Let's review the bidding. Biden creates a facially illegal and purely discretionary program. He brings in a half-million Third World illegals who are, according to the definition of the program, "inadmissible or otherwise ineligible for admission." President Trump, supported by the secretary of homeland security, orders an end to the program and jumps through the administrative hoops of using a Federal Register announcement to reverse Biden's purely discretionary program and a Deep State, or Deep State-adjacent federal judge says he can't and requires an individual interview to end the paroles, which is not required by law, when they never received the legally require individual parole.

This is not new. Barack Obama created the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program (DACA or Dreamers) out of whole cloth. It is simply a scheme whereby the federal government covers its eyes and pretends these people don't exist. This program was not created by executive order, law, or administrative rulemaking. Nope. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a freakin memo directing that "prosecutorial discretion" be exercised. However, when Jeff Sessions got around to pulling the plug on DACA, lawfare ensued, and the administration was told it could not rescind the Napolitano memo.

Just stop for a moment and consider this. Federal courts literally told the Trump administration that they could not rescind a memo written five years and three Homeland Security secretaries earlier. Logically, this means a cabinet secretary’s memo is more powerful than an actual law because it takes no consensus to issue it, and it can’t be withdrawn when management changes. To make matters worse, the Roberts Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the logically ridiculous notion that the whim of a Democrat president has the same standing, in terms of permanence, as the Constitution.

We clearly have a two-tiered justice system. Not only do BLM rioters get a pass while pro-life grannies go to jail for demonstrating peacefully outside an abortion center, the president himself has his decision treated with derision by the federal courts while all manner of Democrat humbug receives the adulation of our black-robed overseers. //

houdini1984
3 hours ago
The Supreme Court has become the problem. By refusing to keep the judicial branch in its own lane, the Roberts Court has greenlit a nationwide judicial coup against our elected representatives, including the President. The Founders never intended to create a nation that was subject to judicial tyranny of this kind.

The only solution is for the elected branches to push back decisively, soundly rejecting all judicial decisions that interfere with or run contrary to constitutionally-established congressional and presidential powers. Unfortunately, Democrats will block and congressional attempts to rein in these rogue judges, which means that it's up to executive to restore our constitutional order.

The President has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. If that requires him to defend it against one of the other branches, so be it.

Dieter Schultz houdini1984
3 hours ago
The Supreme Court has become the problem. By refusing to keep the judicial branch in its own lane, the Roberts Court has greenlit a nationwide judicial coup against our elected representatives, including the President.
Oh, if it were only that simple.

IMHO, it is not just the SC that is the problem, all of the branches of the federal government are confused and conflicted. Congress sets up independent departments and functions in the executive branch and puts language in the law prohibiting the President from removing them. Then, the executive branch makes rules, and binding rulings, that look, and are, a lot like lawmaking and the judiciary, respectively.

Today the most pressing problem is the judiciary and it being out of control but the problem is bigger than that and requires something more than just the SC doing its job.

Although, right now I'd settle for the SCOTUS actually doing its job.

houdini1984 Dieter Schultz
2 hours ago
Admittedly, our entire constitutional order is out of whack, but we have to start somewhere if we want to get things back on track. The problem is that too many on the right are sitting around waiting and hoping for SCOTUS to do the right thing. That's not going to happen with Roberts at the helm, since he's more concerned with protecting the Court than safeguarding the country.

Meanwhile, Congress is completely broken. They can't even do their job and complete a budget. Every year, they wait until the last minute and push some stupid continuing resolution at us while threatening a shutdown. The Dems have been waging war against normalcy for decades, and the Republicans are too disunited to mount any effective opposition.

Sadly, it's up to the Executive to stand against this nonsense and try to restore sense and order to the nation. The only good news here is that this administration seems to understand that the administrative state needs to be rolled back, so maybe that will mute some of your concerns about executive rulings, rules, and pseudo-lawmaking.

Hope is a terrible strategy, but it appears to be all we have at this point. //

houdini1984 Scholar
30 minutes ago
Just so. If I were Trump, I would assemble some of my most plain-spoken cabinet members and organize an instructional speech to the nation. We would explain, in simple words, exactly how our government has become so off-track, and the steps needed to put things back in order. Explain how this current dysfunction directly affects their lives, and the benefits they'll enjoy from a restoration of constitutional governance.

