“Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” That adage, called Murphy’s Law, came to mind this week with the latest injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy in Boston. Murphy previously drew national criticism for his efforts to enjoin Trump’s immigration policies, resulting in not one but two rebukes from the Supreme Court. He is now back with an order preventing changes to vaccination policies ordered by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
As with his earlier immigration order, the court seems to take the view that anything that can go wrong for the Trump Administration will go wrong for the Administration. At virtually every critical point, the court seems to adopt the harshest possible interpretation against the Administration.
Murphy effectively halted, for now, the meeting of Kennedy’s new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP.
Kennedy had replaced many members of the ACIP, including some accused of conflicts of interest.
However, Murphy found that Kennedy had made arbitrary and capricious decisions in changing vaccine policies and changing the committee membership.
The Trump Administration has been aggressively fighting for executive authority over agencies, boards, and committees. This case could become one of the most significant of these appeals.
Judge Murphy basically lambasts Kennedy for attacking good science and scientific methods. His criticism is laden with assumptions about the “correct” answers to questions governing vaccines.
There are good-faith objections to Kennedy’s policy changes. However, the question is who is constitutionally vested with the right to make such decisions.
That question is particularly prominent in the Murphy opinion. For example, the court rejects the new board members as unqualified in comparison to the prior members. The court’s rejection of the new board members is largely conclusory. The court offers little indication of who Kennedy might appoint to meet his standards … other than the prior board members placed on the committee during the prior administration.
In determining whether Kennedy had a right to reconstitute the committee, the opinion states that “[t]he Court acknowledges that many of the ACIP members have extensive expertise in their chosen fields.” However, it then questions whether they have truly “relevant” experience. The court insists that only six have relevant experience with vaccines.
The rejection of individual advisers shows how the court dismisses countervailing credentials or belittles advisers selected by the Secretary.
Take Dr. Raymond Pollak who “is a surgeon, transplant immunobiologist, and transplant specialist who has published more than 120 peer-reviewed works and served as principal investigator on NIH transplant biology grants and numerous drug trials.” That would seem to be someone who could offer unique insights into vaccines and their approval. Yet, while acknowledging some experience, Murphy dismisses him as lacking sufficient experience.
Then there is Dr. Retsef Levi, Professor of Operations Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, as “a leading expert in healthcare analytics, supply chain and manufacturing analytics, risk management, and biologics and vaccine safety” and note that he has “collaborated with industry stakeholders and public health agencies to develop decision-support models to evaluate biologics and vaccine safety” and co-authored studies examining the association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and risks of cardiovascular disease, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.” He has also published two papers on vaccines. However, Judge Murphy brushes aside that stellar academic record and notes that “both of those [vaccine papers] were published mere months before his appointment.”
Likewise, Case Western Professor Catherine Stein is viewed as lacking sufficient experience despite being “an epidemiologist with more than two decades of research experience on tuberculosis and infectious diseases and 115 peer reviewed publications.”
Well, you get the idea.
Judge Murphy then concludes:
“As to that specific function, the newly appointed members appear distinctly unqualified. A committee of non-experts cannot be said to embody “fairly balanced . . . points of view” within the relevant scientific community. See 5 U.S.C. § 1004(b)(2). It is more accurate to say that they do not represent points of view within the relevant expert community.”
Note how the court is using a largely undefined term of “fairly balanced” under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to allow it to micromanage the makeup of an advisory committee to the Secretary. The court notes that, rather than taking years, “on the current record, the most generous description of the appointment process is that it took a few months and involved some limited outreach to candidates.”
This suggests that the Court would also reject the chosen advisers not only for who they are but also for how they were selected. He then uses the failure to follow the traditional approach under FACA as the basis for declaring the reconstitution “arbitrary and capricious.”
Yet it is the judge’s dismissal of these members’ records that comes across as distinctly arbitrary and capricious. Kennedy stated that he wanted a new committee with a variety of experiences to reexamine the approach to vaccines.
The almost uniform default against the Administration in interpreting these standards is reminiscent of Murphy’s prior effort to halt the Administration’s immigration policy changes.
The Supreme Court reversed his decision in a clear rebuke of both his methodology and conclusions. However, Murphy then issued new orders directly contradicting the Court’s prior ruling. That drew a rare clarification of its earlier opinion lifting the injunction on the deportation of immigrants to third-party countries.
