Many of us have been waiting for the arguments on May 15th before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case to see if the justices will put long-needed limits on district courts issuing national injunctions. Critics object that Democratic groups are going to blue states in open forum-shopping to secure such injunctions from favorable judges — a record number of injunctions for an Administration that only just passed its 100th day mark. Those complaints are likely to only increase after the new order by District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco. It is arguably the most expansive yet in its scope and assertion of judicial power.
At the request of unions and other groups, Judge Illston (a Clinton appointee) imposed a temporary restraining order (TRO) for 14 days to stop the Trump administration from carrying out large-scale layoffs and program closures across two dozen agencies. For those calling for district courts to be restrained, Judge Illston’s TRO (which often leads to a preliminary injunction) will seem like another court ruling with total abandon.
Trump is carrying out his pledge to dramatically downsize the government, including targeting waste and unnecessary or superfluous programs. One can certainly disagree with that judgment. The unions and Democrats opposed the pledge during the campaign. However, after the public elected him, the question is whether a single district judge has the ability to stop a president from implementing such policies.
Unions insist that Congress set up a specific process for the federal government to reorganize itself and that that process is not being followed. Specifically, Illston is arguing that the process includes consultation with Congress. The law, 5 U.S.C. § 903 states in part:
(a)Whenever the President, after investigation, finds that changes in the organization of agencies are necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title, he shall prepare a reorganization plan specifying the reorganizations he finds are necessary. Any plan may provide for—
(1) the transfer of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, to the jurisdiction and control of another agency;
(2) the abolition of all or a part of the functions of an agency, except that no enforcement function or statutory program shall be abolished by the plan;
(3) the consolidation or coordination of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, with the whole or a part of another agency or the functions thereof;
(4) the consolidation or coordination of part of an agency or the functions thereof with another part of the same agency or the functions thereof;
(5) the authorization of an officer to delegate any of his functions; or
(6) the abolition of the whole or a part of an agency which agency or part does not have, or on the taking effect of the reorganization plan will not have, any functions.
The President shall transmit the plan (bearing an identification number) to the Congress together with a declaration that, with respect to each reorganization included in the plan, he has found that the reorganization is necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title.
The law has always occupied a gray area since a president has the authority under Article II to run the executive branch and remove individuals. Judge Illston recognizes that inherent authority as a “prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government. But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his coequal branch and partner, the Congress.”
The lawsuit was filed last week, and the court issued its order not long after arguments.
Judge Illston did acknowledge that two courts of appeal recently rendered decisions against jurisdiction in such cases in Widakuswara v. Lake, No. 25- 5144, 2025 WL 1288817 (D.C. Cir. May 3, 2025) and Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 25- 1248, 2025 WL 1073657 (4th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025). The court notes that those decisions are not binding on a San Francisco district court and rejects their value as “persuasive authority.” Judge Illston declared that “Tthe [sic] Fourth Circuit offers no reasoning for its conclusion that the district court lacked jurisdiction, and this Court finds the dissenting opinion in that case more robust and more persuasive. ” It similarly embraced the dissent in the D.C. Circuit case.
Danielle Leonard, a lawyer representing the challengers, told the court that Trump is destroying the government, insisting, “It’s an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail.”
For critics, it may look more like Article III devouring Article II. The order will only heighten the pressures leading into the May 15th arguments in Washington. It will also increase pressure on Congress to move forward with legislation designed to rein in district courts in the use of national or universal injunctions.
Here is the order: AFGE v. Trump
Who voted for this aging Barbie Doll, Clinton appointee to set the national agenda for reining in the national debt and running the executive branch of our government? I do not remember voting for Susie Illston to run our government. Nor Clinton for that matter. District Courts must be prohibited from issuing nationwide injunctions (and they are WILLY NILLY right now due to Orange Man Bad being in the White House.) Where does Illston live? Maybe we should harass her the way the leftoids harassed Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Getting real tired of this leftoid judicial overreach SH*T!!
