Below is my column in The Hill on the latest controversy from the chambers of Judge Indira Talwani. While the court could be upheld in halting the executive order on mail-in balloting in this case, Talwani is one of a number of jurists who have been habitual blockers of executive reforms and policies. Talwani has been criticized in the past as something of a one-stop option for forum-shoppers. Her record reaffirms the rationale for justices in using the emergency docket, or so-called “shadow docket,” to deter gaming the system.
Here is the column:
This week, the Trump administration found itself in a familiar position: facing an injunction from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Indeed, it had just secured an order from the Supreme Court on its emergency docket lifting her earlier injunction on the U.S. Postal Service requiring voting lists to confirm U.S. citizenship.
The case against the executive order on mail-in ballots has reasonable arguments on both sides, although (as I have said previously) the challengers are likely to prevail in defeating the rule or at least delaying the policy until after the midterm elections. The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility over “the times, places, and manner of holding elections.”
However, the U.S. Postal Service is a federal agency, and the federal government does have a role in the funding and regulation of federal elections. More importantly, the Trump administration is arguing that it is not barring mail-in voting but merely imposing “modest informational requirements.” Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, and the new rule “does not displace a single state election law. And it need not and should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail.”
The controversy over Talwani is not necessarily the merits of her decision that the rule convenes the constitutional framework. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits and could well rule in favor of her interpretation. The controversy is the pattern of sweeping injunctions by Talwani and a few other judges.
Litigants have been accused of forum-shopping by going to liberal, Democratically appointed judges to prevent Trump policies from being implemented in a wide array of areas, including immigration, elections, reduction in government bureaucracies, and foreign aid.
Like her colleague in Boston, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, Talwani is viewed by many as a one-stop-shop judge for forum-shopping. Both have issued hair-trigger injunctions, and both have been repeatedly reversed.
Talwani was reversed on Aug. 24 for imposing an injunction against the mail-in balloting policy. Her injunction was taken to be premature and without a legal injury, since the administration had not issued a formal rule. The truth is, the challengers had her at hello. She did not wait for a showing of a cognizable injury before issuing another injunction, because the decision appeared made before the case hit her own docket.
Previously, Talwani showed the same inclination in other cases. For example, she issued an injunction against revoking the humanitarian parole program for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Her order was lifted on appeal.
She also issued an injunction to stop the Trump Administration from defunding Planned Parenthood. That order was also set aside on appeal.
Regardless of the outcome of this latest injunction, Talwani has offered the strongest case in favor of the expanded use of the emergency docket, also known as the “shadow docket.” Liberal law professors and litigants have bewailed the expanded use of this docket at the Supreme Court to resolve cases without the need for a long briefing and oral argument. However, judges like Talwani have created legitimate concerns over the use of the appellate system to slow or freeze new policies. This is why the “shadow docket” has become more prominent.
This year, confidential memoranda were leaked from the court on the use of the emergency docket and published by the New York Times. It was only the latest such strategic leak from a court that was once the paragon of confidentiality and civility.
The internal exchanges of the justices were illuminating as to the majority’s underlying reason for allowing this fast-track review. The immediate issue was a move by the Environmental Protection Agency to impose unlawful regulatory burdens on electric utilities despite a countervailing earlier ruling in Michigan v. EPA. Chief Justice Roberts believed (as did many) that the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with new regulations that the Supreme Court had already rejected.
“In other words,” Roberts wrote, “the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law.”
As with the national injunctions that plagued the Trump administration in its first year, this tactic was all too familiar. Litigants would go to liberal judges in Washington, Boston, and other blue cities to secure injunctions that would take years to fully litigate. That approach effectively allowed individual judges to pursue their own preferred policies or to prevent a president from carrying out promises made during an election. At most, the president might have a year left after these cases slogged through the conventional appellate process. It is an administrative version of the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied.”
What concerned the justices was that many of these injunctions directly contravened earlier precedent, exposing the cynical purpose of these orders. For a president to be able to carry out major changes, he had to run a gauntlet of hundreds of judges, any one of whom could effectively negate reforms. In response, the Supreme Court ramped up the use of the emergency docket and cracked down on national injunctions, quickly reversing the rapidly increasing number of injunctions against the Trump administration.
With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, the odds favor challengers in either running out the clock or prevailing on the merits on the mail-in ballots. But Talwani and some other judges have reinforced suspicions of the Roberts court that some courts are willing allies of partisan groups in seeking to gum up the system.
Ironically, Roberts is one of the most likely conservative justices to be concerned with the Trump administration’s effort to force election integrity reforms on the states. Either way, it is the shadow of these judges, not the docket, that is casting the most ominous concern for many of the Supreme Court justices.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Turley ignores the obvious…, opposition to trump’s EO’s is because they’re illegal. She’s just upholding the law.
I am retired with a background in Telecom therefore some of these writings seem very impressive via legal presentation. For myself I view it simply as Bulls***! Just another scam from the left to cheat, stuff the postal boxes with false ballots to tip the scales in favor of one political party over another. There is no longer any need for mail-in ballots whether you are in the hospital; living in a Senior Citizens Community (my family) has endured this, military overseas, etc. If there is issue of clarity of mind issues then no voting should be allowed anyway. We can thank Obama, Biden and others for this mess but that is another topic. John Roberts could easily put a stop to all this but he has no courage, what a mess!