The Court quickly disabused Judge Murphy of his belief that he could continue to micromanage the immigration process and declared that he was not in compliance with its order.
What was most remarkable, however, was the sharp concurrence by Justice Elena Kagan who, despite voting against the original order, called out Murphy for defying the authority of the Court. Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson took his side in dissent.
In the new opinion, the justices made clear that their June 23 order applies fully to the eight immigrants in U.S. custody in Djibouti.
Regardless of your views on the merits, this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level. In responding to Murphy’s later order saying that his orders governing the eight men would remain in effect, the Court declared that “the May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”
Murphy even lost Kagan in the action. She stuck to principle and said that she was on the losing side of the original issue when “a majority of this Court saw things differently.” However, she concluded that “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”
What is most striking is how judges like Murphy showed overwhelming deference to such experts during the COVID-19 period, despite some of those policies later being found not to be based on sound science.
Indeed, some of the very same people today who are calling for Kennedy’s head were part of the mob denouncing dissenters in the scientific community, or those who remained silent as scientists were fired, censored, and cancelled.
The most anti-science position was to demand compliance with the orthodoxy of the pandemic years. Take Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and was a vocal critic of COVID-19 policies.
Bhattacharya is now the 18th director of the National Institutes of Health and is working with Kennedy to change the culture of groupthink among health researchers and government regulators.
Bhattacharya was censored, blacklisted, and vilified due to his opposing views on health policy, including opposing wholesale shutdowns of schools and businesses. He was recently honored with the prestigious “Intellectual Freedom” award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters.
He was one of many who were blacklisted for challenging pandemic policies. It did not matter that positions once denounced as “conspiracy theories” have been recognized or embraced by many.
Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Other nations heeded such advice with more limited shutdowns (including keeping schools open) and did not experience our losses.
Others argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — the government later recognized both positions.
Others questioned the six-foot rule, which shut down many businesses, as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did it result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media further ostracized dissenting critics.
Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or to call for the protection of free speech. As I discuss in my book, “The Indispensable Right,” we never really had a national debate on many of these issues, and the result was massive social and economic costs.
The point is that these attacks were “turning your back on science” by crushing dissent and stopping any meaningful debate on these issues. These same figures were wrong on the science, but now seek to lead another mob to impeach those seeking to change policies and practices at HHS and NIH.
Kennedy and his colleagues are seeking to reform the public health system to achieve greater diversity among experts and address conflicts of interest that were concerning in this system.
Judge Murphy seems to say that you can have your own advisers so long as they pass muster with me… and I liked the old advisers.
He vests himself with this authority by largely reading every ambiguity against the Trump Administration. It is Murphy’s Law: if anything could be used against the Trump Administration, it will be used against the Administration in the court of Judge Brian Murphy.
Here is the opinion: Murphy’s Opinion
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Turls hedges toward the bleach drinking anti vaxers while Bobby pounds anabolics and injures his rotator cuff doing sloppy partial rep pull-ups.
Now that Piggy Crimewave is settled into a firing phase after getting WWIII off to a rousing start, Bobby’s probably next on the list. A good thing because his science IS remedial.
So we’ll circle back with the next clown Piggy throws into the mix like a fart in an elevator.
Party on all you magats who claim not to read my posts!!
“Turls” ends my reading of this clown’s inanity.
Inanity? Clown? You jest of course.
Bazinga! One flew over the Cuckoo Nest and decided to land!
To appease her gods Anonymous would just throw another child into the fire pit of redemption.
Anonymous was loud and clear in her support of all the covid restrictions. At least the Washington Post has admitted the error of its ways. Oh but not Anonymous. The ceremony of the severed body parts of the children cast into the flames must continue lest her gods become outraged. Anonymous on these pages stamps her feet in outrage at those who would reject her wisdom for when they do so she knows that her gods will soon throw lightning bolts on the all of us ungrateful heathens. Why won’t you understand she exclaims. WHY WONT YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!
It appears the learned Judge Murphy fell prey to the highly infectious God Complex that strikes many when they take on Federal District Court judicial robes. It is a pity that so far medical science [and legal jurisprudence] has yet to discover a vaccine to prevent the God Complex infection.
But his qualifications are sterling and “unimpeachable,” Mr. Turley: he knows nothing whatsoever about medicine and he was nominated to the bench by President Autopen in December 2024. How could anyone, the Supreme Court included, ever quibble when his decrees are released from Mount Olympus?