Keep doing what’s gotta be done,
Keep trying all that you can, leave no stone unturned,
Keep exposing the inefficiency of a Deadbeat system,
Keep cutting away at the fat of the Bureaucracy,
Keep cutting the Country’s losses,
Keep making America’s system of government fit to do it’s job.
Thank You Mr. President 🇺🇸
A few suggestions:
California is a lost cause, cut it loose. Rename it Mexifornia.
Excommunicate it from the Union and annex Greenland as the new 50th State to replace it.
Move on …
Executive Order: All States that do not settle all their Debts (accrued deficits) with the U.S. Treasury in the remaining time of this Presidential term, will loose the privileged to participate in Congressional proceeding (suspended voting) until such time they are paid in full.
i.e.: It’s high time the Congressional Country Club Member’s pay up their Tabs. Pay-to-Play
Better yet, divide California into three separate states like it was proposed at one point: South California, California, and the State of Jefferson. Likewise, do the same for Oregon. Since the eastern half of that state don’t share the same values as the western half does, it’s time to split them apart. Call the liberal/progressive part of that state, Oregon. And the conservative half, East Oregon. Do NOT allow the conservative part of Oregon to join Idaho to form Greater Idaho. Doing so will only cause Idaho to gain a few seats in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate. Allowing East Oregon to become its own state will accomplish the same goal of adding seats in the House but also seats in the Senate, which should be the end goal of it all.
As for annexing Greenland and making it a state, we can’t nor should do that. First of all, Greenland doesn’t have the population to be a state as it only have less than 60,000 people living there. Besides, Greenland is extremely liberal. It’s better to make Greenland into a territory. Not only we will be able to acquire their natural resources and critical minerals. But will also prevent the Chinese Communist Party a foothold in the area. 👍
A better idea would be for us to acquire Alberta after they gain their independence from Canada and make that into a state. After all, some consider Alberta to be the “Texas of Canada.” 🙂
Looks more like she has provided her generous oversite or overreach on the administrative branch; just as she would, had she been elected to the Executive office, complete with authority to run the country. If the Judiciary has this authority, then they can make, change and approve federal budgets, lets’ see, what else? Make no mistake, if we had just been attacked by a foreign power, or when domestic terrorism explodes as the Democrats are stoking; unleashed by Biden’s open border policy, she now in her mind can also decide if Congress could declare war and with total and complete authority to detail manage every facet of the administrative branches responsibilities.
Dear Mr. Turley, I would like to extend my thanks to both “Old Man From Kansas” and “GEB” for their excellent responses here. They add so much good to the discussion going forth. For my small part, I have watched the Liberal left since the 1960’s when they were ravishing the college campuses across the nation over the Viet Nam War, acting up and disrespecting our court system. Did any of that change the outcome of the war? Did any of the killed suddenly come marching back home? Just like what they are doing now with opposing Mr. Trump at every turn, they will not succeed. They will only extend the problems that will end up with results nobody will be happy with.
“ravishing”?
You mean “ravaging”.
OT, India and Pakistan have agreed to a ceasefire negotiated by Rubio and Vance. This is major. The two nations have a history of hostility and they are both nuclear states. If the conflict spirals out of control it could lead to worldwide disaster.
Professor Turley labels Judge Illston’s TRO ruling one of “total abandon.” Speaking of abandonment, when will rogue judges like Illston contemplate their abandonment of the separation of powers between the Judicial and Executive branches under the Constitution?
Jonathan: Back in March you appeared on Fox News and said you were “baffled” by courts “intruding significantly” on DJT’s presidential prerogatives. You now say the SC should “put long-needed limits on district courts issuing national injunctions”. Funny, you didn’t take that position when Texas District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a DJT appointee, issued a nationwide injunction against the distribution of mifepristone. Right-wing Republicans often went to MAGA supporter Kacsmaryk during the Biden administration. And he always delivered for them.