Despite investigaton after investigation, there is absolutely NO proof of “false ballots to tip the scales”–Trump is pissed off because mail ballots erased his lead in 2020 when he lost to Biden. The “time, manner and place” of voting is controlled by states.
Stopping mail voter fraud is the biggest integrity move since stopping democrats from giving “reading tests” to blacks and mexicans in the 1950s. And the DEMS are hating it.
There is no “mail fraud ” except in MAGA world because Trump couldn’t stand to lose in 2020.
Whether debating restructuring the high court or restructuring our election system – the major changes should happen no sooner than 8 years from now. That way no party and no president can game the system, the reforms might apply to your opposing political party. So the rules will be designed knowing the other party will use these reforms against you.
It would be like changing the rulebook during a football game at halftime, because your side is losing. If reforms are legitimate, they can’t be implemented until 8 years from now. On election reforms that might require a constitutional amendment.
The shadow docket is a fractal of the big idea that checks and balances exist to stop any one branch from getting the bit in its teeth and running helter skelter under-or over- We The People. The Chief Justice Roberts/EPA is a good example. A lot of the District Court injunction litigation in the name of preserving the status quo is arbitrage to use the tyranny of of appellate time to hang on to a desired political outcome. Shadow docket stays of injunctions recognize that an injunction can present a constitutional status quo problem. Related to that we need to hard put the question to the pack the court with 13 crowd what they intend to do with the shadow docket. I wrote earlier that Marbury v Madison was decided in year 13 after Ratification of the Constitution. Marbury is the lynch pin for the Supreme Court’s declaring what the law is by deciding what the law is not. Does the idea of packing with 13 have its hand over its chuckling mouth because the end game is to take down Marbury?
One of America’s top crisis is America’s “Sadism Culture” – which is contrary to Judeo-Christian values and contrary to constitutional values.
The first impulse of too many Americans is to punish and inflict pain on your perceived political opponents, when the real issue is “systematic”.
For example: in the military, intelligence, national security or even your local police agency – low level subordinate employees “follow orders” (even illegal orders) from superiors and political appointees.
Not following orders from above (even illegal orders) at minimum will destroy a government employees career or worse. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou was framed and sent to prison for refusing to follow illegal orders.
The U.S. Department of Justice, in a very sadistic manner, wanted to punish Kiriakou for being too loyal to his Oath of Office. The DOJ fabricated another crime then sent him to prison. It never addressed fixing the systematic issues to prevent top management from issuing illegal orders in the first place.
When Chelsea Manning witnessed the U.S. military shooting at and killing civilian targets (including reporters), the DoD literally tortured Manning in prison before any guilty verdict was ever reached. This sadistic tactic was used because Manning was too loyal to his Oath of Office. None of the systematic issues were ever solved, non-Christian sadism won the day.
When former members of the CIA and DoD ran a tv commercial restating American law and reminding service members of their loyalty oath to the Constitution (to refuse illegal orders to commit future war crimes or other crimes). Trump threatened them with the death penalty for restating American law and restating the American loyalty oath.
When General Mark Milley gave the best retirement speech of the 21st Century, accurately explaining that the American Oath of Office opposes dictatorship and fascism. Trump chose sadism, threatening the death penalty to a highly decorated military veteran for promoting American values.
In my recollection of American history, this huge shift from honorable World War Two officials to sadism happened during the first Bush Administration. Reagan was by and large non-sadistic, it started in large part after Reagan. During the first Bush Administration, American military officers were using sadistic tactics against any perceived enemy and it has gotten worse since the 1990’s.
Not every problem and issue requires the solution of pain and punishment. If the “system” is broken (which it has been for over 30 years) – fix the system without punishing the low level employees forced to follow those illegal orders!
Even with arguably the biggest sadist to ever be president, the solution is “systematic”. Reform the system so presidents can’t act like foreign dictators. The solution is not to be sadistic like Trump is.
Can we stop manufacturing idiotic faux psychology arguments.
Absolutely Americans take their politics like their sports. We root for “the home team” and cheer when they win.
That is not new, and it is true everywhere in the world.
It is NORMAL human nature – it is not specific to american culture.
We even cheer players from our team and then jeer them when they move to another team.
Again nothing new.
Regardless outside the tiny portiuon of actually disturbed people – today bewst refected by the far left wing nuts who keep trying to assassinatge Trump,
This is all limited to RHETORIC.
If you can not take being insulted publicly – do NOT get into politics – it comes with the territory.
If you are so fragile that the insults of others actually cause you pain – get out of politics.
The real question is not why do americans “inflict pain” on political opponents, but why are those like you and the left so fragile as to percieve even mere disagreement as violoence ?
God forbid you should ever have to live without the massive priviledges of modern society.
As Hobbs accurately noted Man’s life in nature is “nasty, Brutish and Short”.
re: John Say
You are absolutely correct that this is how the system works today.