Mt. Olympus is not in Boston.
The Law of political bias and all criticisms are to be ignored.
This judge is an idiot. The very first Individual cited in this article is a transplant surgeon. The Judge’s statement shows clear ignorance of the depth and breadth of transplant surgery and the pre-operative and post operative care that these surgeons deliver. These are not just run of the mill surgeons who do routine operations and short term followup and then turn the patient over to an internist and/or subspecialist.
Their care involves surgically the removal the donated organ, preservation of the organ , then removal of diseased organ from the patient and then the placement of the new organ into the recipient in such a matter as to preserve blood flow and continuing function.
Their care involves being specialists in cellular biology, molecular biology, appropriate vaccines pre and post transplant (since some vaccines are not appropriate post transplant, and others are inactivated and non useful with patients on immunosuppressants), preventative use of antivirals and antibacterial drugs in the post transplant period, some of which drop wbc counts dangerously low and can cause other problems with infection.
They are experts in transplant pharmacology which changes year by year. Their teams in larger centers encompass dedicated intensive care units, protocol driven post op management , use of specially trained Nurse Practitioners, RN’s and clinical pharmacologists.
Actually these are some of the best physicians and medical professionals you will encounter.
Besides my own training in critical care, pulmonary, and internal medicine I have also been intimated associated with a major transplant center for the last 16 years and I am awed by the knowledge and expertise of these people. They are the best of us. Far beyond anything I ever did or even hoped to do.
This judge is a mouse (intellectually) criticizing and judging Lions and maybe he should be cuffed back into his mouse hole and shut up.
An idiot? No, you are too kind. He’s a demigod dictator in a robe.
Not everyone who has an MD is truly qualified to practice or preach. Its so much their medical qualifications, its their politics that is questioned.
The judge is a mouse? Hardly, he’s the mouse that roared. And look at the attention he getting and the example he sets and strategy he uses.
Jellyfish, he is a mouse that thought it could roar twice before to only get slapped down and told to STFU twice by the SC.
Is this mouse going for three for three?
Not everyone with a JD is truly qualified to practice or preach either. And Murphy certainly does not have temperament to be a judge.
GEB,
I was looking forward to your comment. Thank you for your medical insight and analysis.
At this point I think that the most effective strategy for the Trump administration to deal with activist judges like Murphy is to ignore their rulings. What recourse do those judges then have? Isn’t every single agency that such a judge could sic on an Administration member for violating one of their absurd and unconstitutional orders part of the Executive branch? Do you seriously think that the U. S. Marshals Service is going to arrest RFK Jr. if he proceeds as if Murphy had no authority (which arguably is the case)? Yes, there is a risk of setting a precedent for the future, but there is an immediate crisis presented by the rulings from these leftist, activist judges that is threatening the fabric of our nation. I’d take that future risk if it is the price to survive the risk currently posed, which well might be the case.
Yeah, ignore judges you don’t like. I guess when democrats get in office they can do the same thing, right? Why bother with law and order when you can ignore the law, right?
X, George, didn’t Judge Murphy ignore the SCOTUS? Yes or no.
No
Hullbobby, nope. He did not ignore SCOTUS.
Then why did SCOTUS rebuke him with even Kagan piling on?
Actually, bringing up Justice Kagan is a massive self-own.
Kagan didn’t ‘pile on’ because she hated the ruling; she sided with the 7-2 majority on a procedural technicality because Murphy tried to enforce an order while it was already stayed. Even in that rebuke, she explicitly noted that she agreed with Murphy on the merits—she just didn’t think a lower court could ‘compel compliance’ while SCOTUS was still reviewing it.
The fact that the Supreme Court has had to intervene on emergency stays doesn’t mean Murphy is ‘wrong’ on the law; it means the Trump administration keeps using the Shadow Docket to bypass the normal legal process. If your best argument is that 7 Justices told a judge to ‘wait for us to finish reading,’ you’re basically admitting the administration can’t win a straight fight on the actual statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act.
But the issue is Murphy tried to “enforce an order while it was already stayed”, (your words). So he went against the high court didn’t he? It was STAYED and he tried to ENFORCE IT. Words matter,
Its 2026; not the wild west anymore anon. If president’s don’t respect the law, regardless of the obstacles they put in his way, then were just a banana republic.
