As expected, the relationship between the Trump White House and the media resumed where it ended in the first term in outright warfare. The mutual disdain has become open contempt as was evident this week when, reportedly for the first time in its 140-year history, the Gridiron Club journalism dinner omitted the toast to the U.S. president. This follows the selection of a comedian for the White House Correspondent’s Dinner who promptly declared that no one wants Trump to come because no one wants to be in the same room with him. The media is doubling down on its identity as part of “the resistance.” In the meantime, the public is rushing to new and alternative media for their information.
I have criticized President Trump over some of his statements and actions toward the media over the years, including the recent exclusion of the Associated Press over a disagreement with its standards guide. However, the media has also been wrong in its unrelenting attacks and hostile stance toward the Trump Administration.
The press moved into hyperdrive after the inauguration. This was an impressive pivot after four years of the press running interference for the Biden Administration and echoing the narratives put out by the Democrats. The press had little real interest in the millions of dollars acquired by the Bidens through alleged influence peddling or the obvious deterioration of the President mentally and physically. Many reporters were content to cover Biden’s runs for ice cream rather than delve into controversies like the massive censorship system coordinated and funded through the Administration.
Ironically, the Biden team still kept an enabling media at bay. It could not risk even brief, unscripted moments, and Biden set modern records for his unavailability to media in press conferences and interviews. They confined his appearances to softball interviews with CNN or MSNBC or the hosts of far-left influencers.
The press’s hostility has only grown despite Trump’s unprecedented access to reporters. He has allowed the greatest level of access to the media in decades, giving long interviews and press conferences.
Indeed, everyone in D.C. seems exhausted after only 50 days. Trump’s election was like being gifted a golden retriever puppy by a friend. After two days, you are left staring at him at 3 in the morning and screaming “why won’t you sleep?”
One would think that this change in access would at least produce some interest in covering the White House with neutrality and objectivity. However, both neutrality and objectivity were discarded years ago by many in journalism schools.
The gratuitous insults on both sides do not bode well for the future relations. However, there is a difference in yielding to such impulses. Trump is a politician. The press is an institution. Regardless of how the subject of coverage may treat the media, there remains a professional and ethical obligation to report on stories fairly and objectively.
Moreover, there are legitimate gripes against the media for its fostering false conspiracy theories and over-wrought rhetoric against Trump. Again, that does not mean that Trump is right to call the media the enemy of the people or recently to suggest that coverage should be treated as a crime. Trump only undermines his own case with such extreme positions. Yet, the media has far more to lose in engaging in tit-for-tat insults.
At two dinners used historically to build bridges with presidents, the media decided to use the events as a way of slapping back at Trump like hurt school children.
Eugene Daniels, the president of WHCA’s board and a Politico correspondent, selected an anti-Trump comedian in a virtual withdrawal of the invitation for the president to attend. Why should he appear at a dinner that has been weaponized by the WHCA?
Notably, the prior year, the dinner (which I attended) featured Colin Jost. The comedian (before the election) gave a tearful comparison of Biden to his late Irish fire-fighting grandfather. It was nothing short of a public campaign endorsement.
Now, one year later, Daniels and the WHCA brought in a vehemently anti-Trump comedian who promptly said that Trump was not welcome.
Then the media pulled the stunt with the toast at the Gridiron dinner.
Ironically, in a letter to the White House, Daniels used his position to defend Associated Press and other outlets in the name of the free press. Yet, he is viewed as the embodiment of the advocacy journalism that has alienated not just Trump but many citizens.
The press remains at record lows in trust with the public. This is hardly going to help. It is a virtual invitation for the public, like Trump, to go elsewhere. The media is increasingly writing for each other rather than an increasingly disengaged public.
In the end, these juvenile antics will only further erode trust in the media and push many readers and viewers to new media. These media figures have bulldozed any high ground in the conflicts with the White House. The Daniels letter is again an example of what is lost when you engage in highly political conduct and then seek to speak in favor of the traditions of a neutral and objective independent press.