James Madison and the framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to abolish “Team Sports” in government service. Team Sports in governing led to tyranny. The Framers wanted a fair set of rules and a constitutional-amendment process to make the system more just over time.
Political parties weren’t outlawed by the Founding Fathers, but they would have only been supported if they provided “healthy” competition and “healthy” counter-balances to power (checks & balances).
In recent history, political parties (never designed into the American system) have nearly destroyed the USA and divided Americans against one another. Team Sports results in really bad governing.
Can we stop manufacturing idiotic faux psychology arguments. … YES! You first.
All hierarchical structures REQUIRE following orders Any arrangement of humans working together at the slightest scale is hierarchical.
If you wish to demonstrate some successful arrangement of humans working together at scale that is not hierarchical – please feel free to demonstrate.
In all hierarchical structures if you do not follow the directions of superiors – you get disciplined – usually cast out of the group – fired.
Military., Church. business, sports team, Peer group – it is all the same.
Absolutely you are expected to “follow orders” – if you can not do so – then do not join any hierachical structure.
Regardless, ALL humans have free will. No humans is ever obligated to “follow orders” legal or otherwise.
They merely lose membership in hierachical groups if they choose NOT to follow the directives of that group.
All humans are also morally responsible for their individual actions – one of the lessons of Nuremberg is that “just following orders” is NOT a justification for immoral conduct.
It is not structurally important whether the orders you are being asked to follow are immoral, illegal, or just contrary to your personal values.
You are NOT ever obligatged to follow them. You are ALWAYS “Free to Choose” – but that freedom may come at the cost of your membership in a group,
such as your job
Left wing nut “cancel culture” is just a variant on the same concept – diverge from the expectations of the group and get cut off from the group.
Regardless, whether driven by differences of prference or policy, or by your personal Morals, values, beleifs or understanding of the law or constitution you are always
FREE TO LEAVE.
“Absolutely you are expected to “follow orders” – if you can not do so – then do not join any hierachical [I think you mean hierarchical] structure.”
Only if they are legal orders. Otherwise you can expect to end up in the dock at Nuremberg and “I was obeying orders” will not spare you the noose. This is what grown-up, distinguished veterans, such as Sen Kelly, understand, and people like Trump and Hegseth do not. Those who issue unlawful orders can, however, expect to face the maximum penalty.
Manning and Kiriakou were prosecuted by the Obama administration.
Contrary your claims – both violated the law.
There is no fabrication of a crime.
You can arguye that higher moral values justified their actions.
Or in the case of Kiriakou that he is being punished for conduct that was the norm, routine and accepted
Thechnically Manning did not “witness” anything . Manning merely was in position of classified material – such as video that disproved public claims of the Obama Administration.
Milley has a radically different view of the role of the US in the world – one that with near certainty YOU do not embrace.
Regardless he is not the first ranking US military officer who lost a conflict with the commander in chief.
McCllelan and a long list of other generals were dismissed by Lincoln for the same failures as Miley, As was Americas most decorated General – Douglas MacArthur.
Myriads of Generals were dismissed during WWII for a variey of reasons. Patton faced dismissal numerous times.
YOU HAVE A severely blinkered understanding of history.
“Not every problem and issue requires the solution of pain and punishment. ”
Correct and irrelevant. Minor disagreements are ignored. more significant ones require some consequences. From a private dressing down, through public dressing down to dismissal and even prosecution of the misconduct is criminal.
Manning unarguably committed a crime. You can claim manning was justified, but that does not change the fact that leaking classified information is a crime.
You can view Manning as a hero – I might even agree. But manning still choose to put his personal standards of morality above the law. That is an act of civil disobedience – and civil disobedience comes with consequences.
“McCllelan [McClellan] and a long list of other generals were dismissed by Lincoln for the same failures as Miley [Milley], As [as] was Americas [America’s] most decorated General – Douglas MacArthur.
“Myriads of Generals were dismissed during WWII for a variey [variety] of reasons. Patton faced dismissal numerous times.”
How can you say the ACW generals were dismissed for the same failures as Milley? They were sacked for incompetence as commanders. Milley retired whilst Biden was still President, Sep 2023, and everything since then has been Trump and Hegseth going after him because he refused to take Trump’s side when his Proud Boy acolytes were storming the Capitol.
Patton was a reasonably competent commander who, however, thought he knew better than everyone else and needlessly antagonised everyone else. MacArthur was a egotistical maniac who was dismissed because he wanted to use nuclear weapons because he was losing in Korea. (Oh, and had actually retired from the US Army in 1937; the Philippines were foolish enough to appoint him their commander, and then FDR was even more foolish to recall him to service after Pearl.) His decorations were no reflection of his military (in)competence.
You remain as illiterate as ever. Is it the medication?
The system is not “broken” – it is just a human system and therefore imperfect and not perfectable.
Get over it.
Humans do not agree on what “the system” should be – some will ALWAYS consider it to be “broken” – because it works as OTHERS chose – not as they chose.
Regardless you are free to try to change it.
Further “the system” must work with real people – imperfect people. While there are myriads of other flaws in socialism – one that left wing nuts OFTEN admit is that socialism fails because of bad leaders.
