A federal judge has no power to usurp Executive Branch authority or dictate foreign policy to the president. //

In response, Boasberg called a hearing on Monday demanding to know exactly what time those planes took off, when they left U.S. airspace, and when they touched down in El Salvador — again, as if he, a lone federal judge, has authority to direct counter-terrorism operations that fall under the exclusive authority of the Executive Branch. The administration said simply that these were operational questions that it was not at liberty to discuss in a public setting. (In a jaw-dropping display of arrogance, Boasberg shot back that that his judicial powers “do not lapse at the airspace’s edge.”)

Just prior to that hearing, Attorney General Pam Bondi laid out the administration’s view of the larger question of whether the federal courts even have the power to intervene in this case. In a response and motion to vacate, Bondi argued that the plaintiffs in this case “cannot use these proceedings to interfere with the President’s national-security and foreign-affairs authority, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.”

Bondi went on to explain that “just as a court assuredly could not enjoin the President from carrying out a foreign drone strike or an overseas military operation, or from negotiating with a foreign power to coordinate on such an operation, nor could a court lawfully restrict the President’s inherent Article II authority to work with a foreign nation to transfer terrorists and criminals who are already outside the United States.” The president’s invocation of the AEA, in other words, is non-justiciable and unreviewable.

What the administration is expressing here is a view of judicial and executive powers that more closely conforms to how the Founding Fathers understood them. Put simply, the Founders didn’t think the judiciary was the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. While the courts, headed by the Supreme Court, indeed have an independent power to interpret and apply the Constitution, that doesn’t mean they are supreme over the other two branches, or the states for that matter. //

James Madison stated plainly the reasoning behind this more expansive view of separation of powers clearly in Federalist No. 49: “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”

That means the judiciary can’t simply dictate to the Congress or the president what they must or must not do according to the Constitution. As legal scholar Michael Paulsen has written, “the power of constitutional interpretation is a divided, shared power incident to the functions of each of the branches of the national government — and to instruments of state governments, and of juries, as well — with none of these actors literally bound by the views of any of the others.” According to this view, the Constitution itself, not the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land.

If that sounds like a radical view of the Constitution and the separation of powers, that’s only because we have strayed so far from how our constitutional system was first established, and have imported the alien concept of judicial supremacy that elevates the role of the courts over and above the political branches and the states.

It wasn’t always this way. Abraham Lincoln, for example, understood that the Executive Branch was not necessarily bound by the rulings issued by the Supreme Court but had its own inherent power to interpret the Constitution. Lincoln and the Congress both famously asserted what we might call constitutional supremacy in their defiance of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, by enacting and enforcing laws prohibiting slavery in federal territories — something Dred Scott expressly forbade. Lincoln also defied a Supreme Court decision purporting to limit his authority as commander-in-chief to hold enemy prisoners during the Civil War.

8291/tcp Winbox

On Monday we reported on what Elon Musk termed 14 "magic money" computers spread out at various agencies that he said were issuing payments out of thin air. He said most of them were in the Treasury, but there were some in other agencies as well, such as Health and Human Services, one at the State Department, and one at the Department of Defense.

Musk added that his goal is to save $1 trillion of waste and fraud by fiscal year 2026. Musk went on to describe instances where there were software licenses and media subscriptions that outnumbered employees in a department. Musk also stated that DOGE has found "twice as many government credit cards as there are humans." //

Pulte then explained he was in "second headquarter[s] at Freddie Mac," and again no one appeared to be there -- the desks were "clean," he said. He went to a cafeteria where the staff was working five days a week, but the cafeteria was empty because the workers weren't there five days a week. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Pulte told Laura Ingraham that at Fannie Mae there were about 2,900 people who were supposed to work in the building, but that it turns out only about 49 were showing up full-time. He said on average that was the highest number they found. He said Freddie Mac had a similar problem and they were going to fix it. So what's happening with all those workers who aren't showing up? Are they working from home or are they not even needed?