After showing the traditional toast in past years to sitting presidents at the Gridiron dinner, Judy Woodruff, president of the Gridiron Club, declared that this year they would only offer “a toast to the First Amendment.” Woodruff has been repeatedly challenged for alleged anti-Trump sentiments and even spreading false claims against Trump.
In the end, many may have gotten what they wanted — the effective disinviting of the president and his staff from these traditional dinners. Even Trump Press Sec. Karoline Leavitt now says that she will not attend the White House Correspondent’s Association dinner.
Problem solved. The dinners can become just new echo chambers maintained by the media and largely ignored by the public.
Have you seen the loser who is the head of the White House Correspondents Association? He is on CNN regularly and is as unhinged as he is stupid. Why would any intelligent person want to waste their time with these losers? They are nobodies. Their networks are losing cash and will soon have to fold.
I burst out laughing at the Golden Retriever puppy analogy. Apt.
Let Presstitutes be Presstitutes. That’s all Presstitutes know what to do. Otherwise, they would be journalists instead of Pesstitutes. But, once a Presstitute, always a Presstitute.
I feel sorry and supportive of the continued myopic behavior of the media. There appears to be no question about the profound state of confusion that has overtaken this once august group. Now they can, once again, demonstrate the two stages that define confusion… Stage 1: They got what they wanted – prevent and offend our commander in chief from attending the dinner. Stage 2: They now realize that what they got was not what they were looking for – President Trump never intended to attend. But there is a greater message here – we now know who were the people who operated Biden’s Auto Signature Machine – the children who found the cookie jar.
From what I understand Trump did not keep the Associated Press from the briefings, only from the oval office. That is very different from banning them altogether. This lumping together in essays two different things is too bad. Perhaps I am wrong, but Boo Hoo to the AP if what I said is correct.
Contrary to Robert’s previous claim, there are Obama/Biden judges.
And lately they are more political than judicial in their decrees. That is why Democrats and Grifters go to the Obama/Biden supermarket when they are judge shopping.
And that’s why Jack Smith tried so hard to get the Trump documents case moved from Florida to Washington.
Going on trial in DC would be like going before the evil Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys of the infamous “Bloody Assizes”.
DC courts are a reeking cesspool and Congress should close them down.
Their rotting stench will cling to the entire federal judiciary for a very long time.
Oddly, Roberts seems to think he can stand on his ‘dignity’ and out-shout and out-talk this President.
He can’t.
But Roberts can lead the national judicial system to greater ruin. The Democrats under Biden and Obama already treated it with contempt. Now they are alienating more than half of the population that normally would support judicial decisions. That leaves them with very few friends in a turbulent and unpredictable political arena.
They should have remained in the cushioned, high spectator seats rather than trotting down to mix it up with the rugged and armed gladiators.
FAFO
Then this:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1902093186601783703.html
Fun facts for context, to help the communist trolls here see their place in the real world, outside the Soviet Democrat Borg:
Injunctions secured against Obama during his eight years in office through Obamacare, DACA, The First Open Borders, Fundamentally Changing America With My Phone And Pen, etc:
Twelve from all judges.
Injunctions secured against Trump during just these first two months in office:
EIGHTY THREE – from Obama/Biden judges.
Please Believe Us, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
Sen. Mike Lee is proposing something similar to what Professor Glenn Reynolds recommends, a three-judge bench for injunctions on the Presidents. Rep. Chip Roy wants to defund radical courts.
I said Congress and the President might have to deal with these radical judges and it likely won’t turn out well for the judiciary.
It needn’t be this way. Much better if the Supreme Court acts. But we appear to have a type of eunuch for chief justice.
Speaking of, whatever happened with the investigation into the leaked draft opinion that endangered a couple of brilliant and courageous justices?
This information collected by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse is helpful. I came across this site during the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman mess and found his analyses penetrating and his projections far more accurate than the media and most other commentators.
Here he takes a closer look at judges in DC and a couple in particular.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/03/19/more-background-on-judge-james-boasberg-the-fight-continues
Unfortunately, the judiciary seems to be going the way of the Press. These district court judges appear to take every opportunity to rule against this President after four years of sitting quietly by as the Biden Administration shredded the Constitution.