Part of the greatness of the american constitutional system is that it can and has survived bad leaders.
Regardless, any system that requires human perfection to work will fail – CATASTOPHICALLY.
Your characterization of Trump is reality denying nonsense – but even if it actually were all true – Trump will not be president on Jan 21, 2029. We will have a new president who will be the peoples choice at that moment.
You have failed in your idiotic argument.
Regardless, you are absolutely totally free to try to “change the system” – change the law, amend the constitution.
Those things start in Washington DC.
Sadism Culture? Tell me you’re not on drugs John “anonymous” Say.
Thanks Jan for the stunning number of words to say “I hate Trump”.
Give a Mook judicial power and what do you get? Obama’s Mookdum
Come On Man – Indira WTF Talwani has a Black Robe right? How dare anyone question her wisdom, application of the law (as she sees it), and her need to SAVE HUMANITY from ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!! Clearly some IDIOT POLITICIANS (oops I mean wise old Boys and Girls) knew JUDGE WTF was Illuminati material and bestowed the Black Robe of the ALL SEEING ORACLES, right? Screw those damn SCOTUS orders and rulings – A low level Black Robe sometimes has to do what makes her FEEL GOOD even if the other Illuminati don’t see it that way!!! YOU GO GIRRRRRRLLLLL.
The USPS should simply decline to deliver mail-in ballots.
Oh, break the law you mean? Even the current SCOTUS would crucify them. You just want to rig the election for Donny to avoid his huge flock of chickens coming home to roost. Why not just say you want to ensure a Trump Thousand Year Reich?
Calm down. Go sip your starbucks and relax. That was obviously a tongue in cheek joke. USPS is more likely to strategically lose ballots that go for the GOP than to simple not deliver them (you can google the many instances of that happening).
Now finish your latte and have mommy make you some pizza rolls.
I think Turley is too far over his skis in claiming that USPS is likely to loose this because the constitution gives all the power over elections to the states.
That is false, regardless the power to deliver mail belongs exclusively to USPS and that is federal.
It is likely that USPS regulations REQUIRING states to share information will be found outside the power of USPS – though the states are REQUIRED to share the same information by DOJ and that is both legal and constitutional, and the states are not.
Regardless, USPS is likely to win with respect to the use of USPS regulations to stop “mail fraud” and illegal voting is “mail fraud”
Mail fraud is a federal crime. In the specific case of federal elections – a state that knowingly mails ballots to people who can not legally vote has committed a federal crime.
Nor can I see SCOTUS giving their impramatur to states deliberately trying to thwart efforts to prevent mail fraud.
Absolutely USPS is legally required to deliver a ballot to any legal voter. But no state can REQUIRE that the USPS participate in Mail Fraud or that they stop efforts to thwart it.
Contra Turley – the federal Government/USPS is going to win this easily. Though I suspect there will be a resolution FIRST. I suspect that “a deal” will be worked out between states and DOJ and USPS<
that voter registration lists will be purged of ineligible voters _ dead people, people who do not exist, people who can not legally vote, ….
But I agree with Turley this will not be resolved by the 2026 election.
Regardless this is a losing battle for the left.
The ACTUAL illegal conduct is BY THE STATES. Federal law (and state law) has required purging voter registration lists for decades.
Federal law has required providing election information to DOJ on demand for decades.
The lawlessness here is ON THE LEFT.
John, Jonathan Turley knows the Supreme Court cannot rule for the USPS because Judge Talwani’s decision forces the Court to confront the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD). As a logistics entity rather than a law enforcement or election-regulation agency, the U.S. Postal Service cannot halt the delivery of lawful state election materials under the guise of policing mail fraud without conflating mail carriage with sovereign police power. Under the MQD, the Court is legally bound to rule against the administration’s position.
Under federal law (39 U.S.C. § 403), the USPS must provide fair, non-discriminatory mail services and is explicitly forbidden from creating disadvantages. Contrast this with how the Supreme Court aggressively applied the MQD to restrict the EPA under the Biden administration. By avoiding the doctrine here, the Court exposes the MQD as a politically biased tool.
States determining voter eligibility and mailing ballots are conducting a lawful government function. The USPS has zero statutory authority to unilaterally declare state-issued ballots “fraudulent” before they are even delivered or cast. Furthermore, claiming a state commits a federal crime by mailing ballots completely misinterprets the Federal Mail Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1341), which requires a specific intent to defraud someone of money or property via misrepresentation. A state distributing ballots under its own established laws is simply exercising sovereign constitutional power. Consequently, states that vote entirely by mail have clear, legitimate standing to sue over this attempt to dismantle mail-in voting based on unsubstantiated fraud claims.
This is why Turley is betting. SCOTUS will rule against the USPS.
Isn’t what Trump’s SC decision delivered. The Feds have set up the criteria regulations for issuing mail in ballots, a chain of command with tracking abilities for all MIB. Needless to say, the Democrats are against this. If the ballot is not associated to a verifiable qualified voter, it goes in the trash. Now what could be wrong with that?
Judges who are overturned repeatedly should be disbarred – impeachment takes too long.