Ignoring the law just gives dems cause to impeach. Would be interesting to see what happens if, say Kennedy, did ignore Murphy’s ruling.
“then were just a banana republic.”
How are we any less a banana republic if despicable activist Federal judges like Murphy are not held to account to any Constitutional standard, in any manner whatsoever, and are allowed to repetitively flout with complete impunity the very law they are sworn to uphold? Ignoring their capricious rulings would be a damned sight more civilized than a Boondock Saints solution, which is a pass that this kind of judicial excess and abuse might ultimately come to if it is permitted to continue long enough. At that point, you will have truly achieved your banana republic status, which I suspect could be your actual objective. Congratulations in advance.
Take it personally much?
“Take it personally much?”
You need to work harder on your reading comprehension skills. That was an objective analysis, not an emotional reaction. There is a limit to which the good, honest, hard-working people who remain the backbone of this nation (yes, there still are some who match that description) can be pushed by the likes of you and these destructive cretins who you so much admire, before they decide that the law has become nothing but one more instrument to keep them chained down. At that point, things will get very, very ugly, very quickly, and all the nuanced precedent dissection and other academic jawboning by lawyers (actual and wannabe) won’t matter one whit. I would like to think that there remains some slim chance to avoid that eventuality, but manure purveyors like you aren’t contributing anything to my optimism in that regard.
What do you call the law student that comes in last in his class?
Your Honor.
Or just, hullbobby?
Unlike you Anonymous, I went to Law School, graduated Law School (and not near the bottom of my class), took the Bar Exam and passed the Bar Exam on my first try. But hey, you stayed at a Holliday Inn.
Impressive only if it were true. As a so-called lawyer you missed the essential – facts. And you ain’t got any.
In this instance, the facts speak for themselves.
Diesel is pushing $6/gallon.
Over 70,000 dead Gazans are now reported, that’s 20,000 more dead than the Americans lost in 10 years of the Vietnam war.
The pedophiles that participated with Epstein in America’s jail equal 1 person, Jizzlaine.
$40 trillion dollars in debt and we go to war at $1B/day?
I don’t care what party you support, WTF are we doing?
We are stopping an insane messianic regime that has been at war with us for 47 years from obtaining nukes and missiles that can hit us. Why is that hard to understand.
We spend a billion a day on illegals that Dems allowed in.
How many people we sent to jail while Biden was president due to Epstein?
I don’t care how many Gazans are dead just as I don’t care how many Germans and Japanese died in WWII. Don’t start a war against an innocent people.
Gas is high, temporarily but still lower than under Biden.
This is what we are doing and your question is moronically one sided partisan garbage.
Wrong on every count
Joe Biden?
What is wrong with this picture?
A single judge, with zero medical credentials, is passing judgement on the qualifications of medical professionals, essentially citing “status quo” and “settled science”
There is a fundamental problem here. Maybe a low-level judge who believes that the executive branch is making a no-no on a national scale should have to request a hearing with his superiors – the Court of Appeals for his district.
I assume Congress could pass a legislative fix for this since they hold the purse strings(albeit far too loosely)
SCOTUS has to step in here. Roberts has to take control, has the authority. But won’t. Why? He’s one of them?
“Why? He’s one of them?”
First, there is no clear cut Constitutional authority by SCOTUS over lower Federal courts. Manipulating case assignments is about the only tool available there, and that has serious limitations. Regarding the quoted question, the answer has been evident for some time:
Roberts Is More Bothered By Trump’s Attacks On Judges Than Judges’ Attacks On The Constitution
https://thefederalist.com/2026/03/18/roberts-is-more-bothered-by-trumps-attacks-on-judges-than-judges-attacks-on-the-constitution/
“While Roberts may believe that his latest defense of judges is in the judiciary’s best interest, the chief justice is completely missing the forest for the trees.”
Old fish. SCOTUS got rid of the Chevron deference doctrine last year. Judge Murphy doesn’t need to consult experts to interpret the science. Looks like Turley completely forgot about that tiny detail.
How a non-lawyer reads the Court’s decision regarding Chevron.
OldFish,
Well said.
The House could impeach. Would require Democrat votes to make it through the Senate but it would blemish his reputation.
If MAGA had judges with the balls, like Murphy. Instead we got whiners and weepers.