Unsurprisingly, the growing sentiment is very similar to that towards the Press over the last several years…. just ignore them. As history shows repeatedly, a country without a free and open press risks the masses falling behind a false prophet and a country without a trusted judiciary falls into lawlessness! There is time for both entities to reform to their former independence, but will they in absence of a very big push? Doubtful.
Anything to keep that Leavit child away from press gatherings is good with me. And any press group that didn’t turn on the treasonous trump wouldn’t be true to their work. Full stop.
That “Leavit child” is mopping the floor the the WH Press Corp!
lloydbobby….Yes! It’s such a joy to watch those daily press conferences now!
Yes it is!
And another outraged groomer Bolshevik Birthing Boy spews it’s hysteria that it can no longer go into little girl’s changerooms and dangle it’s ineffectual male wedding tackle in little girls’ faces.
Full Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe stop.
I like her. She kicks ass.
Quite a difference than the Biden DEI hire isn’t she?!
Ms. Jean-Pierre checked multiple ‘boxes’ therefore qualified to in her position. If she had any competence it was not touted. If there were ‘merit’ involved in her being handed this influential position, it likewise was never touted or promoted. Let’s face it — she’s Haitian; she’s a she; she’s non-white; she’s a lesbian; she’s the first openly gay person in this awesome position in the White House —– she could have swayed a lot of opinions if only she was excellent at her job —- she was brutally bad!
I’m so tired of the Presstitutes yapping this lie or that lie. Presstitutes are Presstitutes and all they know how to do is to Presstitute themselves with endless lies. That’s what Presstitutes do. And the Presstitutes comprise the loathsome, tiresome, boring, depraved Presstitution Industry.
“Presstitutes”. Exquisite! Love it.
In-depth analysis of the Ukraine war, America’s position in the world, and the Trump administration’s strategy as to both.
https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE?si=iOj7nH56ZWoPECvg
I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!
-Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Golly. Schumer threatening the SC? No retaliation there??
“Trump Admin Ends Translation Services for Immigration Agency After Declaring English the Official U.S. Language”
– Breitbart
_____________
I advocated English only months and years ago; American taxpayers don’t owe any immigrants anything and taxpayers can’t be compelled to facilitate immigration – legal or otherwise.
Ah yes! Tough love rears its lovely head!!! It’s so wonderful to have our country back. I missed it!
You have a cruel heart, Cindy.
#74. Businesses going bankrupt. No one has money to spend? Covid was an economy taking machine.
Who’ll you steal from when there’s nothing left?
It’ll all be delivered by drones. No stores. War of the world’s?
#74. The truth is very deep. The dems don’t know anything better.
Wouldn’t it be great if there were actual journalists?
Best wishes
51 former intelligence officials have signed a letter insisting that Biden never used an autopen.
#74. Don’t forget that cryptic note Biden supposedly wrote declining to continue as a candidate and Harris was quickly ushered in. I supposed she was President also? The PS said -I’ve resigned as President.
But he did use an adult disper. Independent Bob.
Another Biden federal judge just ordered the price if eggs to go back up.
BREAKING: A federal judge (Biden nominee) has just ordered US astronauts rescued by Elon Musk back into space.
Dolphins give Judge the flipper
#74. Hoorah, they’re home!
“Second judge orders Trump admin to rehire probationary workers let go in mass firings”
“The ruling followed a similar one by US District Judge William Alsup on Thursday morning”
– Fox News
______________
The judge found that the administration did not follow laws set out for large-scale layoffs, including 60 days’ advance notice.
Legislation regarding “large-scale layoffs, including 60 days’ advance notice” constitutes the usurpation and exercise of executive power and is unconstitutional.
Laws passed by the legislative branch cannot usurp and exercise the power of the executive branch, which is exclusively and solely that of the President.
No legislation may usurp and exercise executive power since it extends the legislative branch’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article I, Section 1, established.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Even if you proved wrong on Trump’s executive powers the Judge is STILL out of line.
No judge anywhere in any case has the authority to order a worker “rehired.” under any circums stances – even if the law was broken.
This is what is meant by an equities decision.
Courts can not undo the firing of a worker, or reinstate a cancelled contract.
