearly beyond a doubt that Trump would lose – the court was required NOT to grant a TRO.
In both cases for EXACTLY the same reason – it is nearly always irrepairable harm to spend money and then lose the case.
The core of these cases has nothing to do with presidential powers or federal law. The core issues of these cases are equities issues.
ATS – your actually using the Rhode Island case ?
You appear to be unaware that the Judge had to reissue the order 3 times.
Because every time Trump complied with the LETTER of the order – but not what the judge wanted.
In the end the Judge dropped the order and then the case – why ? Because the case was garbage from the start and the Judge started to grasp as a result of not being able to write a constitutionally and legally correct order to accomplish what he wanted – that the problem was with the order – not Trump.
“If Trump stopped the funding freeze and allowed the cases to come to a judgment,”
THAT would have been unconstitutional.
Funding freezes are constitutional. Third parties trying to thwart them are NOT.
Eventually this case was dropped BECAUSE the judge realized – the plantiffs were wrong they had no standing.
Executive freeze funding temporarily all the time.
While this is not exactly that case that SCOTUS bothced recently – it is similar and Alito’s appeal is correct
Not just about spending freezes and not just about presidential power but about ALL equity disputes.
Common law BARS TRO’s in equity desputes – for EXACTLY the reasons Alito said.
Because equity issues – disputes over money can NEVER result int he irrepairable harm needed to grant a TRO.
Look at your own example. If the JUDGE had waited and allowed the case to be argued through final judgement,
Then an order to pay the plantiffs with legal fees and damages – assuming they proved their case would be a valid remedy and a TRO would accomplish little or nothing.
Conversely if the final judgement was in favor of the defendants – it could be nearly impossible to get back their money.
Even if it was – the mess created would be enormous. If the defendent pays for work based on a TRO that subsequently is found not to be due by the court – now we have a plantiff that has received funding, and perofed services in the interim and paid expenses for a contract that the court later invalidates. You will NEVER sort out the problems you have created.
It is NEVER the defendant in an equity claim that must prepay the plantiff – BEFORE judgement is reached,
Harm to the plantiff from delayed payment is nearly always repairable.
But correctly a prepayment that is subesuetnly found to be invalid – is not correctable.
I would further note that AGAIN – in any contract dispute EITHER party can nearly always cancel the contract at anytime.
If they do so outside the provisions of the contract they will be subject to damages. But no matter what you almost never can FORCE performance. At FINAL judgement – not before, a court can say – Perform or pay. But it NEVER can say perform. And it NEVER can do so prior to final judgement.
All you have done is PROVEN the court acted lawlessly.
I would further note – this is NOT some constitutional issue. This is not something special to govenrment.
This is a basic contracts issue with hundreds of years of caselaw.
This is why Alito was correct and ACB/Roberts wrong. In the end because no plantif could prove $2B in completed work – the case fizzled. But the majority erred on a pretty simple contract law issue.
TRO’s in equity cases are nearly always ERROR.
“then subsequently tried a different legal argument not discussed in the original cases to accomplish the same thing, then his actions would equate to Biden’s.”
I have no idea what you are claiming – and I doubt you do.
The Biden case and the Trump case are extreme similar with the parties reversed.
Biden sought to SPEND money and his legal authority to do so was challenged.
The Plantiffs in the RI Trump case sought to FORCE Trump so spend money.
The correct action by the courts in BOTH cases is to delay spending until final judgement.
Because it is nearly impossible to unwind improper spending.
” And that would NOT be a constitutional crisis because no court order would have been violated.”
Violating a court order is not a constitutional crisis. Court orders are violated all the time.
Violating legitimate court order has consequences. Violating illegitimate ones usually does not.
“The difference is pretty crucial.”
The only difference in the case is the RI judge got the common law rules for TRO’s backwards.
Spending money before final judgment can result in irrepairable harm.
NOT spending money before final judgement CAN’T.
The court in the Biden case CORRECTLY order Biden to delay payment until final judgement.
The RI court improperly order Trump to pay BEFORE final judgement.
“I would love to hear what you think constitutes a constitutional crisis, if an executive branch rejecting court orders does not somehow qualify.”
The US has had one and only one “constitutional crisis” – it was resolved by the civil war.
If Trump actually violated a court order. if that order was upheld by every apellate courte, through the supreme court and Trump still did not comply, and congress refused to vote to impeach or remove, that STILL would not be a constitutional crisis.
A constitutional crisis is when the constitution FAILS and the country comes apart.
It is not when the process produces a result you do not agree with.
It is not even when the law is broken or the constitution is violated – thouhg those might be bad things.
They are not constitutional crises.
The claims that Trump violated court orders are about as accurate as that Biden did no – i.e. they are more left wing nut nonsense
But presuming that Trump WILLFULLY violated a court order. That is a problem – but not a constitutional crisis.
Further while the NORM is we presume that it is the president and not the judge that is lawless – that is an assumption – NOT a law of god.
The ultimate conclusion regarding WHO was truly lawless rests with the higher courts, the supreme court, then congress and finally with the american people.
Right now the american people want to know why idiots like you and lower courts are trying to thwart the eliminate of waste fraud and corruption.