But now suddenly you are opposed to nationwide TROs or injunctions. Why the change in position? Because judges around the country are striking down DJT unilateral and wholesale dismantling of the government–firing thousands of federal workers without cause and abolishing whole agencies, like USAID. That’s why Judge IIlston imposed her TRO because DJT failed to consult with Congress as required by 5USC ,Section 903. Curiously, DJT did consult with Congress during his first term when he wanted to make changes to some federal agencies. This time around DJT seems to think he does not have to follow the law and can unilaterally impose his dictatorial imperatives. While the MAGA Congress doesn’t seem concerned about DJT unlawful power grab the courts are pushing back and upholding the rule of law.
What happens if the SC agrees and limits injunctions to the District where a case is filed. If the Dems take back control of the WH in 2028 and reverse DJT’s EOs and other efforts to abolish government agencies how will the MAGA crowd stop that? They can run to Judge Kacsmayrk but any decision by him will be limited to his Texas district. I say be careful what you wish for!
I do think you’re right about the use of the district court judges by both sides. However, you are wrong about this being against the law. Trump has the right to re-organize the federal government. The law quoted by Dr. Turley is clearly unconstitutional. Congress does not have the right to tell Trump how to run the federal government from the administrative side.
Dude no. How the federal government is organized is the power of Congress. The president can only make minor changes.
with few exceptions – Trump is NOT dealing with how it is organized.
He is dealing with how it is staffed.
Or with waste, fraud and abuse.
Congress has NEVER blessed waste fraud and abuse
nor do they have the power to reuire the president to provide a plan for eliminating waste fraud and abuse.
Define “minor”.
I do not think the law cited is unconstitutional – it is just being read overly broadly by this judge.
Trump can not shutdown DOE without congresses permission. He can not change the prioties that are in the federal budget unilaterally.
But he can cut staff, eliminate waste and fraud – these are NOT reorganizations – and defintiely not major reorganizations.
It is not the law that is unconstitutional – but the law as this judge is applying it.
SCOTUS is not going to declare the law unconstitutional.
They are going to declare the court interpretation of the law as overbroad and unconstitutional.
Dennis,
There is not, and should not be an absolute bar against nationwide injunctions.
But they should be extremely rare.
I do not know whether the morning after pill decision was proper or if a nationwide injunction was waranted.
Though I would note that the impact was radically different. In one case you are precluding people from one of many alternatives.
In this case you are stopping something entirely – this judge is not blocking ONE thing nationwide. She is blocking everything.
There is another issue in this case – the plantiffs do not have standing.
The judge notes a law regarding govenrment reorganizations – that at best has limited applicability, and NONE to reductions in force that do not involve reorganizations or changes in policy.
Regardless, the law that Trump allegedly is violating is between the executive and legislative.
Only congress would have standing to challenge the presidents actions. And congress has not done so.
This is like a landlord allowing a tenant to do something the lease prohibits and a neighbor accross the street trying to sue.
Constitutionally the courts can not manufacture their own cases, and plaintiffs must have standing to bring a case to court to avoid such manufactured cases.
The law in uestion did not create rights for government employees or unions.
I would further note it is about reorganizations – and/or changes in policy. It is not about staffing.
There are some actions of this administration it MIGHT apply to. But most of the RIF’s that Trump is engaged in are not covered by this law.
I would note the single largest cuts in federal employment are recent Biden hires.
If this law applies to RIF’s then it also applies to new hires, and would mean none of these new hires were legal and can be terminated merely because Biden did not give congress notice.
It is messy self conflicts like these that arrise when you game the law and try to read it as overly broad.
Oo, good point.
I recall discussion about the Mifesprone case years ago – I do not recall the issue of TRO’s coming up,
nor do I recall Turley taking a position.
Can you cite Turley claiming that nationwide TRO’s were acceptable in the past ?
You are not trustworthy.
I am also not sure the Mifesprone case was a TRO case. The fundimental issue as I recall was whether the FDA acted properly – followed its own rules in approving OTC use.
I do not thin the FDA should even exist and people should be able to make their own decisions regarding what drugs they take.
But given that we do have an FDA and that it is bound to follow laws, I thought the argument that it had NOT followed the laws regarding making Mifesprone OTC was sound.
I do not recall the details – but I do not think that was a TRO. I beleive that was a final order of the court after hearing the evidence. The TX court you are ranting about merely vacated an FDA decision that was reached without following the law.