I’m having trouble parsing “the court seems to adopt the harshest possible interpretation in favor of the Administration.”
So I’ll make the harshest possible interpretation that Prof. Turley meant to write “against” instead of “in favor of”, but had a brain fart. (2nd harshest involves an alpha ray.)
Freudian slip perhaps?
Morning George! You a psychiatrist now? Analyze this ….
During the Pandemic, I tried to get the Church I attend to sue the City, and State I lived in, as they had issued an order I felt was in contradiction the Constitution of the United States. That is shutting down Churches. I felt this violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof…” (emphasis mine). I didn’t feel that, as an individual, I could sue, as I didn’t think the Court would find that I had “standing” in this matter, but the Church chose not to sue. My reason, was quite simple: If the Government is allowed to violate the Constitution in an emergency, EVERYTHING will become an emergency!
“I didn’t feel that, as an individual, I could sue, as I didn’t think the Court would find that I had “standing” in this matter,”
Maybe you should have sued. You did have standing, the First Amendment is a prohibition of government encroachment of an individual right. Even if you lost, you would have outed the SOBs that much sooner.
Suing takes time and money. This is precisely why these patiently unconstitutionally prohibited rulings stand for years and years. Justice delayed is justice denied, which is exactly what the plaintiffs and the judges want.
No, they stand for years and years because that’s how long it takes to get to trial followed by state and/or federal appeals. Of course, no one wants to sue and lose money, but many will invest in a righteous case.
Same story with eviction moratoria, except those Covid-era cases seem to have concluded while free exercise of religion cases continue.
It seems Professor Turley is relying too much on ideology to make his argument instead of legal reality. Judge Murphy explicitly points out direct violations by Kennedy, specifically the administrative procedures act and a few others. Nothing he said was “conclusory” or an assumption.
Turley spent a LOT of words to pretty much show he’s not honestly analyzing this case. He’s looking for a reason to get MAGA riled up as usual.
Seems? Guess not being a lawyer has affected your lack of legal knowledge george.
“Pretty much show..” is that legalese for you just being stoopid?
Legalese? Nope. Just an observation that was obvious. I’m not surprised you didn’t notice.
X, sorry to tell you but you are not a lawyer, you will never be a lawyer and you don’t think like a lawyer. Try a Snickers Bar.
Ain’t you the guy claiming to be a retarded lawyer? Opps, sorry, meant retired.
Don’t quit your day job at the Bathhouse…
George’s isn’t contrarian, just a confused.
Notice how his comments nowadays are noticeably thin nowadays? Without AI ole george is just … ole george.
Just bringing it down to your level anonymous. I figure you would at least understand a little better. Guess I was wrong.
So were both clear, you’re saying that you’re stupider than me? Been saying that all along buddy.
Don’t take it personally buddy. All is forgiven.
OMG
George finally admitted to being WRONG! This is an epic day folks, X publicly admitting he/she/zey/zim/dim is WRONG! This should be memorialized, spread across the land, notify the high court…
Everyone in Turls Whoville may now find peaceful rest knowing that X has finally found a truth!
Hullbobby, neither are you. But I CAN still opine about an observation, no?
At least I can tell Turley is not analyzing this as a lawyer. It’s THAT obvious.
Ah X but I am a lawyer, albeit retired. But you still aren’t.
HB claims to be a lawyer, but can’t prove it. Now where have we heard that before?
Ooh, let me prove it to some Anonymous troll.
Retired? You sure seem way out of practice from the looks of it.
Said the NON-LAWYER.
HullBobby,
He needs an AI to tell him what to think.
Upstate, I agree with you but I wouldn’t use the word “think”. he needs AI to know what to copy.
USF
Better to be a retired licensed professional lawyer out of practice than a never been, never will be, nope a dope with a terminal case of lawyer envy on a blog site!🤣
Surprised you didn’t notice too? using such incisive and a clear terms: seems … pretty much… ideology… conclusory … shows you have good command of high school level grammar. Nothing wrong about not knowing the relevant law, but your comprehension and observational skills are sorely lacking.
Learn to read.
Curious Mr X, George, what is your opinion of Judge Murphy going against the direct opinion of the SCOTUS and then being admonished by SEVEN Justices for his actions? DO you think that it’s fine for him to go against the Court’s demands?