What they have the power to do is award damages for whatever alleged violation purportedly occured.
This judge can not order probationary workers reinstated.
What he can do is give them 60 days of additional severance because they did not receive notice.
One of the reasons for this is – look at this case. Trump fires workers. Judge orders them rehired.
Trump notifies them they have 60 days – starting when they were first fired.
In a few weeks they are gone.
We had a version of this in the USAID case. Trump paused spending. Ali stopped the pause, to Trump cancelled all the contracts.
That left Ali only deciding who got paid for work performed from the start of the pause through to the cancellation.
When the imperfect conduct of an actor causes you harm – the remedy is MONEY – hence the name “equities claim”
Improperly fired workers are FIRED nonetheless. If the firing was improper – they are entitled to some damages.
No one gets their job back.
Looking worse for Roberts.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/03/18/president-trump-goes-scorched-earth-on-judge-boasberg-chief-justice-john-roberts-defends-boasberg/
“John Roberts appointed Boasberg to be presiding judge of the FISA court after Judge Rosemary Collyer’s term was over. In the aftermath of the DOJ manipulating the FISA court to attack President Trump, Chief Justice Roberts needed Boasberg to protect the FISC. As a result, Boasberg sat at the epicenter of some of the worst DC judicial decisions ever. Including the precedent of forcing VP Mike Pence to testify in a grand jury against the accused, President Donald Trump.
Simultaneously, Boasberg did everything he could to fulfill his commitment to Roberts, even appointing Mary McCord, wife of Roberts’ senior staff Sheldon Snook, to be amicus to the court. “
Sean Davis: https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1902036046180745300
“The more he acts like a craven politician, the more we are going to treat him like one. A smarter man than him would understand that the moment the Chief Justice is viewed more as a slimy politician than a fair judge, it’s over for him and his precious judiciary.”
I’m glad to see I am not the only one thinking this. Read the whole thing.
..as a concerned citizen, I offer my intervention here: Please, Young, your TDS disease is quite alarming. seek help before you shrivel away completely into the gremlin of darkness you have embraced… the only ‘slime’ is coming from thee! sorry, I know the Truth hurts…
Banging a chick who does porn is a sure fire way to cure TDS.
Young doesn’t have TDS. He was criticizing Roberts, not Trump.
The entire lawfare against Trump has been a huge mistake for Democrats and judges.
Hopefully ACB is savy enough to tell Roberts to F$%K himself the next time an issue like this comes up.
Roberts defending the judiciary is wise – when SCOTUS and the courts have an 85% approval rating.
Not when it is 15%.
It is absolutely Roberts job to protect the integrity of the courts – that means challenging unwarranted attacks.
But it also means cleaning up the judiciary.
Earlier Roberts claimed the Judiciary is not partisan – that is self evidently BullSchiff.
Bring a hit and run traffic case to the courts – and left and right judges will not be far apart in their decisions.
But when court cases involve political policy – and the decisions of judges near perfectly split by party.
The FACT is Courts have ZERO role in policy.
When an issue of policy comes before them there are Three questions.
First do I even have jurisdiction.
Second is the policy in violation fo the constitution
Third is the policy in violation of law that itself is constitutional.
I think this is a bad idea – has no place in a court.
Contra Roberts – attacking Trump on this and defending these judges makes impeachment MORE not less likely.
Roberts is right that impeachment is a poor choice.
The Cheif Justice or SCOTUS reigning this nonsense in is the better choice.
If Roberts does not want partisan attacks on judges – he needs to discipline judges until they follow the law and the constitution – not their politics.
One of the simplest things Roberts could have done – a week+ ago was to tell Judge Ali – this is a case in equities – you can not issue a TRO.
And Constitutional Law Professor Josh Blackman writing at Reason – Volokh Conspiracy https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/18/chief-justice-roberts-speaks/
“I think we need a sense of perspective.
Last year Representative AOC and other members of Congress introduced articles of impeachment against Justices Thomas and Alito. As best as I can recall, Roberts said nothing about this. Likewise, the Federal Judges Association and the American Bar Association said not a word about the never-ending crusade against two members of the Supreme Court. These attacks were never about disclosures. These critics were trying to delegitimize the Court. Yet, everyone was silent.”