It is also my recollection that SCOTUS eventually reversed.
But my recollection could be wrong.
I payed only limited attention – as the entire premise that the government can limit peoples free choices that do not harm others is absurd.
Scotus said it can be mailed (across State lines, no in person exam, zoom appt). Sotomayor thinks it’s aspirin and Kagan thought the docs did not have standing due to opt out clause even if patient is left untreated in ER.
Some faced or face excommunication due to RC and confessional. The other hurt is the fetus.
You brought it up.
OT: Personally I can withstand a lot but my God would SOMEONE step up and do something about Kristi Noem’s matted wig. It’s the adams family and I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE. Jesus H. Christ! Then the aviators and cap pulled low. Dejavue, General McArthur
Trump is not dismantling government.
The federal government still exists.
Every agency is still obligated to follow the constitution and the law and to perform the tasks that congress assigned them.
What is being dismantled is waste, fraud and abuse.
There are plenty of studies showing that the govenrment is incredibly inefficient.
Harvard IDEAS RESPEC #4 economist Robert Barro found govenrment efficiency to be between 25-35% of that of free market for the same task.
Numerous polls show supermajorities of people beleive govenrnent wastes 50cents of every dollar it spends.
Trump is claiming that he can do what Congress reuires with about 10% less staff. He put Musk in charge of this initially – as Musk successfully cut Twitter staffing by 90% and still performed the same task – arguably better than before.
Trump is not dismantling the federal govenrment. Hopefully congress will do that shortly.
Government should be shrunk – far more than Trump is doing.
But that is not what is occuring.
What is happening is govenrment sinecures are being eliminated, the self licking ice cream cone is being constrained.
“DJT failed to consult with Congress as required by 5USC ,Section 903.”
Incorrect – 5 USC 903 is about MAJOR reorganizations.
It is about changing policy priorities.
It is NOT about staffing.
It is NOT about eliminating waste fraud and abuse
While there are a FEW actions Trump is seeking to do that reuire congress – such as eliminating the department of education – which he has asked congress to do and begun preparations for – which he is allowed to do. Eliminating new hires and cutting waste, fraud and abuse do not reuire notice to congress.
Dennis – if 5 USC 903 has the breadth that you and this judge think – then it is unconstitutional.
It is that simple.
While there are real arguments over whether congress has delegated too much power to the president – and I think inarguably they have.
The elimination of waste fraud and abuse and federal staffing are NOT a delegated power – they are a core constitutional power of the executive and they are outside the domain of the courts and congress.
Dennis,
I would note that this and many other judicial decisions are just screaming for congress to act.
Both on nationwide injunctions, courts jurisdictions and myriads of other matters.
Congress has passed a budget framework. That framework essentially gives congresses impramatur to nearly all of what Trump has been doing.
Those of you on the left are NOT ultimately going to succeed.
And your having serious problems – because it is the LEFT that looks lawless.
A public deal in principle has been announced on trade and tarrifs with the UK – so much for the lefts claims that there would be no deals. In fact nearly every nation in the world has been telegraphing a willingness to strike a deal.
Even China is by many reports ready to deal – probably because their economy and govenrment are in danger or toppling.
Trump’s polls did not “Tank” as the left claims, and the small drop has recovered.
Over and over and over again those of you on the left are proving WRONG, and losing.
Carney in Canada was fawning over Trump to make a deal as soon as he got elected.
Many of us told you that Trump may have deliberately tanked the canadian conservatives because he knew he could strong arm the liberals easier. Worse still Carney is getting hit from both sides. Alberta is conducting a referendum to seceed – which si constitutional in canada. Other western provinces have announced that if alberta goes – they go.
I do not think this will happen but the popular support is strong enough that Carney is already a lame duck. He is a liberal stuck unwinding a liberal agenda – if he wishes to keep his country intact.
While it is unlikely that Alberta will seceed from canada or the western provinces will follow – it is only 60:40 unlikely,
and bad acts by Ottawa could flip that in an instant. And the BIG deal for Alberta is Ottawa’s efforts to kill the Alberta economy.