Also, if it were up to contrarians like X we would have a Court packed with Jackson’s and Sotomayors, two Justices that care not for legalities, just for what they WANT the law (or Constition) to say.
George’s isn’t contrarian, just a confused.
Notice how his comments nowadays are noticeably thin nowadays? Without AI ole george is just … ole george.
Hullbobby, you should be the one learning to read. The debate here isn’t about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science—it’s about procedural law. Does the Executive Branch have the power to ignore existing federal statutes? Judge Murphy ruled ‘no.’ If the Supreme Court eventually says ‘yes,’ that’s their prerogative, but following the text of the law in the meantime is exactly what a judge is supposed to do.
By the way, Being reversed by the Supreme Court is a standard part of the appellate process, not a sign of judicial defiance. If a judge follows the specific language of a law—like the requirement that advisory committees be ‘fairly balanced’—and the SCOTUS later interprets that authority more broadly, that is how the legal system evolves, not a ‘demand’ being ignored..
Being reversed by the Supremes is a part of the appellate process, you are correct. But then going against what the higher Court decrees is not. Am I right?
Wrong
Hullbobby, you sure you’re a lawyer? What decree are you talking about? Did SCOTUS rule the APA unconstitutional? Parts of it invalid? So far you’re not right.
The Court told Murphy he was wrong and yet he took the same action again. That is not the process, but of course not being a lawyer you may not grasp it.
George, maybe you should move away from a legal blog since you are out of your depth. Maybe try a pottery site.
Hullbobby, It’s hilarious that you’re lecturing me on ‘the process’ while completely ignoring the one SCOTUS just invented.
The Actual ‘Process’: When a higher court stays an injunction, they aren’t always saying the judge is ‘wrong’ on the merits; they are often just pausing it while they decide. In the immigration case you’re obsessed with, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent explicitly noted that the majority never actually addressed the legal merits or formally overturned Murphy’s findings. He didn’t ‘take the same action again’ in defiance; he followed the law as it stood until a higher court finally finished its homework.
The Chevron Shift: If you were as deep in the legal weeds as you claim, you’d know that the Supreme Court’s repeal of Chevron changed the rules of engagement. By telling judges they must use ‘independent judgment’ instead of deferring to agencies, SCOTUS basically ordered guys like Murphy to put RFK Jr. under a microscope.
The New Case: In the March 2026 vaccine ruling, Murphy didn’t just ‘recycle’ an old argument. He found specific, new violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)—like the fact that nearly half of Kennedy’s appointees lacked basic vaccine expertise. That’s not ‘pathos,’ that’s a statutory violation.
Are you sure you were a lawyer?
“The debate here isn’t about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science . . .”
Tell that to Judge Murphy, who pontificated wildly about “good” and “bad” science.
It really is amazing how you reframe a debate to satisfy a particular desire.
Thank God for Turley !! People lost their minds during the pandemic(personally i think Faucci is an idiot he put himself as a god of knowledge when now we know he was a shill for the Democrats) Faucci probably was ahead of the curve , when he found out how fast spread o after it was left loose in China and he was complicint he had knowledge and lied and a bunch of people died didn’t they? And what about the Lexington Mass.professor who was arrested coming back from China with all sorts of money and unidentified bio matter?? Or his three students that were detained at Logan Airport with unidentified bio matter? See the Democrats like to pretend he was a god , tony faucci but he wasn’t he was a liar acharlatan and does not deserve any recognition for anything he did during that time!! He needs to go play doctor in the BOP!!! The only one who was on the money about anything was Dr. Doug Corrigan he should be running NIH.
“i think Faucci is an idiot ”
That is a pretty benign portrayal of Fasci. The man is a mass murderer, and a (possibly “the”) prime example of why exemptions to legal accountability and liability for government officials must be ended immediately .
SO CALLED Judge? Murphy is a Left Wing NUT. He should be a Judge on “Night Court”
“ As with his earlier immigration order, the court seems to take the view that anything that can go wrong for the Trump Administration will go wrong for the Administration. At virtually every critical point of ambiguity, the court seems to adopt the harshest possible interpretation in favor of the Administration.”
Well….everything is going wrong for the Trump administration. The economy is getting pummeled by tariffs, war, growing gas prices, republicans looking at a disastrous midterms, ICE losing court cases, DOJ breaking the law, Trump attacking free speech, allies saying “no” because HE started a war he can’t finish on his own.