“Roberts could de-escalate the situation by promptly reversing some of these out-of-control lower court rulings. But instead, he would rather sit on his hands and pontificate. I’ve long said that the Chief Justice is living in a different reality than the rest of us. This episode proves it. There are three co-equal branches of government; the judiciary is not supreme.”
Maybe the Leftists are close to achieving their goal intended for Thomas and Alito–delegitimize the courts. But they are succeeding with their own pet ‘judges’ and may not like the result.
Read the whole thing.
Roberts is trying to act – because he does appear to understand the outrage at the judges is large and real.
While most of my arguments are about standing, common law or judicial procedures – the PURPOSE of all of that is to CONFINE
courts to questions of law and constitution – NOT policy.
The integrity of the courts is in trouble and impeachment is seriously rearing its head – because the courts are weighing in on policy – and people KNOW it. Roberts is doing almost exactly the wrong thing.
The supreme court needs to lead the JUDICIARY – and quit trying to F$%K arround with public opinion or congress.
Right now it needs to lead the judiciary out of its own blundering and destruction of its credibilty
I would note this is almost a perfect storm and Roberts has chosen to try to hold off the storm with a bullhorn.
We had 8 years of lawfare against Trump – Trump has responded that he is following the mandate that elected him – but it is bigger than that.
He also won because people were angry with the lawfare.
In 2023 and 2024 – Trump argued – successfully that the attacks on him were attacks on his supporters,
But NOW it is WORSE – the attacks on Trump’s EOs ARE attacks on the policies VOTERS chose in the election.
If it were truly clear Trump was violating the constitution or the law – The courts should stand up and die on that hill.
Our system requires that. But the standard is violates the law or constitution. NOT offends my policy prefernces.
The House should NOT impeach these judges.
Roberts should tell them to follow the law and constitution and stay out of policy – or RESIGN.
If he can not control the judiciary – then HE should resign.
Regardless if he does not control the judiciary – then judges are likely to be impeached.
We should not have to solve policy issues by impeachment – BECAUSE courts should not decide policy issues.
As law professor Glenn Reynolds says, “they’re all going crazy at once:”
Sean Davis:
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1902133272173539418?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1902133272173539418%7Ctwgr%5E34693c1cb3a2f55fe6f0456c1e1550fbdda8eef4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F709302%2F
“LOL. The entire judiciary has apparently decided to light itself on fire while John Roberts stands by mumbling to himself about how he’s protecting the sacred legal guild from Trump tweets.”
And then:
Margot Cleveland: “Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
1h
🚨🚨🚨Court enters preliminary injunction ordering Trump Administration to keep transgender in military. 1/
The judiciary needs an intervention from Congress and the President. Soaked in Critical Legal Theory they have lost their concept of actual law.
But, to be fair, some of them are only stupid or cowards or both.
They certainly misread the room this time.
The courts need to bend to the will of Donald Trump. When Trump becomes our dictator, then we’ll be happy.
This is not about Trump.
It is about the legitimate role of the courts.
The courts have final authority over the law and constitution.
They have ZERO authority over policy.
The courts are in trouble because people are not stupid, and the understand that these courts are using the fig leaf of warpping the constitution and law to change policies they do not like,
If they do not get out of policy – then they WILL be impeached.
Roberts should have been wiser than this.
Roberts is an institutionalist.
But the sanctity of institutions only exists when they confine themselves to their legitimate domain.
The number of people employed by the federal govenrment is a purely executive power – it is the exclusive unreviewable power of the president. The CHECK on the presidents excercise of that power is the legislature – not the judiciary.
Eliminating waste fraud and abuse of federal money – is a purely executive power – non-reviewable.
Determine is a power shared by the executive and legislative – with more power in the legislative and specifically the house.
When CONGRESS beleives the president has exceeded his constitutional executive powers regarding spending. Congress can FIRST go to court – and the judiciary gets to decide if the president exceeded his constitutional powers or not.
If congress is unhappy with the results – they can impeach the president.