Alberta wants to export oil – to the US, to the east, to the west, to foreign countries and Ottawa has thwarted this.
Alberta does not want limits on its ability to create jobs and wealth to serve some globalist agenda.
And Albewrta has massive power as the canadian governent budget depends heavily on Alberta.
A longer shot would be Alberta and or other western canadian provinces becoming a US state.
That is unlikely – but it is NOT absurdly unlikely.
And that is important – it is more evidence of how great a fools those of you on the left are
Trumps cuts to the federal government are unconstitutional because the president is not allowed to refuse to spend money Congress has authorized. Also he is effectively destroying agencies, which only Congress has the ability to do.
If “rule of law” means anything, then judges need to have the ability to stop illegal actions by the president. Otherwise we would be living in a dictatorship.
It would have been helpful for the Professor to explain why he thinks the decision is wrong. Is it the standing analysis? Is it the subject matter jurisdiction analysis? Is it the substantive analysis of the reorganisation statute as applied to these facts?
Without an explanation, the post amounts to nothing but conclusory statements that do little to enlighten, or to help predict the outcome on appeal.
Ten years ago Turley would have written what you described, but now he is fully MAGA. This blog was much better when Turley was a torts nerd.
Was this your position during the Biden administration?
I don’t recall Biden destroying entire agencies and randomly cutting programs. I am guessing you are referring to Biden’s objection to the boarder wall, but that was quite different and Biden had solid legal grounds. But that is a topic for another day.
Nonsense, if we made that action coequal then the Executive could imprison rogue judges for failing to uphold their oaths of office, namely to adhere and follow the Constitution; which most rogue judges don’t, and these activist judges don’t know what they don’t know. That is the only thing that is clear to me.
The President must faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. When Democrats complain about Trump, they should look at Biden. He did not faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. He was an abysmal failure.
However, there are qualifications regarding the spending of money. That can lead to the money not being spent.
The Republicans have the majority so if the President denies an expenditure, he might get his way
The President might not be able to abolish agencies but he can weaken and destroy them.
In summary things are not as clear as you think they are and that makes both of your contentions wrong.
“Forum Shopping”? Democrats being accused of picking favorable judges?
Missing from the story: Republicans robbed millions of Obama voters from appointing about 100 federal judges (100 forums) plus a U.S. Supreme Court justice (the largest forum of all).
The only reason to deny any president’s judges is for misconduct or unqualified judges. None of Obama’s judge picks met that test.
Context matters, why was this fact left out of the story?
The judges war was started in 1987 by unscrupulous Democrats. The Dems are the most ruthless combatants in that war. Then when the GOP finally fights back in an effective manner we get weeping and gnashing of teeth. If you expected the GOP to roll over and play dead, you’re delusional. If you don’t like the war then blame the Dems for starting it. And continuing it with their evil actions vis a vis Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh.
Democrats opposed 1 judge that lied under oath to Congress and was a criminal accessory during Watergate (misconduct).
Republicans responded by robbing millions of Obama voters of about 100 judges.
Democrats opposed misconduct by a single judge. Republicans simply played politics, rejected qualified judges.
Democrats just don’t like it when Republicans play by their rules!
McConnell invoked the Biden Rule. Besides all you’ve said is “It’s not fair!” You forget that all is fair in love and war. Again, if you don’t like the war, blame the Dems, they started it and have prosecuted it relentlessly.
Democrats filibustered GWB’s nominee, Miguel Estrada, for the DC Circuit. A memo was leaked that Dick Durbin did not want him confirmed solely because he is a brilliant Hispanic. According to the memo, Durbin believed that Republicans were grooming Estrada for SCOTUS and he did not want the first Hispanic SCOTUS justice to be a Republican nominee.
So Democrats filibustered Estrada’s nomination. He ultimately chose to withdraw his name from consideration. Some have speculated that the stress Democrats intentionally created for Estrada and his family may have been a contributing factor to his wife’s suicide.