Oh, and make a point to talk about the people who support the current misrule, and the corrupt benefits they enjoy from corrupting our constitutional system. Then challenge Democrats to join us in fixing these problems -- while making it clear that we won't allow their anti-American revolution to do any further damage to the American people. //

mopani houdini1984
9 minutes ago edited
What it is going to take is years of push back and work by the executive branch, including making regular updates to the people.

There is no easy solution, and any quick fix will be quickly broken.

Buckle up, any victory worth having is worth fighting for.

I thank God we have a chief executive who understands this and is willing to wage the war. But he has got to take it to the people when frequent special addresses and pressure Congress to make his executive orders into law.

Media political commentator Jonathan Turley broached the subject on Wednesday, opining that a third term in office for Trump is "unlikely":

The late Justice Antonin Scalia famously said that Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.” His point was that courts are skeptical of using minor provisions in a statute to achieve sweeping new legal changes.

The challenge of stuffing an elephant into a mousehole came to mind this week after President Donald Trump said that he is “not joking” about considering a third term and that experts told him it is possible under the Constitution.

One often has to take such moments with a heavy dose of skepticism from a president who clearly relished handing snake-in-a-can soundbites to the media just to watch the resulting screams. If so, he was not disappointed. The media went into renewed vapors as commentators pronounced, yet again, the death of democracy.

However, given the president’s statement, it is important to be clear about the basis for this theory, which has long been something of a parlor game for law professors on how a president might be able to circumvent the two-term limitation imposed by the 22nd Amendment. //

Translation: While some on our side relish Trump's role as a master troller, this is one area where trolling, if he is indeed doing so, could potentially hurt both the president and congressional Republicans who defend such talk.

It behooves the wise among us—including Trump, I hope—to understand that while he relishes playing to loyalists, his decisive president election win was made possible by untold numbers of Democrat crossover votes, including record numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, who may not have been huge fans, but voted as much against Harris-Walz as for Trump-Vance. //

etba_ss
an hour ago
There is only one way, legally. A new Constitutional Amendment. If they tried the back door, SCOTUS would rule 9-0 against it, as they should.

A ticket of Vamce-Trump would lose, as the focus would be on subverting the Constitution. The votes you'd lose on that issue would make it unwinnable. Why would Vance be interested in that?

Trump isn't serious. He's trolling. I think it's a foolish troll that offers no reward but risks him being viewed as the tyrant they claim he is by people who aren't crazy about him in the first place.

Some jokes aren't smart to make.

Random US Citizen
3 hours ago edited
He’s not “going to lose” the narrative, he’s already lost it. He lost it back when he manipulated the outcome of the Obamacare case by ignoring the plain wording of the statute and decided the the word “penalty”—those seven literal letters—meant “tax.” Everything he’s done after that has just proved that he is a politician, not a judge. The damage he has done to the reputation of the judiciary through his blatant political maneuvering is incalculable. It’s rather ironic that insiders claim he is doing this to protect the court from a reputation for being political. But the Supreme Court has gone from one of the most trusted institutions in the country to one that is at a historic low of trust.

John Roberts has no one to blame for this but himself. His constant refusal to decide constitutional matters before the court in favor of remanding them over minor issues is part of the problem. His willingness to join the conservatives on the bench in important decisions merely so he can write tepid opinions is another. His need to make choices based on political calculations is a third. But most damaging is his unwillingness to admit the reality that lower court judges are making decisions based on their personal politics and take action. His claim that “There are no ‘Obama judges’” in the face of this reality was proof that he’s not serious about his job as a justice.

Either that, or someone is holding his kids hostage.

jester6 Random US Citizen
8 minutes ago
As I wrote in another thread, SCOTUS's power to declare actions of the Executive and Legislative branches unconstitutional is not found in the text of the Constitution. That power comes from a 1803 court decision called Marbury vs Madison. SCOTUS granted themselves that power, and the other branches aqueised.

However, for most of our history, it was only SCOTUS who challenged the Executive or Legislative branch openly. Over the last 40 years the Circuits began to do it. And now, since 2016, the District courts are playing at the game. These judges are operating on the idea that power of the judiciary iis sacrosanct; infact the judiciary is the weakest branch if government in our system. It has no real power over the other branches if they decide to ignore it.

Thanks to the actions of these district judges, the entire judiciary is now part of our political process. Sooner or later, the traditional political branches are going to start treating the judiciary as political players. The judiciary has very little power to withstand that onslaught.

