Seems to be the ‘only’ thing the leftist/dems/et al can do, and the administration can only fight back in the courts against these judges…
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to rein in lower court rulings that have prevented a ban on birthright citizenship from taking effect nationwide.
Judges should not be able to govern “the whole Nation” from their courtrooms by issuing universal injunctions that block policies across the entire country while litigation is pending, the administration told the justices in its application.
Full article, HERE from Daily Caller.
I’ll ask the same question I did back in 2017, HOW can a district court judge from ‘somewhere’ overrule the executive branch???
We know the players are going to judge shop to get what they want (see 9th Circus), which is only going to delay actions, since most of the time (see 9th Circus) it is overturned on appeal or SCOTUS sends it back and tells them to do the right thing…
Which still doesn’t answer the basic question. Three branches of government is what we are ‘supposed’ to have. The US Constitution is the governing document. Article 1 sets up congress, article 2 sets up the presidency, article 3 sets up SCOTUS.
I have always been taught they were co-equal, with each providing checks and balances on the other two.
But, what we’re seeing, IMHO, with this lawfare, is that these judges think they outrank the president, and can set all kinds of policies, spending, etc!!!
Also, I ‘thought’ judges were supposed to follow the Constitution, not make their ‘own’ interpretations of that Constitution…
Am I that out of touch???
I heard this morning on talk radio that a judge has ordered the POTUS to rehire people who had been laid off due to DOGE. Does that apply ONLY to federal workers, or can anyone have their employment re-booted ?
Where does it end ? Too many cooks in the kitchen.
My understanding is that most of the laid-off employees are “probies” i.e. probationary employees. Whether or not it is wise to eliminate the next crop of employees is a discussion for another day. What is relevant is that probationary employees can be let go for any reason or no reason, i.e. employment at will. In other words the judges “mandating” the laid-off people be “rehired” have no legal basis to do so. As usual IANAL and I don’t play one on TV.
It has been a long time since I was a “probie” but as I recall, I was told I could be terminated at any time during my probationary period for any reason.
I read somewhere federal probies have to be given 60 days notice before they’re fired. That made my head spin a little.
With the insane thinking of these leftist judges the Constitution has no bearing. They believe they have the ultimate right to dictate their thoughts to the President, Congress,and the rest of the country. Their lust for dictatorial power knows no bounds!
From the Left, the Constitution as a limit on the power of government only applies when our government is not Leftist / totalitarian / DemonRat.
‘Thing is, these judges that are getting overturned need to be tossed from their positions.
But that never seems to happen.
Unless, and until, we start getting rid of judges that “Legislate from the Bench” whose rulings are overturned by higher courts, this will keep happening.
The biggest failure the writers of the Constitution had was that they assumed that people in the government would follow what was written…..
The fundamental problem — and it isn’t only the leftist judges — is that it is baked into the entire left/marxist mindset that they, personally, are endowed with superior knowledge and ability, and that therefore they must be allowed to govern, by force if necessary, the lesser people (that’s you and I, by the way). They truly do think of themselves as the elite. They do not believe in democracy at all, except as a means to power.
I don’t know law from shineola , but these judges are partisan and “dance with the ones who brung’um “.
We haven’t had an impartial judiciary in my lifetime. What we have are a bunch of Left-wing partisan tyrants in black robes.
IMHO it’s only a delaying tactic. Ruling, appeal, ruling, appeal until it finally gets to SCOTUS for a final decision. The Left knows that but hope to win in the court of public opinion.
I think Team Trump stands pretty well on everything but citizenship for those born here to illegals. That’s a crap shoot.
All- Thanks for the comments, John W, I think you are on the money!
So the whole basis of the issue is on the modernist liberal interpretation of texts. In the classical method of textual criticism (be it biblical, literary or legal) there are three tasks that one must perform for classical interpretation of a text
1) Read the text, preferably in its original language and break it down trying to discern the meaning/intent of the original author particularly considering the format/type of the text (poem, allegory, pure prose, history). Also when the language seems familiar care must be used to understand language shifts. Many famous texts in Shakespeare and the King James Bible are not obvious to a modern reader as usage has often shifted, sometimes such that there are false cognates hidden in the text
2) Look at the cultural context and meaning to the readers/hearers of the text. One restriction this places on the interpreter is that the text can NOT/should not mean something different to the modern interpreter and the period reader/hearer
3) In light of 1 and 2 apply the text as needed to modern situations. E.G. Copyright in the constitution applied to written documents, but as sound and visual recording appeared it seemed reasonable that it applied there. It also was deemed to apply to written material stored other than as text on paper.
A modernist/post modernist argues that
1) we can’t know what the author meant, and perhaps that even the author didn’t know precisely what the author meant
2) The culture at the time of the writing is/was ephemeral. Any attempt we make to understand it in context is colored by our own interpretation of the culture.
Given this they argue that the first two steps are pointless/futile and even potentially cause us to misread the text. They thus hold that ONLY current meaning to the reader is valid in OUR context.
This is the crux of modernist/liberal theology, Law and literary comment. Thus we get such weird concepts as “The Queering of Pauls Letter to the Romans ” (I made that up but things like this exist https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvh4zh7m ) where the Text blatantly forbids such things but the interpreters argue that Paul couldn’t have meant that (or didn’t mean that or even isn’t the actual Author of Pauls Letter to the Romans). The text becomes a Rorschach test for the views of the interpreter
These judges don’t get it. They make a sweeping ruling that they can’t enforce if the President chooses not to obey. Something about the consent of the governed? Who enforces their decisions?
Tregonsee- EXCELLENT point, thank you!
WSF- Good question, no good answer here.
As I understand it, the Executive would enforce court orders. Yes there are activist judges, but…
Trump knew this was coming. All the people screaming Trump is breaking the law-Trump is using the system against them. He’s following the law. He’s even obeying these activist judges. Why? To not give his enemies anything to be used against him. He’s leaving them only unlawful alternatives, which he will use against them.
Also consider what is being revealed. There are likely a lot of skeletons in a lot of closets. These guys are yelling, investigate me first! If you believe in the rule of law, Trump has no choice but to do what he is doing. Otherwise, it just becomes civil war.
The process is frustrating, but it is better than the alternative – Maybe. I’m to the right of Genghis Khan. I’d like to see some arrests and public executions or at least life-time sentences to Gitmo.
No, you’re not out-of-touch. Activist judges who want to legislate from the bench have always been an issue.
The majority of judges are leftists…put on the bench for the specific goal of implementing the left’s agenda and blocking efforts to impede that agenda. We are now seeing them “earn their pay”…doing exactly what they were put there to do. The outcome of this Executive vs Judicial power play could have very far reaching sequelae. It could determine the future of both branches of government.
See Ken Denninger’s column(Market-Ticker) referencing Rule 65(c). Which states that an injunction from a federal court can only be issued IF the plaintiff puts up a large enough bond to cover defendant’s losses/costs if they lose said case. Question is why hasn’t been requiring these federal courts to follow this rule?