It does seem like a 3 strikes you’re out option. That includes judges who shield murderers, rapists, and illegals from law enforcement.
She, Boasberg, and others are A CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER TO OUR REPUBLIC and should be impeached.
Boasberg should be labeled a co-conspirator (sedition, insurrection could apply too) in several on going cases.
“She, Boasberg, and others are A CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER TO OUR REPUBLIC and should be impeached.”
A few more months and there will be lots of impeachments. The Orange Shitgibbon, Mullin, Hegseth, Blanche, Homan…
A few more months and there will be lots of impeachments? That’s not a prediction. That’s a vibe.
Impeachment is not a midterm participation trophy. The House can pass articles. Removal still takes 67 Senate votes. That has almost never happened for cabinet officers, and it has never happened for a president on a party-line stunt.
Also, the list is sloppy:
Markwayne Mullin is a senator. The House does not impeach senators. Remember civics? The Senate expels its own members. Different process. Almost never used.
Hegseth, Blanche, and Homan can be impeached in theory. In practice, hearings and headlines are easy. Convictions are not.
Calling Trump the “Orange Shitgibbon” does not change the Constitution. It just tells everyone you are a liberal that cannot analyze.
If Democrats take the House, they can investigate. That is normal politics. “Lots of impeachments” as if it’s already in the bag is just fan fiction.
While you are correct legally and constitutionally.
What is also relevant is that Democrats further making themselves into the party of the politics of personal destruction will not serve democrats.
Outside the far left almost none of this nonsense is popular.
Democrats make up about 30% of the country – only about half the nonsense being sprayed about has the support of even a majority of democrats – that would be 15% of the county.
NONE of it has consequential support among independents or republicans.
CNN recently polled republicans and they pick Trump as the greatest president in US history by 53% – over Reagan at 18% and Lincoln at 8%.
That surprised even me.
Trump is the greatest president in the 21st century – but the 21st century so far has had poor presidents.
Trump is not Reagan and he is not Lincoln – though he absolutely aspires to their stature.
Regardless, in the past I would have said Democrats are not suicidal. Today I am not so sure.
I do not think Democrats will go the impeachment route. Frankly I do not think they will be very effective at all – no matter what route they go if they gain power.
As Sun Tzu said – “do not interfere when your enemy is making a mistake”
This is a shockingly ignorant post. It is clear civics is no longer taught in school.
Can you even define “high crimes and misdemeanors” as the Constitution lists it? No one on that list qualifies, whether you love them or hate them. The Democrats have made a mockery of the constitution and the impeachment process. They also openly admit to wanting to make even more of a mockery of the constitution until they can finally destroy it.
That should terrify anyone with a minimum of historical understanding.
I would not bet on Democrats taking congress right now – this election is incredibly close – which alone should scare democrats.
But in the event that democrats actually take both houses and begin impeachment proceedings
BRING IT ON
Nothing will do more to ensure a red wave in 2028 that Democrats returning to the politics of personal destruction.
I highly doubt you will see much more than lip service to these left wing promises.
Though who knows I could be wrong.
Democrats have shown an incredible drive towards self destruction over the past two decades.
The GOP is NOT going to stop you from self immolation.
“Litigants have been accused of forum-shopping by going to liberal, Democratically appointed judges to prevent Trump policies from being implemented in a wide array of areas, including immigration, elections, reduction in government bureaucracies, and foreign aid.”
Wasn’t there a change to randomly-assigned federal judges?
Turns out the 2025 Judicial Conference adopted random assignment of judges to cases. But then individual District Courts and Appellate Courts asserted “local control” as a means to circumvent the new rule. They created a maze of exceptions and loopholes. This shows the tenacious political corruption within the Federal Court system — confronted with public outrage over judge-shopping by Plaintiffs’ lawyers, they announced a new rule that they could simply ignore!
Chief Justice Roberts could put his foot down. He’s a weakling.
How do you equate “exceptions and loopholes” as a “maze”? All the rest is just a rewrite that you posted a million times before.
Go wake up George will ya? At least he can entertain, you just bore.
When a handful LITTERALLY of the nearly 800 federal judges get nearly all the trump lawfare cases, and near 100% of the time lose either on appeal or before SCOTUS – there is absolutely a problem.
Talwani & Murphy are highly politicized individuals whose “Behaviour” is “not good”, temperament not judicial.
“[S]hall hold their Office during good Behaviour”.
Which standard derives from “lifetime appointment during good behaviour”; but neither rule can truthfully be reduced to simply “lifetime appointment” (without perpetrating a self-enriching fraud).
What “Congress may from time to time ordained and establish” it can “defund, dissolve and defrock”. There is no permanence in “may” or “from time to time”.
A judicial appointment is not an unqualified entitlement; as with any aspect of our legal system there are standards which should be upheld by each of the individual appointee, the Congress, and the supreme Court as the “one Supreme Court”. … No Impeachment process is necessary to address “bad Behaviour” in the form of “politicization”, “gaming the system”, “participation in ‘forum shopping'” (aka lack of independence and likely involving collusion and ex parte communications), … other.
Defund, Dissolve, Defrock.