But public policy is explicitly NOT the domain of the courts.
Ordinary people may not understand the nuances of the constitution and the law.
But they KNOW what they voted for.
They KNOW that the courts are thwarting that.
They KNOW that this is NOT a constitutional issue.
There is no right to a job in the constitution.
There is no right to be funded by government.
The courts are limited to cases and controversies.
Only congress can challenge the spending policy decisins of the president.
If congress does not – the courts have no jurisdiction
Again people may not understand the nuances – but they know that what is occuring is wrong.
and does not work.
And they are getting increasingly angry – and a wise cheif justice would not tell them they are wrong and pretend that will make it better.
No – the courts need to follow the law and constitution.
There is no right for non-citizens to be in the US – especially not illegally.
There is no right of the left to have Government fund their pet causes.
Voters have said NO to both of those.
The voters wishes do NOT conflict with the constitution – therefore the president clearly has the power and the duty to do what people voted for
Another communist: desperately hoping that Trump actually does become a dictator, so they can say they were telling the truth, rather than just lying as usual.
Fun facts for context, to help the communist trolls here see their place in the real world, outside the Soviet Democrat Borg:
Please Believe Us, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
Super lawyer Cleta Mitchell is also calling for Congress to step in and correct the broken courts.
https://x.com/CletaMitchell/status/1901460840592937013
“Congress has plenary authority to establish the jurisdiction of Article III judges. For decades, Congress has failed to exercise that power. Unelected judges should not be allowed to make spending decisions. Or to substitute their judgment for that of the President in his rightful exercise of executive authority. Nor should any judge’s authority extend beyond the borders of the district in which he/she serves. Dear Congress: Reclaim to yourselves the constitutional responsibility for establishing the jurisdiction and extent of authority of the federal judicial branch. That is your obligation. The constitutional crisis being manufactured by these leftist trial courts must be addressed. Not impeachment. Exercise your Actual legislative authority to define jurisdiction of the Article III judges. It. Is. Time”
The problem is that Multiple provisions of the law and constitution ALREADY constrain the jurisdiction of judges.
I have fought the right and the left on this before.
Murder is illegal.
We do not need special laws barring the murder of black people or handicapped people or gay people.
There is no such thing as a hate crime – crimes are ACTS hate is a motive.
Courts have no jurisdiction over policy.
They are limited to the law and constitution.
They have no jurisdiction over cases not before them.
Boasberg had a case brought by the ACLU over 5 people – not 3 planeloads.
They have no jurisdiction over cases where the plantifs do not have standing.
A dispute over whether congress authorizes a spending cut is between the president and congress.
No plantif besides congress can challenge presidential spending decisions.
The courts may not issue injunctive relief on matters of equity – they must hold full hearings – and the constitution requires juries for equity decisions. These and other centuries old common law, case law, and judicial procedures have not stopped these rogue courts.
Why will a new law ?
We do not need more laws – we need less.
But we need courts to follow those we have.
Roberts shoudl discipline judges who exceed their jurisdiction because the next step is impeachment.
That is a radical step – but we are approaching it all too fast.
Law Professor William Jacobson appeals to Robert’s to just do his job:
https://x.com/wajacobson/status/1902071696720343362
He might as well be talking to a wooden Indian in front of a tobacco store.
I do not know what the truth is of Roberts support of Boasberg or the CTH claim that the Dobb’s leak can from Sheldon Snokes in Roberts office and that Boasberg knows that and thus has leverage over roberts.
What I do know is that 3 federal judges have articles of impeachment under construction – with a 4th on the way.
That impeachment is NOT the proper solution to this problem – the proper solution is for the Supreme Court to reign in lower courts. The house and senate are both considering legislation that severely reigns in these universal injuctions – that is within congresses power. But it is also without Roberts power – without passing any laws. Judicial procedure is his domain.
While the ACB Roberts decision in the Ali case had the ultimate outcome of a Trump victory – Ali was required to rule based on actual invoices rather than claims made by the plantifs and was required to remove from the case all plantiffs that did not suffer actual injury.