Not only can Trump simply ignore the judiciary, Congress can wipe out all courts but SCOTUS with a simple majority vote, and there is nothing the judiciary can do. Congress can also simply remove jurisdiction on certain matters from the courts with a majority vote.

If Trump decided to ignore the courts tomorrow, their only hope would be for Congress to impeach Trump... and the judiciary has made enemies of so many people in Congress, there is zero chance the Senate would vote two-thirds to remove Trump from office. The bottom line is Roberts has let these district judges put the entire judiciary into a precarious position.

These judges are like a 50 year old man reffing a football game who decides he wants to play running back... they've picked up the ball but they have not considered what it will feel like when a 300 pound 25 year old linebacker takes them down. They are foolishly assuming the protections that went with their role as ref will continue when they play the game. If they don't reverse course, they will find out that is a bad assumption. //

1776-2023RIP
3 hours ago
It is Roberts job to rein in these out of control judges.
Like everything else, he’s failing at this. He pontificates that “for over 200 years…blah, blah”.
But he doesn’t acknowledge that no president has ever faced this level of litigation. This is Judicial tyranny. Nothing less.
The Judicial Branch ( headed by the Supreme Court ) is a coequal ( not superior) branch of government.
The Executive Branch ( The President) is a coequal ( not inferior) branch of government.
Sometimes they are in conflict. It would then be up to the other Co-equal branch ( the Legislature) to resolve the conflict. That is our system under the constitution.
Reminder the Supreme Court has gotten many, many things wrong over the years. The “Dred Scott decision “ being a notable one. Abraham Lincoln famously ignored this ruling. He was right to do so.
Just because a court ( even the SC) says it so, doesn’t mean it has to be so. Otherwise, a rogue supreme court could simply rule that every action a president took is unconstitutional. Effectively neutering the President, and arrogating Executive Powers to themselves. This is judicial tyranny and Justice Roberts should put an end to it. Before Trump does. //

Mike Rogers
2 hours ago edited
Roberts gets ONE chance. Either the court takes one of these challenges to article 2 and rules in favor of the constitution or Trump can remind the nation that the judiciary cannot control the presidency and plow on with the people’s agenda.
There is a big difference between contract law and the (unfortunately) painful procedures for firing civil servants, and ruling on policy which is outside the purview of ANY judge.

During Trump 1.0 Roberts was concerned about maintaining the legitimacy and relevance of the Supreme Court, but Trump 2.0 can destroy both if he does not guide the court to adhere closely to the constitution. //

anon-jzmf
3 hours ago
Justice Roberts wants courts and judges to be seen as neutral arbiters sitting on a serene plane high above the excesses of politics. But John, if you want your fantasy to come true, your courts and judges have to actually sit above politics, and many judges do not. If a significant number of judges decide to become activists, making their venues "political courts," then the political branches will inevitably respond to the politicization of those courts. Get ready, Johnny, because it's coming and coming hard. //

Jeff Bartlett
2 hours ago
You miss the point. Trump is whining about impossible impeachments when he should be doing this:

1. Sue EOs in pro-Trump courts: Trump wins, uses as cover to proceed while
   rulings conflict.
2. Use Lincoln precedent: remove judges for violating Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1.
3. Charge judges with treason: acting w/o jurisdiction (US v Will, Cohens v Virginia). //

This sequence of events tees up a court fight that challenges the ability of the Trump administration to use the Alien Enemies Act to rid the US of known members of terrorist groups.

The deportation of TdA members is one of at least three sets of court cases that, in my opinion, put the US on the cusp of a constitutional crisis due to activist and anti-Trump judges using an imagined ability to impose nationwide orders stopping the administration from acting. So far, a judge has ordered probationary employees rehired, another has ordered the government to spend money according to his rather than the administration's timetable, and now this judge has decided that illegal aliens who are members of a terrorist group can stay in the US; //

Spartan Conservative
an hour ago
I believe this is the key sentence to this post:

While the J6 defendants had to beg for help or rely on public defenders who may not have had much sympathy for them, somehow, the airborne terrorists, like Hamas provocateur Mahmoud Khalil, were able to come up with high-powered and very expensive legal help on very short notice to keep them from being speedily deported.

Like Orwell said, "some of us are more equal than others." Follow the money path going into those lawyers' pockets.

the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua which has been terrorizing cities across the country—and then the administration sent at least one planeload of members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” back to their country of origin.