A hydroelectric generating station is a plant that produces electric power by using water to propel the turbines, which, in turn, drive the alternators.

These power stations generate about a quarter of all the electricity used in the world. With access to vast water reserves, Hydro-Québec uses water to generate almost all of its energy output. In this way, the company helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

For those on the right who think this will invalidate much of the prior administration, this is magical thinking along the lines of a silver bullet designed to stop everything.

I actually do know the law here fairly well.

The basic rule of thumb is that signing a document is a ministerial act. The intention matters. If Joe Biden intended for someone to sign his name on a document, that is what matters. This is a rule in common law going back to the English Kings in the 1600’s who often had others affix the King’s seal to matters. Those matters were binding because the King’s intended his seal to be affixed even if he did not pour the wax and set down his seal.

I’ve had people throw wild hypotheticals at me since I brought this up yesterday. “What if they summoned Joe Biden’s doctor to court and he testified Joe Biden was out of his mind and incapable of doing so?” Sure. Good luck with that.

What is more likely is that Joe Biden’s wife and Chief of Staff would testify that Joe Biden was in sound mind at the time, lucid, etc. etc. etc. and that he did intend for his signature to be affixed by an auto pen.

All day yesterday, people who do not know the law in this area kept spinning wilder and wilder and more argumentative hypotheticals. I get the desire for a silver bullet, but it is a fairy tale.

What is real is this.

The Supreme Court has never heard the matter of pardons before. But the White House Office of Legal Counsel, during the Bush years, affirmed the long held view that signing a document is ministerial. What matters is the intention of the President — if the President tells you to sign his name, that is as good as the President signing it. The Office of Legal Counsel matter was legislation, not a pardon, but the same basic principle applies. There are numerous court cases of executives authorizing others to sign legally binding documents on their behalf and all those cases conclude the signing is just a ministerial act so long as the executive had not surrendered his power to make the decision.

Only the President can sign a bill into law. Only the President can make certain appointments, promotions, and commissions. Only the President can grant pardons. To argue he can use an auto pen on the first three and not the last is a weak argument. Even more so, a clear reading of the Constitution affirmatively requires the President to “sign” legislation, which can be done by directing another to sign his signature. The Constitution does not actually require the President “sign” a pardon to be effective.

You may not like this, but good luck challenging it in court. Likewise, a few weeks before the pardons, Biden expressed that he was leaning towards granting those pardons.

In referring to tax cuts/breaks for the so-called rich, unnamed business owners who he referred to as a "small group of greedy, wealthy people" who control the Republican Party, here's what Schumer said in a mocking tone:

"You know what their attitude is, 'I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me?' I don't want to pay taxes.

[...]

They hate government. Government is a barrier to people. A barrier to stop them from doing things. They want to destroy it and we are not letting them do it. We are united.". //

So, just to recap, Schumer has not only ticked off just about every mover and shaker in his party (not to mention all the hacktivists), but now he's just confirmed what Republicans have been saying for decades about Democrats on the issue of taxes and business ownership and how they love to punish success.

You're doing just fine, Chuck. Keep right on talking, buddy.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS on Trump world's calls to impeach James Boasberg, who ruled against the president on the Alien Enemy Act:

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.

"The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.". //

Musicman
2 hours ago
Roberts is the reason we are having this controversy. For years now, under Trump's first and now second term, District judges have been issuing orders that extend beyond their districts. Roberts has had numerous opportunities to reign in those judges and has failed to do so. Yes, there is an appellate process, but SCOTUS should make it clear that only the SUPREME COURT is a co-equal branch of government. Congress is a co-equal branch, but Congressmen are not. If a district court judge rules against a Presidential action, it should be stopped from enforcing that ruling until SCOTUS confirms that ruling (which it can do by refusing to hear the case) or overturns it. But Roberts cannot simply stand by and allow District Court after District Court to run the Executive Branch.

laker 7w7o7r7d7s
2 hours ago
Article 3 created ONLY the supreme court. everything else was put into place by Congress & the President.