According to the New York Times, left wing kook and Harvard Law School “professor” Laurence Tribe advised Democrat Senators they had no Constitutional obligation to confirm ANY of GWB’s nominees. Bruce Ackerman wrote a piece encouraging Democrats to filibuster GWB’s judicial nominees to SCOTUS. Democrats controlled the Senate and proceeded to take their scholarly advise and held up in committee most of GWB’s nominees. It became known as a “judicial blockade” in conservative circles. Some were held up for the entire two years that Democrats controlled the Senate between GWB’s election and when Republicans retook control of the Senate two years later. Only after Republicans took control of the Senate did those nominees finally start moving through the confirmation process. However, like Estrada, a few of the people nominated decided the aggravation Democrats created was not worth it and chose to withdraw from consideration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_Supreme_Court_candidates#:~:text=Yale%20law%20professor%20Bruce%20Ackerman,Court%20during%20his%20first%20term.
Consider getting out of your bubble.
Instead of Estrada, we got a dolt as the first Hispanic justice (Sotomayor).
Also, Bork was UNANIMOUSLY confirmed to be a judge for the DC Circuit long after Watergate. Which means every Democrat voted to confirm a man who you call a criminal accessory to Watergate and a perjurer. Why was it not an issue to confirm him to the DC Circuit but when he’s up for SCOTUS a few years later it’s an issue. That’s weird.
It seems like you’re just making stuff up to rationalize your party’s hypocrisy.
The long subtle march to progressive socialism that the dems have been on has hit a roadblock ( first those in the Tea Party and then the MAGA movement which found its leader in Trump) and their only tool available at thus time is more lawfare and an ever-increasingly impotent media to act as cheerleader.
I have growing doubts that Robert’s has the spine to stop this desperate trickery by the unhinged and hatefilled left as they witness the attempted dismantling of their so carefully laid plans. Nor do I have faith that congress can pass legislation to thwart this onslaught.
We are at a crossroads as we approach the 250th anniversary of this exceptional experiment of self-government but the insertion of legislative-backed socialism with the passing of LBJ’s Great Society has allowed for voters with “no dog in the hunt” to direct our path and the result is our massive debt, our societal collapse and the growing disrespect for government other than as a spigot fir government give-aways.
Subtle march? Are you oblivious to what has been happening the last 10 years? Yes you are.
Knock off the pseudo-intellectual stance. You are no intellectual, just a 2 digit kind.
Were you around to experience this nation before the election/assassination of JFK and the radical changes evoked by the empowerment of so many with so little to contribute to our commonwealth other than an open hand waiting for more? I doubt it, but if you are that old, then you were, and still are, a part of the problem.
Huh? I’m part of the problem comment of yours needs clarification if you care to review and provide. You sound like the nation when we returned from Vietnam. Perhaps I am just misinterpreting your post?
I graduated from high school in 1968, a turning point year in that the pent up socialism that had been festering under the surface of our society since the first transcendentalists were enabled by the progressive push afforded our world of academia by our first socialist-leaning president of the professorial class of academics, we have been on this dichotomy of capitalism vs socialism. (that is not to say that various other forms of communal living have emerged and failed from our original pilgrims at Plymouth Rock to every hippie commune) and we are at the final crossroads to decide our future path.
$37 trillion in debt. If the executive branch can’t get spending under control, we’re done for sooner than we realize. Then these rogue federal judges won’t get paid and that will be the way the problem is solved. Not an ideal solution.
Trumps cuts to the IRS will cost the US far more money than any “savings” from the rest of the cuts. Trump will increase the debt.
OldMan: when national bankruptcy occurs, some District judge will likely issue a national injunction ruling that all federal judges be the first to be paid.
RUDE!
and let’s not forget the societal collapse that will ensue – imagine the millions of angry, self-entitled welfare-dependent, useless flotsam that will be roaming the streets looting for whatever they can find.
The reason for compromise. It won’t be the US but perhaps there’ll be food to eat.
They must have abortion, homosexual rights, huge immigration from Latin America. More socialism in terms of medical, utilities, fuel, food and shelter. Just be sure it’s legal.