This is typical of a Roberts decision – seek his desired Outcome – without respect for the law or constitution. While Roberts leans conservative more than progressive, the results of his judicial game playing are to avoid solving questions of merit and significant importance and to leave congress and the executive without clear guidance – and worse still the judiciary.
Alito and the majority were legally constitutionally as well as by centuries of judicial procedure and common law correct in their disent.
No judge in any case can order a TRO requiring an act regarding an equity dispute until the final adjudication of the case.
If you sue for improper termination of employement – a judge May not say – I think you are going to win – order the plantif to pay and then after the case is over – where you may well lose say “oopsi” and order you to repay what has already been paid to you. It is nearly impossible to have irreversable harm in desputes over equity. Without irreversable harm a judge has no power to pre-adjucate a case – not on a temporary or permanent basis.
Further in the Ali USAID case – most of the plantiffs did not have standing – after the ABC roberts decision – those p;lntiffs were removed, but they never should have been allowed in the first place.
Impeachment is the WORST possible way to resolve the current problems. The Best way is for Roberts to direct lower courts to follow the common law on judicial procedures and equities cases or face discipline from the Supreme court.
The next best way is to properly address the next case that gets to the supreme court – and none of these cases should ever get to the supreme court – because appeals of TRO’s are strongly discouraged – just as TRO’s that violate common law are also prohibited. But once we violate one norm – others will follow.
Regardless SCOTUS should with the next case – do what it should have done and follow Alito’s disent.
Regardless Roberts rather than railing about improvident impeachment of judges should do the right thing and reign in lower courts. He can do so as Chief Justice, He can do so with the backing of the Supreme court.
Wait he should NOT do is wait for the House to start impeachment procedings.
Roberts is correct – we do not want the house impeaching judges over policy disputes.
What roberts gets Wrong is Judges have NO VOICE in policy AT ALL. Their decisions are constrained by the law the constitution and judicial procedures.
When judges go off the rails with the implicit blessing of the cheif justice – he can and should expect the House to Act.
If Impeachment is the only remedy available – that is what should be used.
Further while the specifics we are addressing at the moment are particular to TRO’s in matters of equity.
There is a broader problem of politicization of the courts.
The Boasberg case is NOT a case of equity.
But there is SO MUCH wrong with it.
In the specific instance of Tren De Argua – I think Trump is clearly within the letter of the enemy aliens act
But I do NOT accept that Trump’s actions deporting Tren De Argua members are outside of Judicial review.
Boasberg got this case because the ACLU claimed that 5 people on these airplanes were NOT Tren De Argua members.
Fine – Boasberg could have ordered – those 5 people not to be deported – until after a hearing establishing whether they are or are not Tren De ARgua members.
At that hearing Boasberg COULD have allowed arguments as to whether the Alien Enimies act applied – it clearly does,
and whether the act is constitutional – it is 228 years old and has been invoked by presidents atleast 5 times including as recently as the 50’s
But the case before Boasberg was specific to 5 plantiffs, and his jurisdiction did not extend beyond that until a full hearing – including challenges to the law.
I am not at all sure that the deportees were held in this judge’s district before being gathered and flown away. If not in his district then the case, if any, should have been brought in the courts where they were held. This judge looks and acts a lot like the evil chief judge in Brazil.
The value of these impeachment actions is that the problems are harder to ignore and maybe Congress will address the courts’ jurisdiction overreach.
Young – again – another issue were existing law and judicial procedures are not followed.
If the courts act lawlessly – why will another law change them ?
We do not need more laws.
We need adherance to those we have.
John Say: “The Boasberg case is NOT a case of equity.”
+++
I think it is. Anglo-American courts have two distinct legal powers: Law and Equity. Originally they were actually two different courts [chancery court for equity] but both competencies have since been merged in a single court but the rules are very different. It is under the rules of equity that a court may issue injunctions or restraining orders. That is a significant power and should be used sparingly according to fairly clear limits such as to prevent irreparable harm, harm that cannot be remedied by a simple legal judgment for money damages, for example.
Because the district courts are too ready to abuse their equity powers for political reasons I have said Congress should strip them of equity jurisdiction and place it in the hands of a three-judge panel in the court of Appeals. Basically, return to the original plan of having equity and law in two separate departments.