A successful impeachment requires 67 Senators for removal. The activist judges know this will not happen.
Typical Turley. He accepts that the good lady judge is quite possibly right in her interpretation of the law and constitution regarding federal efforts to interfere with elections. He accepts that even the partisan Republican SCOTUS quite possibly agree with her on the law and constitution. But… but… he has to slag her off nevertheless.
Heavens above, the Democrats might have indulged in forum shopping! Which of course Trump and his winged monkeys like Blanche never do. They never pursue the BBC in, say, a Florida court over a programme not seen in Florida. They do not move suspect criminal members of ICE to Texas to try to prevent them facing justice. They do not remove evidence in a homicide case from a state to protect their thugs.
This is why the rest of the world looks at the USA and sees a justice system that is almost as corrupt as anything Stalin could have dreamt up.
For non-lawyer you sure know how to make a fool of yourself.
Well, lawyers like Turley and Thomas and Alito and Gorsuch are exquisite at showing themselves to be fools…
You forgot Jackson, the one wearing a mask when she travels and who’s been shredded by SCOTUS twice for being criminally stupid. See you soon….
Given she is part of SCOTUS, she has not been “shredded” by SCOTUS. Moron. What has happened is that one of the conservative patsies has got upset with her. Does not mean that she was right or wrong.
Ahm… not mean right or wrong? She was publicly castigated by 5 judges. I guess that makes her wrong and you a moron. Hurry back as soon as you find soothing moronic to say.
But soon the WNBA will explain what a women is the the so-called Justice.
Fools? Only a fool would make a statement like that without facts. Got any? But heck, that’s what we come to know from anons.
Says “Mack”, whoever he or she may be… You are definitely a fool to resort to that argument about “anonymity”. Even Turley is not Turley, but some first year intern looking for extra credit.
Who wrote anything about anonymity? Try harder.
Calling Turley, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch fools is not an argument. It is a confession that you do not like the scoreboard.
Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch are among the most consequential originalist justices of the last generation. Their opinions have reshaped Second Amendment law, administrative power, standing, and the scope of federal agencies. You can disagree with those outcomes. Pretending they are intellectual lightweights is just noise.
Jonathan Turley is not a justice, but he is one of the most widely cited constitutional scholars in the country. He has spent decades teaching, writing, and testifying on separation of powers and impeachment. “Fool” is not a rebuttal to that record.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see the difference between “I reject their jurisprudence” and “they are fools.” The first is a position. The second is just name-calling from someone who lost the legal argument.
Jackson is light years ahead of them! A brilliant jurist.
ok, that’s funny! Jackson would struggle to pass a constitutional law course!
She be Kakaesque.
“In other words,” Roberts wrote, “the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law.”
Even Turley gives the reason here why her injunction is necessary and appropriate now, because a failure to stop the USPS would allow them to implement effectively (no split infinitives please, Mr Roberts) an important programme held to be contrary to law.
If SCOTUS does not agree with the judge, it should have done its bloody job and ruled on the legal basis of the earlier injunction, not hiding behind nonsense about the case being brought too early. Other proper legal systems in democracies do not allow irreparable harm to be risked over the niceties of allowing courts to meander along without regard for the reality of what is happening.
Turley also points out that SCOTUS already knocked her down. She the ignored that and issued a second injunction. It is one of those weaknesses in our system that a district court judge can simply ignore an appellate court with zero repercussions. Something built into the legal profession is that judges are nonbiased and will follow the rules.
She has a history of intentionally making up the rules as she goes along. That’s the point.
ATS – The Roberts quote is from a DIFFERENT case.
Thje POINT of the quote was that SCOTUS need not wait until a case has been finally decided and worked its way up through appeals before telling lower courts that they are acting completely at odds with established precendent.
Further in the case Turley cites – a Federal Agency was ACTING. Courts have jurisdiction over ACTS,
They do NOT have any jurisdiction over the deliberative process of the federal or executive branches – only their ACTS.
Until USPS passes a final rule – the courts do not have a case or controversy to hear.
SCOTUS has already said this – both historically and in the recent past.
The judge is 10,000 miles over her skis.
When and If USPS enacts a “final rule” – this judge can hear the case. Until then – she can not.
When they do she can issue an injunction against an ACTUAL RULE – as opposed to telling USPS they can not think or talk or deliberate about the handling of mailin ballots.
Contra turley when she eventuially issues a stay on a case that she actually has jurisdiction over, she WILL be overturned by higher courts.
No state has the power to make the unconstitutional constitutional. USPS is NOT interfering with a states legitimate power over elections. USPS is not violating a single state election law. USPS is not infringing on any state powers.
ATS
No Turley did not accept that she is right.
He almost certaionly incorrectly said she MIGHT be right – and that is strictly on the constitutional issue.
Turley CORRECTLY pointed out that she is 100% wrong on the procedural issue.
The federal courts do NOT have jurisdiction until the USPS actually passes a final rule.
That has not happened. It is not likely to happen before the election.
The federal courts have absolutely zero jurisdiction over what the USPS MIGHT do.
The constitution REQUIRES that their must be a real case or controvery before the courts can accept a case.