Simply demonstrates that the BSKL(batshit krazy left) will stop at nothing. They didn’t seem to have any problems with President Biden issuing orders.
Don’t you mean “those in control of the autopen” issuing orders?
Or pardons…
Yet one more example of how the hard left is in a pitched war against this nation and its citizens. The Democrats get their daily taking points and marching orders to do everything in their power to resist this elected administration.
This will work its way through the courts and be overturned.
Remember, these are the same people who opened the borders and flooded this nation with illegals. Not for altruistic reasons but for pure hatred of America and the rule of law. They appear to love criminals and fully embrace chaos and anarchy.
Indeed, and the hard left is now in control of a major political party. One that is AGAINST trimming waste and corruption from government spending, and is FOR men beating the crap out of women in women’s competitive sports.
Low grade and stupid comment.
But, unfortunately, true. Sign your opinions, anonymous, or be forever discounted as a source for anything.
It’s not so much that they love criminals, they will feel the effects of roaming gangs of illegals eventually, it’s that they are in a blinding cult no less aggressive and demanding than any jihadi cult that flies planes into towers or rapes and kills innocents all in the name of their cult.
We need to stop using logic and rational concepts to confront them – imagine having a rational discussion with a jihadi with a bomb strapped to their back – that is where we are now when angry, petulant, indoctrinated pukes like Luigi Mangione believing that they are righteous in their murder of an innocent man. Keep that image of rampaging, mentally unstable and brainwashed tools let loose to ruin this nation so that the progressives can reconstruct it in their image of “perfecting mankind through government fiat”.
The obvious question is, Why didn’t the Trump administration prepare one or more reorganization plans and submit them to Congress for review? Possible answers: Didn’t know; didn’t care; knew and cared, but thought it pointless to send Congress anything substantive to do, given its sorry state. There are others.
Or maybe, they’re working on it?
Or they forgot to inform you. Intentionally.
How do we know he didn’t via the Speaker?
They can’t read and understand? Cane waving and yelping is to be avoided?
The professor should simply state the facts. We have a spending problem and We the People have voted to correct it.
Still doesn’t get the job done.
Who gave these judges their marching orders? Those are the ones I would target.
Noone
SCOTUS is now failing the Executive Branch and thereby the voters. I always thought judges were the most decisive of personalities. I believe the next group photo of the Supremes will feature several with canes or walkers to help hold them stand up.
Was mandatory bond imposed? Why not?
I know that I am trampling on the Professor’s sacred turf, but these out-of-control agenda driven lower court judges who mock the will of We The People are proving that The Law no longer represents Justice and deserves neither respect or obedience. I have spent over six decades honoring, respecting and obeying The Law. That is now as dead as the Founders. Ruling as despotic black robed political functionaries, judges are destroying the judicial structure we have relied on more rapidly than ever before. A time will come when we reach our Rubicon moment and it isn’t far away. If the judiciary isn’t reined in very soon we will be in serious jeopardy. At that point we may find ourselves with a Robespierre rather than a Washington, and see our precious nation in shambles.
If this continues we may see a real insurrection.
I think that section 11 of the Constitution Trumps the law 5 U.S.C. § 903. Also we have Marbury vs Madison which is a precedent and has never been added to the constitution . So like any Supreme Court decision it could be reversed and I see no place in Section 111 where the specific power to impede or place a restraining order on the President by a district court is mentioned or elucidated. Nor by the Supreme Court.
And lastly, how many votes did this district court judge receive.
If the Supreme Court does not immediately slap this down then Trump should invoke Andrew Jackson’s precedent. These courts are starting to sound like the courts in Israel which are nearly without restraint.