This MAHA thing is the least of anyone’s problems.
Democrat obstructionism. This is insurrection by every means short of war. Everything you wrote is just designed to create doubt and confusion.
Insurrection? Seriously? Got proof? Or did you forget your meds this morning?
You did!
Yes seriously. It’s insurrection mate.
Diogenes, it’s still true. Inflation just increased at its fastest rate in a long time. Everything Trump touches goes to crap. We are all seeing in happen in real time.
Your source, MS NOW?
Under Bidem X’s guy, we had a wide open border that gave us some of today’s problems and which is one thing Trump is trying to fix, we had 9% inflation, we had the first major war in Europe, we had the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, we had boys in girls sports, we had Asians and whites being denied seats at colleges and Universities, we had Venezuela abetting China, we had Cuba abetting Russia, we had Panama selling the Cabal to China, we had NATO nations not spending 2% of GDP for defense and we had Trans Day of this, Trans Week of that and Trans month of whatever.
Trying to fix? He’s making a mess of everything. Notice you’re using past tense on your Biden diatribes.
Trump is succeeding in only making things worse. I’ve noticed that you haven’t said anything about Trump improving anything. That says a lot.
Of course I am using past tense on Biden because he was…in the past. Still not a lawyer X.
Trump is having trouble getting rid of the 10 million illegals that Biden admitted in only 3 1/2 years, but that is because you and your ilk are fighting him all the way.
Having trouble? Of course he’s having trouble because he’s breaking the law in order to do it. As a lawyer I would have thought you would recognize that.
But right now illegal immigration is the least of his problems. He started a war he can’t finish without help and the economy is getting worse. Biden is no longer in office and Trump isn’t fixing anything. He’s failing. Badly.
From Judge Murphy to boarders and inflation? George ran out of steam on the Murphy issue. Guess hi sAI failed him again.
I am still waiting for GSX to stop relying on old TV westerns for his knowledge of today’s world. In particular, he failed to recognize what homesteading is today. His knowledge base is TV westerns, and he can’t be trusted for anything.
WOW!! Could their ever be anyone more wrong in all your assessments then you??? NO. We The People think for sure you win the answer to that question!! Just another radical leftest A-hole who enjoys spouting off!!
Judge Murphy is one of those judges that turn to the bench after finding themselves incapable of practicing the law well enough to make a living. Moreover, he loves to be both judge and jury. This is reminiscent of Judge Roy Bean of the old West, or judge Gérard de Villefort who condemned Edmond Dantès in “The Count of Monte Cristo”. I’d love to see his AI prompts when he asked his chatbot to write his opinion.
Anyway, based in leftist Boston, he is certainly invited to more wine and cheese parties than us all, being celebrated not for his legal acumen but for his hard work repudiating anything Trump does, this time via RFK Jr. The only bench this guy is suited for is in the park where he can feed the pigeons.
Wack job.
Fascists in black robes are still Fascists. Judges like Murphy are a disgusting and poignant example of little dictators sitting for life on the bench, without any worries about losing their jobs. The judicial process is slow and methodical, and micro dictators like Murphy know that they can cause the gears of the Trump administration to grind to a halt with one Fascist ruling after another. Opponents of the administration know it, too, which is why they find Fascist judges like Murphy to hear their cases.
oh shit … Folks, this guys sees fascists everywhere.
Precisely, delay to get justice always takes time and money and lots of both. Demigods in robes and plaintiffs know that all too well.
Please, Professor, tell us what can realistically be done to rid ourselves of these judicial fleas under our Constitutional blanket?
Why Turley? You’re the big mouth retired lawyer (funny, how your comments should sophomoric) claiming to be a know-it-all with the law. Apparently not eh?
Enlighten us.
No wonder you are Anonymous.
Um… is that a legal opinion or your senility shining through?
BTW, you’re anonymous too. Guess that means you’re stoopid too eh? 😉
ANON posts 23 hours per day! No wonder they are full of s..t!
Murphy certainly knows how to play lawfare.
“It is Murphy’s Law: if anything could be used against the Trump Administration, it will be used against the Administration”
It is the new, revised evidentiary standard. In some law books, it’s called “the scintilla of proof” standard.
IYKYK
It’s lawfare
GO GET EM JON!