When the courts are preventing the elimination of waste fraud and corruption – INARGUABLY the lawlessness is on the part of the courts.
Those of you on the left HAVE succeeded in taking a few points off Trump’s polls.
At the cost of taking far more off the trust in the courts, congress, and democrats.
Is that really your idea of a win ?
“In con law, this exact hypo was used when describing the pros and cons of the unitary theory of the executive.”
Then your con law prof’s need fired. There is no unitary theory of the executive there is an actual unitary executive – in the federal govenrment in nearly every corporation, in nearly every state, in nearly every government in the world.
It is this way because the alternatives have shown over and over to fail ALWAYS.
In the specific case of the United states we have a unitary exucutive – because the constitution says so.
If you do not like that – do not have a stupid debate in a con law class – CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.
“Absent impeachment, there is no way to stop an executive that does not abide by court orders.”
Correct. Therfore No constitutional crisis.
I would further note that congress is free to impeach and remove – or not. EITHER way – no constitutional crisis.
And the people are free to vote in new senators and representative – no constitutional crisis.
The only constitutional crisis the US has had resulted in the Civil war. We were unable to resolve the issue of slavery in the courts, in congress or through elections.
THAT is a constitutional crisis.
“With a majority of the GOP in Congress, impeachment is not possible. ”
False and wrong. The GOP can impeach and remove Trump – if they decide that is necescary.
“Thus, Trump’s rejection of court orders must qualify, no?”
False and false. First you started this whole mess with an unproven assertion that Trump has failed to follow court orders.
Rejecting a court order is NOT a judge telling you that you did not jump high enough when you jumped.
And that is litterally all you have – judges and plantiffs claiming that the Trump administrations compliance with an order is not as strong as they hoped, or as quick as they hoped.
I know this is hard for left wing nuts – but judges can not order you to do the impossible, they can not order you to accomplish something faster than is possible, they can not order you to comply with the spirit of the order not just the letter, they can not order you to agree with them, they can not order you to think as they wish, they can not order you to not appeal.
Trump did NOT pay $2B in invoices for completed contracts, because there was not $2B in unpaid completed work.
You left wing nuts took a couple of hundred thousand at most all the way to SCOTUS claiming it was billions.
Who is it that has a big credibility problem ?
Shoudl Trump have complied with Judge Ali’s order and paid $2B that was not actually owed ?
“Turley conveniently leaves out this material fact of course above.”
No ATS – the shortage of material facts rests with YOU.
Lot of “barracks lawyers” in here. I’m sure they’ve got the best law degrees watching YouTube videos can award.
So “law” and freedom of speech et al. doesn’t involve or affect all citizens?
You’re a direct and mortal enemy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, comrade.
OT
“This long peace and the uniform government of the Romans introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated….”
– Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Prentis Cycle, 1946
From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to freedom; from freedom to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to fear; from fear to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The Freedom We Have Enjoyed is the Child of the Cult of Competency”
“Thus the freedom we have enjoyed in America is not the fruit of fortuitous accident, of great natural resources, or of mere isolation from the tangled skein of European politics. It is the direct result of purposeful thinking and hard work. It is the child of the cult of competency—intellectual competency, physical competency, moral competency—which Benjamin Franklin—the father this University—and the other men who founded this nation, so eminently typified. As Tocqueville observed: ‘The assembly which accepted the task of composing the Constitution was small; but George Washington was its President and it contained the choicest talents and the noblest hearts which had ever appeared in the new world.’
“The cult of competency was forged in the crucible of persecution and tyranny. We have taken it for granted. We have never seen it put to the test it is undergoing today. Now in the midst of world catastrophe, we are coming to realize anew that there is something in life greater than knowledge and bigger than security; something which, with all our organized learning, we have not fully captured in books, that something which in the past has caused men to sacrifice all to attain some part of it. Some call it liberty, some freedom. Maybe its best designation is that it is the dignity of the individual in the sight of God and man. Some define it in terms of faith, and others as human brotherhood. But of one thing I am certain. It is the priceless ingredient of life. Whatever it is, it is of both the heart and mind; not a complex quality to baffle science, but a simple thing to assuage men’s souls. It is the quality of being a man. With that concept Aristotle spurred Athenian youth; and it was that, no doubt, which illuminated Socrates’ mind as he talked the Great Simplicities to his students under a fig tree in far distant days in ancient Greece. Its quest has filled the ages ever since. Its attainment in a fuller sense is the only thing that will make tomorrow worth the living. Its achievement is a ringing challenge to you young men and women of the class of 1943—the latest novitiates of the cult of competency.”
– The Cult of Competency Address Delivered by Henning W. Prentis, Jr., Mid-Year Convocation, University of Pennsylvania, February, 1943
https://ergo-sum.net/literature/CultOfCompetency.pdf
“Trump Ushers In A Glorious New Era Of American Power And Strength”
– CNN-News18
“A survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4 percent as “very conservative.” A 2017 study found that only 15 percent of faculty members were conservative. Another analysis found that 33 out of 65 departments lacked even a single conservative faculty member.”