There are few judicial rules that are absolute. I am NOT arguing that all equity related TRO’s or injuctions are barred.
But MOST are . Why – because you can almost never reach the standard of irreparable harm necessary for the judiciary to act WITHOUT a complete record – a hearing and final decision – and most equity issues require a jury.
The Why should be simple – most of our law – especially common law and centuries old law is the product of trial and error – it is WHAT WORKS.
If you order someone to pay prior to full adjucication – clawing back that payment is near impossible.
I have written on employment above – almost NEVER do courts order an employee reinstated.
Whether you were fired for good reasons or bad, – putting you back in your position is unlikely to end well.
When you have been fired unjustly you get monetary damages – you do not get your job back.
It is RARE for a court to reinstate a cancelled or breached contract – equitable remedies are damages – usually monetary and they can wait until the case has completed.
I have not read Alito’s dissent – but it is my understanding that is the gist of it.
Regardless he prohibition against many times of pretrial relief on issues of equity is cneturies old wisdom based on common sense.
Something left wing nuts severely lack.
I would note though SOMETIMES I address specific laws – I read the Alien Enemies act – because it was clear that SOMEBODY was lying about what it said – as expected that was the left. On reading I determined that Trump was not even stretching he law, he was well within the letter of the law. That the left merely ommitted all the OR’s in the law.
I also tend not to argue the letter of the constitution
I try to argue the foundational legal and govenrment principles that created those laws in the first place.
I believe in the first amendment – but more than that I agree with John Stuart Mill that censoring speech we do not like – even WRONG speach ACTUALLY harms us.
Often I am SLIGHTLY at odds with Turley – because I beleive – based on history and centuries of people far smarter than I that the most important part of the first amendment is that it saves us the rouble of having to learn that even spuressing disinformation is ultimately bad for us – by experience.
Trump’s election in 2016 was no accident – it was a rejection of what preceeded it.
His re-election in 2024 was an even bigger rejection of what preceded it.
The USSR collapsed – because it did not work.
Bad choices by those in power – ultimately self correct.
Argentina spent itself into oblivion – no Millei is taking a chainsaw to the government there.
Trump does not have the power to deport because the constitution says to – but because the Biden open borders policies FAILED and people rebelled.
I am an odd combination of a first principles libertarian and a utilitarian.
I beleive that BOTH will get you to the same place in the end.
We are approaching a crisis – not a constitutional one – that is so overused.
Because the courts are doing the wrong things.
Are those things wrong because the law or constitution or judicial procedure say so – well yes.
But the constitution, … say so because millennia of experience brought us to rules that work pretty well 99.99% of the time.
If the courts and the left continue this nonsense – the back lash will grow.
Democrats would loose seats in the house and senate if elections were held today.
Why ? Because they have impeded the will of the people when that will was constitutonal.
Congress created the District Courts, so Congress has power over them. Why can’t the Republican Congress pass a rule that inhibits District Court actions from affecting the nation?
This is a case for the Supreme Court since the district court is interfering with the Supreme Court’s supremacy over the nation.
Best guess: the Republican Congress lacks the will and their leader cannot muster the votes to pass what you propose.
S. Meyer– “Why can’t the Republican Congress pass a rule that inhibits District Court actions from affecting the nation?”
I think they are working up to it. The district courts were foolish to initiate this battle. It is a battle they are likely to lose. Congress can strip jurisdiction from the courts or abolish them altogether. The courts can do nothing to Congress that threatens its existence. I would like to see the DC courts abolished and the remaining courts stripped of more of their jurisdiction.
It will be interesting to see if in the midterms some candidates run on a policy of taking the district courts down a couple of notches.
I recall reading somewhere that Roberts adopted children illegally from Ireland. Reportedly, Ireland has laws that prohibit foreign adoption? I don’t know, then there was his seizure episode at the lake, party, maybe he is on the Hunter Biden diet plan but it sure seems like he’s compromised.
I do not know about Roberts children – but foreign adoptions from Ireland ended 50 years ago.
My cousin was adopted from Ireland in 1958.