It didn’t take long for Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to kneecap the effort. Not only did he issue a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of any Venezuelans, but he also ordered that the plane (or planes; it’s unclear) return the gangsters to the U.S.

The actions against the president began even before he signed the order. Mind-boggling:

Hours before the proclamation was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, claiming it could be used to deport any Venezuelan in the country, regardless of whether they are a member of TdA.

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so. //

Bukele is a tough character whose uncompromising stance on law and order has transformed El Salvador from the most dangerous to the safest country in Central America; see El Salvadorian Hardman, President Nayib Bukele Wins Blowout Re-Election Victory – RedState. I'd much rather have Venezeuelan terrorists held in El Salvador than detained in America, and if it costs less in the process, that's a bonus. //

I remain of the view that this is a test case the Trump Admin has purposely triggered in order to RE-establish POTUS authority to use the AEA [note: Alien Enemies Act] to address the consequences of the Biden Admin "Open Border" policy. That policy allowed millions of unvetted migrants to enter the country illegally. The ability of the Administration to deport a substantial number of those illegal aliens is limited by the physical facilities necessary to arrest, detain, and hold them while deportation proceedings take place. Having the ability to execute mass deportations of the worst criminal offenders without going through the processes set forth in other federal statutes would increase significantly the pace by which large numbers of such individuals could be removed without burdening the facilities we do have.

...

What makes me think this is a test case is that the complaint was filed before President Trump issued an Executive Order stating that he would be using the AEA to remove these five individuals. The exercise of authority under the AEA begins with a Presidential “Proclamation” that certain factual circumstances have arisen, and extraordinary Presidential authority granted by Congress is being invoked to respond to those circumstances.

At the time the complaint was filed, no such proclamation had been issued by President Trump, but the Complaint was specific to an extent that would be highly unlikely if the Plaintiffs’ attorneys had not been given a preview of what it was likely to say.

the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua which has been terrorizing cities across the country—and then the administration sent at least one planeload of members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” back to their country of origin.

It didn’t take long for Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to kneecap the effort. Not only did he issue a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of any Venezuelans, but he also ordered that the plane (or planes; it’s unclear) return the gangsters to the U.S.

The actions against the president began even before he signed the order. Mind-boggling:

Hours before the proclamation was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, claiming it could be used to deport any Venezuelan in the country, regardless of whether they are a member of TdA.

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so.

These judges aren’t applying law; they’re rewriting it.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in dissent, saw through this charade. His words cut to the core of the issue: “Does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.” //

The separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution assigns distinct roles to each branch of government. The executive, led by the president, has broad authority over foreign affairs and the execution of federal funds, especially when Congress has not explicitly mandated their disbursement. Trump’s foreign aid pause, enacted on his first day back in office, was a legitimate exercise of that authority, aimed at reevaluating programs he deemed wasteful.

Yet the Supreme Court’s decision allows the judiciary to override this discretion, effectively seizing control of the purse strings — a power reserved for Congress and the executive. In joining the leftist justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett have tipped the scales toward judicial supremacy, blurring the lines between the branches and weakening the presidency.

President Trump should seriously consider defying this order. History offers precedent: Andrew Jackson famously ignored the Supreme Court’s 1832 ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, declaring, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson’s stance was controversial, but it underscored a truth: the Supreme Court has no army, no purse, no means to enforce its will beyond the executive’s cooperation.

If Trump refuses to pay, he’d be asserting the executive’s constitutional primacy over foreign policy and federal spending, forcing a reckoning on the judiciary’s overreach. The risks — legal challenges, political backlash, Democrats later making the same play — are real, but so is the cost of compliance: a precedent that emboldens activist judges to micromanage the executive at every turn.

Critics will cry “rule of law,” but what law demands $2 billion be paid “posthaste” without due process or legislative clarity? The Administrative Procedure Act cited by Judge Ali doesn’t grant judges carte blanche to issue billion-dollar edicts. Aid groups argue the freeze caused harm, but their remedy lies with Congress, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s failure to check this abuse sets a dangerous stage for future administrations — Republican or Democrat — to be hamstrung by unelected judges wielding unchecked power.

The $2 billion order isn’t just about foreign aid; it’s about who governs. The judiciary has crossed a line, and the executive must push back. Trump should stand firm, not out of defiance, but to defend the Constitution. As Alito warned, the Supreme Court’s misstep “imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers” and rewards “an act of judicial hubris.” It’s time to reject that hubris and restore the balance of power. //

Curtis Hill is the former attorney general of Indiana.