“I think that section 11 of the Constitution Trumps the law 5 U.S.C. § 903. Also we have Marbury vs Madison which is a precedent and has never been added to the constitution”
Marbury v. Madison is a double-edged sword imo. It established the precedent of SCOTUS judicial review of actions by the Executive. I think that in itself is acceptable and consistent with the Constitution. However, it has since been used as a rationale for other Federal courts to override the Executive, and that is unacceptable. The Constitution clearly requires that additional Federal courts be established by Congress, which, absent any contradicting language, puts those courts in the province of Congress to regulate or disband. To me, the correct outcome of this case would be for SCOTUS to affirm the precedent set by Marbury v. Madison with respect to the Supreme Court only, while clarifying that it does not apply to any lower Federal court established by Congress (including any such court with nominal geographic jurisdiction over such a case). Unfortunately, with a shallow Chief Justice who appears to value his popularity on the DC party circuit over his fidelity to the Constitution, and several other justices (including examples appointed by both Democratic and Republican Presidents) who seem to prioritize certain hot-button items on their personal agenda over that fidelity, I don’t expect we will obtain such a ruling. My expectation is for some mealy-mouthed result that will kick this can down the road and clarify nothing, with dissents from Thomas and Alito that are closer to the mark. I would be very happy for my prediction to be wrong, and a definitive majority decision consistent with the plain text of the Constitution materialize somehow.
Anonymous 8:39 AM-I could go along with that view and restrict the unconstitutional rulings to the SCOTUS alone.
Congress needs to be unlocked
1-Remove the Filibuster but all laws have 10-15 yr sunset.
2-Line item veto.
3-Nobody ever explained as to why reform has to be bipartisan. Does it really? Once again get rid of the filibuster.
4-Congress should be able to overturn a SCOTUS ruling by 2/3 vote for a single decision and of course there is the longer overturn by using a constitutional amendment. But for now the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS needs to grow a spine.
5-Right now Congress could limit the inferior courts (appeals and district courts) as to latitude and scope and restrict their decisions to district or circuit.
6-Congress is supposed to be the strongest part of the government because of the power of the purse. The Executive is needed to deal with external threats in a unified and efficient manner and internal threats that span several states and to uphold the law. Judiciary is there to prevent the tyranny of the majority, preserve the right of citizens, a legal check on Congress and the Executive but not a substitute for either.
The judiciary is not there to act as a cats paw for the party that lost the presidency and congress. The losing party should actually work in congress and propose alternatives and try to persuade the majority to a slightly different path. These rulings and forum shopping are a pre-planned and co-ordinated strike at the functioning of the nation.
The people who have arranged this are far more dangerous and a greater threat to the nation than some rioters on 1/6/2021.
Lest I need to remind people that we rebelled against a Parliament and a Crown Judiciary that ran amok.
I am agreeable with most of that, but not certain that I am OK with #4, in particular the provision to overrule SCOTUS with a 2/3 majority. If Marbury v. Madison is to stand, it must be acknowledged that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is, or is not, compliant with the Constitution, not Congress. IMO the solution for Congress to address a ruling that it doesn’t like is to repeal or modify the law in question via legislation, or (as you mention) possibly beginning the amendment process. I don’t fancy giving a popularly elected Congress as much latitude as you propose. Perhaps if we repealed the 17th Amendment and went back to the division of power between the House and Senate that was originally envisioned by the Founders I might change my mind. Otherwise I see the possibility of a popularly elected Congress running wild, and US governance becoming nothing more than plebiscite by proxy (something it has already drawn too near to for my comfort).
Yes, and an armed and dangerous two-three million marching on DC is not out of the question, if these two parties can’t play nice together. If they can’t work together then we replace them both, decertification of the parties and start fresh, ensuring the parties foundation must adhere and comply with the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Rouge judges are taking their lives out of government protection and will be afforded no quarters.
What? You are a clown. As if you know anything about constitutional law. Andrew Jackson huh. Really dumb.
STHU or sign your posts. Calling names and trashing others is unhelpful, an example of a weak mind and a waste of bandwidth. IOW, enough, “anonymous.”
“These courts are starting to sound like the courts in Israel which are nearly without restraint.”
You have a fine understanding of Israel’s judiciary. There is judicial entrenchment. The Supreme Court Judges select the replacement of a departing judge.
I still ask, at what point does this effort by the Federal Judiciary become an orchestrated effort to overthrow the Constitutional Republics Executive Branch???
I’d like to know that as well!
Trump is setting that up.
Trump is mitigating its progress.