And here I was thinking Progressives were all for ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’, and making the university reflect the country at large. Silly me!
The educated tend to be liberal.
The indoctrinated tend to be liberal. Liberals associate higher education with intelligence. Then they prove themselves how wrong they are.
Yeah Wally, like all of those brilliant minds on MSNBC. Ellie Mystal, Al Sharpton, Nicole Wallace, accused plagiarists like Mike Barnacle and Mourning Joe. Real cream of the crop there.
Another myth disproven by Wally
#74. The serious crises are in higher education.
“Intellectualism and academics has been associated with liberal and progressive philosophy for hundreds of years.”
How do you know that? Is that based on years of scholarly research into the history of academia? A book on the topic? Maybe a Post-it on your refrigerator door?
There are fools. And there are pompous ones.
And then there’s you: A pompous fool.
The article itself mentions the article published in the Harvard Crimson detailing the overwhelming predominance of liberal over conservative representation in academic faculty.
Sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset did a landmark study years ago detailing exactly that phenomenon. This is a well known fact in academe.
“This is a well known fact in academe.”
You completely missed the point of my comment — which has nothing to do with a study taken *now* or in *1975* (by Lipset).
My point is the commenter’s utterly arbitrary, pompous claim: “for hundreds of years.” And the irrational implication that “liberal” and “academia” are correlatives, like husband and wife.
@Sam
The ‘pompous’ is actually important. They really do think they are better for no discernible pedigree whatsoever. They wouldn’t know stalwart or actual heart if it smacked them upside the head. If these people had been leading the way in 1776, we’d likely al be speaking German or Chinese by now. They just don’t get it, aren’t capable of getting it (sigh. Generational plantation or railroad wealth, creeping into Wall street and Silicon Valley wealth. What’re you gonna do?), and we will keep smacking them down like the annoying flies they are. We have to have heart and astonish ourselves with our own daring, because these people are limp noodles with nothing to fall back on but ignorance and profanity, at this point.
James,
Great comment.
The Leftist is “not some random phenomenon, but the embodiment of a human condition defined by an absolute belief in his own person and in the exclusive validity of his convictions, from which he derives the moral strength for his absolute lack of scruples.” (paraphrasing Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon”)
The constant use of ‘constitutional crisis’ could be considered an overreach or an abuse of the English language . . . Besides, ‘constitutional crisis’ could be injected in a discussion of using Biden’s ‘autopen’.
#9. Good point rbblum. If Biden never actually signed a particular document, and it appears the majority of his so-called signed executive orders fall into that category, and in some cases, perhaps many cases, he was not even aware of the signing of said document, then is it actually Constitutional? If the President never signed it, and isn’t even aware of it, how is it legal?
@rbblume
It could also be considered simply f****** annoying. The way these people whine as adults – dang. it is no wonder their kids are such entitled little twits. I am loving the logic that is not that, somehow, the government we duly elected, is ‘seizing power’.
Plot -> Lost. Sanity -> Abandoned. And altogether.
To clarify: I am loving that the logic IS that, somehow, the government we duly ELECTED, by sweeping majority, is ‘seizing power’. We VOTED for this. It is the very ESSENCE of democracy. That leftists are realizing for the first time in a long time now that they can’t manipulate every aspect of our lives, and that that they are indeed a tiny minority – that is their problem. And it is one they are not equipped to confront, clearly.
James,
Well said. What Trump is doing is what we elected him for.
Well said, James. One of the President’s duties is to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Opening the books to see how such laws are being enacted falls under his responsibilities.
The movie “Dave” heavily favored the Democrat Party. Dave Kovic, a Doppelgänger, pretended to be president to hide from the American public that he is incapacitated. There was a memorable scene when he invited his accountant friend into the White House to go through the government’s books, and trim waste.
That scene was considered a heroic Every Man moment, in which an average American was able to stop government waste.
So many themes from this movie have taken place in real life, including an Administration hiding the incapacity of a President from the American people, and a bootstrap American combing through the books to cut waste.
Democrats have lost their minds at losing their politicized control over government spending. They have essentially put a hit out on that accountant from the movie.
Its overuse erodes its effectiveness. Like the boy who cried wolf. Nobody outside their echo chamber is listening anymore.
“The Social Contract is nothing more or less than a vast conspiracy of human beings to lie to and humbug themselves and one another for the general Good. Lies are the mortar that bind the savage individual man into the social masonry.” H.G. Wells: (Love and Mr. Lewisham)
The Leftists’ in America have a Chip on their shoulder, attached with a rubber band and full of indignation. They see no light in the tunnel except the glow of a euphoric future of a government benefactor dispensed by them. They have lost touch with reality and present grave danger to our future.
Great piece. This is all getting really tired. We reject your disdain for our intelligence, and indeed your disdain for our levels of education, intellect, and decency, aristocratic DNC (your accusations of ‘oligarchy’ are hysterical. You and your globalist buddies are something else). Enough is enough, and we are done with you. Progressives have always been annoying, but they have descended into legitimate madness in 2025. We pity you.
What’s the flavor of the Kool Aide you’re drinking?
@Baby
Yes, you are.
Trump jizz.