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Follow
I love all the press coverage tonight of CJ Roberts' order from about 10:00 pm ET.

All the usual suspects -- AP, Reuters, ABC, etc., all refer to it as a "temporary" hold on the order that the Court entered.

No. The Orders are "Stayed" pending further order of the Court.

If the CJ Roberts thought the District Judge was within his authority to order the Executive to spend specific amounts on money on specific grants/contracts on or before midnight tonight, he could have simply done nothing.

Instead he said the Admin need not comply with the Order. //

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Follow
So CJ Roberts steps in around 10:00 and issues a stay on the Order to Enforce His TRO entered by Judge Amir Ali in DC -- a District Court judge for all of 90 days.

Judge Ali's TRO had commanded that the Executive

While the "merits" of the withholding might be subject to some legitimate legal debate, when a higher court -- or the Chief Justice -- steps in so abruptly there is very often a key issue that the lower court judge is simply ignoring in his haste to "do right" -- and I think that is the problem here. The District Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim or provide the relief requested -- whether the plaintiffs are entitled to it or not. Judge Ali brushed off the questions about jurisdiction in his fit of pique over what he saw as DOJ non-compliance with his Order. But there is a truism that all federal civil litigators know -- one that never occurs to legal reporter: "Jurisdiction is always at issue.". //

Has the Supreme Court finally gotten fed up with courts setting executive-branch policies? Based on last night’s intervention by Chief Justice Supreme Court John Roberts, the answer could be yes.

Charlie Kirk

@charliekirk11
·
Follow
For the first time in my lifetime we have an administration that is dead serious about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in government so the next generation doesn’t live as debt slaves.

Every expense must be justified—with our tax dollars you are guilty until proven innocent.

5:11 PM · Feb 24, 2025. //

The thing to realize about the government is that it's not a citizen of the United States, and thus isn't subject to the same rights as we are. In fact, the government doesn't technically have any rights, it has allowances as agreed upon by the people of the United States of America. It has certain powers, to be sure, but these powers can be increased, decreased, or eliminated as the people see fit.

As you can see, this is exactly what's happening with DOGE. The people demanded a reduction in government power and a removal of waste, and that's exactly what's happening. Even as the Democrats and leftists cry foul, the government is losing its power.

There is a simple truth buried here.

If a government is unable or unwilling to reveal how it's using the money it takes from us with the threat of punishment for not giving up, then it's not our government. //

. In fact, government is often times a necessary evil, born out of a need to inhibit the worst impulses of man, whether those impulses be foreign or domestic. It is a system necessary for civilization to happen in an imperfect world, but it's the fact that we have an imperfect world that the system we create to curb is itself imperfect, and thus needs to be monitored, audited, and sometimes destroyed, at least in part so as not to have to be destroyed in its totality.

Trump signed two Executive Orders Thursday that focus on rolling back the role of the federal government beyond its statutory functions and ensuring that those efforts are emphasized across all departments and agencies. The orders are titled "Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy" and "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Regulatory Initiative."

Let's take a look at them one at a time, beginning with the easiest. //

When combined with the Trump Executive Order requiring the repeal of ten regulations for each new one published in the Federal Register (see Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), we can see the groundwork being laid to eliminate the superfluous government agencies and regulations that have no greater purpose than to aggrandize power to the bureaucracy. Add that to the concerted legal attack on the Administrative State (Trump Declares War on the Administrative State), and Trump could very well end up having rolled back a century of our descent from a constitutional republic into a being held in serfdom by an unelected, responsive, and uncaring bureaucracy. //

Popdaddy
6 hours ago
Months of pre-election planning went into this. There are other plans and so much more can be accomplished. //

Dieter Schultz
5 hours ago

When combined with the Trump Executive Order requiring the repeal of ten regulations for each new one published in the Federal Register (see Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), we can see the groundwork being laid to eliminate the superfluous government agencies and regulations that have no greater purpose than to aggrandize power to the bureaucracy.

I think soon... maybe before the 6 month mark but, sooner rather than later... we'll need another attack vector on the bureaucratic state and that would be for enough states to get together and challenge the regulations and federal laws as being unconstitutional in that they encroach on the states' duties and responsibilities under the Constitution.