The courts have ZERO authority over proposed federal rules just as they have no authority over anything in congress until congress votes it into law.
This judge is 10,000 miles over her skis. I expect SCOTUS to shoot this down fast.
With respect to the actual merits – should the USPS ever pass a final rule – mail fraud is a perfectly legitimate cause of action for the federal government.
Contra Turely – the states HAVE NOT passed laws that allow anyone but US citizens to vote in federal elections – and if they did, such laws would be unconstitutional.
Absolutely the states have the power – though it is shared with congress with Turley missed, to the time place and manner of federal elections.
But that does not mean that states are free to intentionally conduct fraudulent elections or unconstitutional ones.
For USPS to be acting unconstitutionally – the states have to have passed laws that ALLOW the people USPS ia culling to vote – otherwise the states do not have standing and there is no harm or interferance with the states.
For USPS to infringe on the states powers over elections – the states would have to have the power to allow non-citizens to vote in federal elections.
Consider a similar hypothetical.
Lets assume that instead of California sending ballots to everyone who can fog glass, they choose to send ballots to every human in the US – all 350m of us. Clearly 90% of those people can not legally or constitutionally vote in California election. Can the federal govenrment – remember this is a FEDERAL ELECTION – not one for LA Mayor, refuse to deliver ballots when 90% of those ballots are obviously fraudulent ?
Not only could USPS refuse to deliver ballots, but the FBI/DOJ could arrest CA election officials for both intentional election fraud and mail fraud.
We give way too much latitude to those in government with regard to criminal charges were various forms of fraud are likelyh and where they were ignored.
But there is ZERO doubt they can be prosecuted when the actions of state officials go from making fraud easy to making it 100% certain.
No state can make election fraud or any other form of fraud legal. That is outside their power.
No state can prevent the federal govenrment from taking steps to prevent fraud – of any kind, that are within the power of the federal government.
Delivery of mail is a Federal power. The fact that what is being delivered is a ballot does not change the USPS’s power to stop mail fraud.
Turley is atleast wise enough to cover himself with “possibly”
Preventing states from fascilitating crimes is NOT interfering with elections.
The state does NOT have the power to allow non-citizens to vote in federal elections.
It is not election interference to stop Fraud.
More idiotic left wing nut WORD GAMES
“Heavens above, the Democrats might have indulged in forum shopping! Which of course Trump and his winged monkeys like Blanche never do. ”
Generally no – republicans do not need to forumn shop – Outside of Boston, NYC, DC and a very few other places – most ANY federal court in the country is going to follow the law and the constitution – or atleast try.
But this is not just about “forumn shopping” – this is about 100% of the lawfare against Trump policies going in front of less than dozen of the nearly 800 federal judges. And out of that dozen – 80% of those cases are before 4-5 judges.
Worse still – while Turley has address the dim view SCOTUS is likely to take of this. The FACT is that Trump wins on appeal about 50% of the time in jurisdictions like Boston, NYC, DC without having to go to the supreme court. Trump is winning 50% of his appeals infront of left wing nut tribunals.
This is a handful of lawless judges.
With respect to the BBC case – I watch the BBC all the time – people all over the US watch BBC, Sky News,, read the Guardian, …
Trump has filed several lawsuits in FL – lawsuits that should have won easily and had them dismissed their by left wing judges.
There are better places for Trump to files than Florida. It is a roll of the dice in FL whether Trump will get a lunatic left judge.
Almost half the FL judges are still clinton and obama appointees.
BTW Trump’s lawsuit agains the BBC is a private civil defamation lawsuit – it has nothing to do with the federal govnerment, DOJ or Blanche.
“suspected criminal members of ICE” or ANY Federal actor, are immune from state prosecution for actions in the course of their jobs. USDA inspectors, ICE agents, TSA members, FBI agents can not be prosecuted in state or local courts PERIOD.
That is not new, it is not Trump specific. The FBI Snipers that murdered Randy Weavers family at Ruby Ridge could not be prosecuted in state court – that was decades ago.
There is no “moving evidence” – the jurisdiction fo all cases involving federal employees acts while acting as government officials is with govenrment PERIOD – again that is not new.
If you do not like that CHANGE THE LAW.
You did not mention this but ICE Habeus appeals generally occur in Texas – because that is where most ICE detention fascilities are. The left has opposed the construction of ICE fascilities in blue states and the result is that those arrested are mostly transported to red states – because that is where the detention fascilities are.
DEMOCRATS unintentionally moved the venue for illegal immigrants to red states.
“This is why the rest of the world looks at the USA and sees a justice system that is almost as corrupt as anything Stalin could have dreamt up.”
False and irrelevant.
The overwhelming majority of americans CORRECTLY recognize the rest of the world as Less free and more corrupt.
That you are disconnected from reality is YOUR problem.
No one in the US gets arrested for “Thought crime” – the rough equivalent of MAGA is happenign throughout Europe – EXCEPT in “democrat socialist” countries where the “left” has decided to “get tough on illegal immigrants” – like Norway. Denmark, and Sweden.
Regardless, if you are so desparatre for european approval – MOVE TO EUROPE.
If you think Europe is a utopia – Please leave.