Trump can apply tremendous pressure from the inside and deflate the bureaucratic bubble but, I suspect, it'll require the states... well, anyway, a core of the red states... to make it impossible for the federal government's overreach to ever be resurrected by the elites when Trump and his heirs leave the world's stage.

In 1932, FDR decided he had better use for the seat and summarily fired Humphrey. Humphrey sued but died five months later. The executor of his estate pressed the suit to recoup five months' salary. This spat was destined to become a landmark Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), or just Humphrey's Executor. Mr. Humphrey's estate hit the jackpot.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled: //

This ruling let independent agencies do whatever they wished. As rulemaking became a big deal, an independent agency in the hands of political opponents of the president with the power to interpret statutes and make legally binding regulations could engage in sabotage of the president's agenda. //

Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
.
Earlier today I posted a Substack article arguing that the TROs being sought against the Trump Admin are, in many respects, great opportunities for the Admin to assert its Article II authority over the Admin. state and push back against encroachments by Congress and the lower…

SCOTUS has danced around the continuing vitality of the Humphrey's decision for many many years. The issue is now squarely before them. This is a fight worth having at this moment in time.

And the most important part about fights worth having is that you need someone who will fight them. And we do. //

Musicman
6 hours ago
Let's pray we finally have a Supreme Court that cares about the Constitution. There are three branches and only three branches. Either each "independent" board reports to the Executive, the Legislative or the Judicial. Those are the only choices. The notion of any kind of board with any kind of power could exist apart from the three branches is simply unconstitutional. Period.

Judge Contreras relied on a very shaky 1935 precedent called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This precedent established the, in my view, unconstitutional and un-republican plethora of "independent" boards and commissions that carry out executive functions but aren't answerable to the guy in whom the "executive Power" of the United States is "vested." Recent cases have held that any commission holding anything other than an advisory capacity must be controlled by the President; how the MSPB's role in adjudicating employment disputes will be viewed is unknown.

This case is headed to the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court. Another similar case, that of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, is at the Supreme Court; Trump Sends Scorching Appeal of DC Court Order Reinstating Biden Appointee to the Supreme Court – RedState. In that case, Trump fired Dellinger, who had the same legal protections as MSPB judges. A judge ordered Dellinger reinstated, and the Supreme Court will get Dellinger's response to the government's objections at 2 p.m. Wednesday.

Other possible cases testing the limits of Humphrey’s Executor are the firings of 17 IGs, who, by statute, can only be fired after a 30-day notice to Congress and an explanation of the reasons, and a member of the National Labor Relations Board. //

Laocoön of Troy
10 hours ago
Remember corrupt FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? Remember the friendly judge who they secretly met with at a party to plot their next moves against Trump? The crooked judge? Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama appointee). Strzok referred to him affectionally as "Rudy" like they were old buds.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-page-texts-reveal-personal-relationship-between-fbi-official-and-judge-recused-from-flynn-case

Looks like the crooks from Trump's first term are trying to get the band back together.

all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register. //

The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. //

If this order sticks, Trump has permanently and fundamentally changed the Executive Branch, as it has existed since 1935, in less than a month. //

bk
9 hours ago edited
Liberals: "Musk is unelected and therefore can't tell us what to do!"
Also libs: "How dare Trump interfere with tens of thousands of unelected bureaucrats who have been telling us what to do for decades!"

Though they lost, they got a solid dissent to work with and went to the Supreme Court.

Their arguments are that the president has absolute authority to remove officials at will and that every time the Supreme Court has heard a case similar to Dellinger's, they have agreed. //

Whatever the agency, for the President to discharge his constitutional duty to supervise those who exercise executive power on his behalf, the President can “remove the head of an agency with a single top officer” at will. Collins 594 U.S. at 256. On that basis, President Biden in 2021 fired the single head of the Social Security Administration without cause. //

!This Court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will. “Where a lower court allegedly impinges on the President’s core Article II powers, immediate appellate review should be generally available.”. //

As a general matter, the Constitution “scrupulously avoids concen-trating power in the hands of any single individual” save for the President, who is“the most democratic and politically accountable official in Government.” Id. at 223-224. Single agency heads thus must be accountable to the President through at-will removal. There are only four single agency heads upon whom Congress has sought to confer tenure protection: the Directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Commissioner of Social Security, and the Special Counsel here. The former three are undisputedly subject to at-will removal under Article II. This Court’s precedents foreclose any special exception for the Special Counsel.

Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
·
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland
3/3 As drafted, the Order would prohibit Donald Trump & heads of agencies from assessing data or firing anyone. Would be most restrictive of all TROs entered to day if Court enters.
10:23 PM · Feb 15, 2025

Under the Constitution, “the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion.” For his decisions, “he is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.” His choices cannot be questioned in court because “the subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive.”

Who penned these outrageous words? Democrats and many pundits might answer Vice President J.D. Vance. Over the weekend, Vance provoked an onslaught of criticism for suggesting that federal district judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

But the usual suspects would be wrong. The right answer is John Marshall, the greatest chief justice in Supreme Court history. And he did not squirrel this view away in a private journal. Instead, Marshall publicly explained that courts could not review presidential decisions on “political” subjects “entrusted to the executive” in a Supreme Court opinion.

He announced this principle not just in any case, but in Marbury v. Madison, the greatest opinion in Supreme Court history. The very same Marbury that concluded that federal judges should reject unconstitutional statutes, also recognized that courts could not intrude into the president’s exercise of his constitutional — dare we say “legitimate” — powers. Marshall’s opinion has given rise to the “political question doctrine,” which prohibits courts from reviewing decisions vested in the Constitution in the other branches, such as making war, prosecuting cases, and conducting impeachments. //

During the Vietnam War, Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman sued to stop the bombing of Cambodia (which President Richard Nixon had ordered). Holtzman obtained an injunction from a district court. The court of appeals promptly stayed the district court order. Holtzman petitioned Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who oversaw that court of appeals, to vacate the stay. Marshall properly refused, writing “the proper response to an arguably illegal action [by Nixon] is not lawlessness by judges charged with interpreting and enforcing the laws.”. //

The question whether the president can fire heads of “independent” agencies such as multi-member commissions is still debated, but the clear trend of recent Supreme Court decisions indicates that the president can remove these officers if they refuse to carry out presidential orders. No doubt Trump’s recent removal of members of the National Labor Relations Board are intended to set up a case to settle this question at the Supreme Court. Our prediction is that Trump will win that dispute — decisively.

JD Vance @JDVance
·
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.

Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.
3:13 PM · Feb 9, 2025 //

Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47
·
President Trump demolishes Fake News "reporter" @svdate on Air Force One:

POTUS: "I don't know even what you're talking about. Neither do you. Who are you with?"

@svdate: "HuffPost, sir."

POTUS: "No wonder. I thought they died."

11:08 PM · Feb 9, 2025. //

The president certainly has a way with reporters, doesn't he? Let's talk about the dishonest framing of Date's question, though.

Read what Vance wrote again. Did he ever "suggest" the administration would "enforce it themselves" regarding going around a Supreme Court ruling? Was the Supreme Court even mentioned at all? The answer to all those questions is no. Instead, what Vance did was state a plain fact, at least in his view of the law. Namely, that the judge is out of line in usurping the statutory authority of the executive branch to control the bureaucratic state.

No doubt, the remedy to those things will be an appeal, and when it reaches the Supreme Court, it will likely end up being a bloodbath for the bureaucracy. On that front, Democrats and the press should be careful what they wish for regarding waging these court battles. The only reason Roe v. Wade was overturned is because leftists picked a fight they weren't ready to win over a state law in Mississippi.

Do you know who did brag about ignoring the Supreme Court, though? That would be one Joseph Robinette Biden. //

MajorKong
7 hours ago
Vance has the benefit of being correct on the legal point as well. The relief is extra judicial. Not available to the court. Bondi needs to ask for sanctions against the judge at the next level. //

emptypockets
4 hours ago
So that's why HuffPo got a seat in the press briefing lineup. For their value as a chew toy.

President Trump followed up his rampage through the National Labor Relations Board (Trump Goes Pearl Harbor on the National Labor Relations Board, Fires Chairman and General Counsel) by firing two Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioners and its general counsel. The newly reduced EEOC can no longer bring enforcement actions or initiate rulemaking as it doesn't have a quorum. //

Under Joe Biden, the EEOC bullied companies into submitting to DEI and replacing Equality with Equity.

Much like the defenestrated acting chairman at the NLRB, the two fired Democrats were not happy about the cruel turn of fate. //

Unlike the NLRB commissioner, whose firing seems questionable because the law says NLRB commissioners can only be fired for cause, the EEOC's enabling legislation does not require that.

The EEOC now only has two members and cannot act until President Trump nominates replacements. This is mostly a good thing.

I think there is something else going on with these firings. It seems like the Trump White House may be teeing up a challenge to a Supreme Court case.

In 2020, the CFPB was challenged for its blatantly unconstitutional structure. Under the law, it was managed by a single director who could only be removed "for cause." The Supreme Court agreed that allowing a single individual to control an agency outside the reach of the president to remove them was unconstitutional.

I believe the target of Trump's removal of three commissioners, one who can only be removed for cause and two without similar protections, is to convince the Supreme Court to overturn Humphrey's Executor vs. United States. This 1935 decision held that the president could only remove the commissioner of independent agencies for reasons established by Congress. The Selia decision established that did not apply to single commissioners; Trump wants to take a run at it to see if he can get that precedent overturned the way Chevron was reversed last summer; //

We'll see how this turns out, but even if Trump is wrong, the NLRB and EEOC will not be lumbering about the countryside and disturbing the livestock until the Supreme Court speaks. //

OrneryCoot
3 hours ago
There is something inherently wrong with the idea that the leader of the executive branch of government cannot fire persons under his authority, tasked with implementing his policy, in the executive branch. That is all kinds of "only in Washington" dumb. Trump is right to blast through that and try to tee up a SCOTUS decision. In the meantime, I will breathe a sigh of relief that these people are removed from their positions of power. Democrat appointed workers in the administrative state are open sores that need to be cut out.

anon-n5wm
6 hours ago
A woman wearing a cross in a room full of atheists, God bless America. //

Tech in RL
4 hours ago
It’s not suprising she’s good at her job. She was Deputy Press Secretary to Kayleigh McEnany, after all. She studied with the master. Trump is the most transparent president in recent history and makes her job even easier. She doesn’t have to lie like the DEI hire did. //

anon-wy307
4 hours ago
Seila Law vs. CFPB (2020). The President is the sole individual in whom the executive authority is vested, and the authority of the President to fire personnel is absolute. Congress attempting to interfere or be consulted violates the separation of powers. The 30-day notice is unconstitutional.

That was the ruling.

Trump isn’t rewriting the 14th Amendment; he’s applying the law as it is, based on its plain language and the Supreme Court’s existing precedent. //

The 14th Amendment — ratified after the Civil War and ensuring that former slaves were U.S. citizens — provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The plaintiffs focus on the first part, but barely glance at the second, arguing that, with few exceptions (such as the children of foreign diplomats in the United States), anyone born in the United States is “subject to its jurisdiction,” simply by virtue of being within its borders.

They do this by relying almost entirely on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that the plaintiffs get hopelessly wrong. In Wong, the court held that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Omitting some key facts, the plaintiffs argue this means that all children born in the United States of all immigrant parents, with the aforementioned very rare exceptions, automatically are U.S. citizens. Even a cursory read of the opinion, however, shows that the Supreme Court ruled nothing of the sort.

Wong was born in California and lived his entire life in the United States, until he took two trips to China to visit family as an adult. The first time he returned to the United States, he was admitted through customs as a U.S. citizen. A few years later, after visiting China a second time, he was denied reentry after a customs official concluded that he was not a citizen, because his parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born here.

SCOTUS sided with Wong, but for a very important reason the plaintiffs fail to mention: Wong’s parents were legal immigrants to the United States. The entire foundation of the plaintiffs’ argument — that SCOTUS has already upheld birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants by this decision — is therefore completely and obviously wrong.

In rendering its opinion, SCOTUS dove deep into the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What they found, tracing back hundreds of years through English common law, is that the phrase is rooted in a mutual relationship of “allegiance and protection” between the individual and the sovereign (historically a king, but the nation here). Children “born in the allegiance,” and therefore citizens entitled to “protection” at birth, included children born to subjects of the king, as well as children born to “aliens in amity” — that is, aliens lawfully “domiciled” there with the king’s consent. Notably, the court found that this did not extend to the children of aliens in “hostile occupation of part of our territory.”

Consent is the operative word. In ruling for Wong, the Supreme Court made clear that the United States has a say in who is subject to its jurisdiction, noting that noncitizens like Wong’s parents are “entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here” (emphasis added). In Wong’s case, this meant that the 14th Amendment granted him citizenship because he was: (1) born in the United States; and (2) subject to its jurisdiction, due to the fact that his parents were lawful immigrants permitted by the United States to reside here at the time he was born.