Americans DO NOT WANT to become Europe – and for good reason -0 with 50% more people, Europe as a significantly smaller GDP, and lower standard of living. Working class americans do as well as middle class europeans.
Standard of living in Germany is now about the same as Mississippi – the 50th state in the US.
Why exactly should americans care what countries that are doing poorly think of the US ?
“Typical Turley. . . .”
Lots of ad hominem. Not a single argument.
I thought Brits were more refined than that.
Because of the blue slip rule, all federal judicial appointments in Massachusetts must be approved by Markey and Warren.
Far left Fascists are using every means to delay and obstruct the Trump administration. I can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if the other side had used these tactics to delay Obama’s policies, or Biden’s policies. I hope leftwing Fascists are ready because I hope that the other side has learned a lesson and uses these same endless obstructionist tactics when a Democrat is in the White House.
Again, I can find no phrase in the Constitution that grants each and every one of America’s 677 District Court judges veto power over the President of the United States.
The Constitution doesn’t even mention District Court judges, although it ended up allowing for the possibility of their creation.
That will be the constitution that gives the President zero, zero role in the administration of elections. Trump is self-evidently acting ultra vires.
Zero? But the good ole Constitution does as executive of the USA and the 27 states who Ahave adopted the SAFE as policy.
Acting ultra vires huh? So paddle him.
The USPS falls under the authority of the executive branch. They have the authority and responsibility to guard against facilitating fraud by the postal service. As Turley pointed out, the executive order does not interfere with the states authority w/r/t to the conduct of elections. Dems just oppose any attempt to secure the sanctity of elections.
Both false and irrelevant. The US executive branch is responsible for the administration and execution of every election law passed by congress. Contra Turley – the constitution grants power over federal elections to BOTH the states and to Congress.
There are myriads of federal election laws – including laws that REQUIRE states to purge their voter roles, and laws that require states to provide any election information to DOJ.
These are federal laws being violated by states. There is nowhere in the US that a non-citizen, dead person or non-existant person can legally vote in a federal election. Both federal and state laws preclude that.
The president has the power to enforce FEDERAL LAW.
And that is EXACTLY what he is doing.
But even is a body of federal election law did not exist – there is plenty of federal law regarding mail fraud.
If you use the mail as part of a fraud – you have made that fraud a federal crime.
The USPS has the absolute power to implement rules to prevent and/or identify mail fraud,
And DOJ/FBI have the power to investigate and prosecute it.
Finally the US Constitution only allows Citizens to vote in federal elections.
The Federal govenrment and specifically the executive branch – because he enforcement power of the laws and constitution of the Untied states are vested in the executive branch.
Contra Turley – this is NOT even a close call.
The Constitution doesn’t even mention District Court judges,…. try federal statutes. And you MAGAots wonder why MAGA is failing.
MAGA isn’t failing. What’re you even talking about?
Federal Statutes: The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the structure and jurisdiction of the district courts.
28 U.S. Code: This code outlines the roles, responsibilities, and procedures for judges and the administration of the courts.
Really: the modern left, due to their hubris/insanity, have no idea how bad they have made themselves look to anyone who isn’t a hate-filled troll. Granted, they also don’t care and will continue to attempt to take everything by force. These judges are a pox on a free society. They serve a party, not we the people.
Living rent free ….
they also don’t care and will continue to attempt to take everything by force. … talk about a troll, you’re oblivious to the machinations of the Trump administration in taking over elections laws that are the domain of the states and congress.
Jimmy is the dumb Magaot on the blog.
I know … geezzzzzz
I am amazed by the refusal of those on the left to secure elections. The overwhelming majority of the voters want elections secured. Its a strange hill to die on that unsecured elections, against the will of the majority, is somehow a good thing.
Also, this is about USPS. The President can influence that. He’s not changing any election laws (although the Senate does need to pass the SAVE act).
It is clear you know even less about the law than you do politics.
If the Dems pack SCOTUS the reliance on the shadow docket will go away. The Dems will be able to pass whatever they want without worrying about judicial review. The Constitution will no longer protect the public from an overbearing government. SCOTUS is our last line of defense.
SCOTUS is our last line of defense.
No. My 3ooo rounds and is.
Destroy MAGA through lawfare. Love MAss. judges.
COMMIE
PEDO
yes you sure are
So says the pedo boy
You’re a double pedo
That is also destroying Democracy and insurrection. No wonder as a communist you would cheer that.
Got proof?
That is not a legal principle. That is a confession.
If a political movement can only be beaten by friendly judges instead of voters, statutes, and elections, you are not defending the rule of law. You are shopping for a referee.
Courts exist to apply the law, not to “destroy” half the country. The second you cheer a judge because of the team they help rather than the statute they interpret, you have admitted the process is the point.
Massachusetts judges are not a substitute for winning Congress, writing clearer laws, or persuading the public. If the argument is strong, you do not need lawfare. If you need lawfare, the argument was never that strong.
Weak
Shakespeare may have been on to something ….
catholic Shakespeare spoke truth on lawyers and fake jews that comes straight from the Bible….but idiocracy likes fake news from the fake jews