[tomder55]

Federal District Court Judges yesterday handed the Trump administration a trio of defeats .

Judge rules DOGE's USAID dismantling likely violates the Constitution | AP News

Federal judge blocks Trump administration from banning transgender people from military service | AP News

Judge blocks Trump administration from terminating $14 billion in 'green bank' grants | AP News


The Dems can't defeat Trump in Congress . So their backup plan is to delay through judicial fiat . Chances are as these cases slowly make their way through the appeals process the decisions will be reversed . But that is not the point. The point is to delay while they bombard the public with narratives of evil Trump and Musk ;with a heavy dose of individuals who will be hopelessly hurt by the cruel policies of the dual Hitlers .
The Repubs in the House and Trump as usual have a lame ham handed solution . They are threatening impeachment of the judges. In this case I agree with Chief Justice Roberts . Impeachment is not the answer .

“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,”

John Roberts pushes back on Donald Trump's judge impeachment threat


So what is the alternative to regional justices acting like the President making executive decisions for the whole nation ?


The Dems offered a possible solution when they had the Presidency and Congress . Pack the courts . All these judges making these rulings are appointed mostly by the emperor or Clueless Joe . ( the compliant press will let you know up front when the judge is a Repub appointee )

Another way is to just eliminate the district. Here is a role that Congress can play.

Article 3 of the constitution establishes the Judicial branch with vested powers in a Supreme Court. Every other Federal Court from the district and appeals level are the creation of Congress. Congress can decide when and where they are needed (Section 1) But it may be questionable that they could remove a justice except through impeachment . What Congress could also do is change the composition of a court by adding justices to the court.Then when the President nominated the new vacancy the Senate could confirm them .

Court packing is a very effective tool even if it is only a threat.

Flashback 1935 Roosevelt proposes and Congress creates the National Recovery Act to address the Great Depression. SCOTUS declared the whole thing unconstitutional. He won reelection in 1936 and set about to pack the court (add a justice to SCOTUS) through legislation.....the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. History says this plan was a failure . But was it ? After the threat suddenly New Deal programs were passed and survived challenges.

Roosevelt eventually succeeded in packing the court through appointment over his extended Presidency.

Maybe just the threat was enough.

Trump is attempting to defy the courts. I wish him luck but don't see a good outcome.

Of course it would've made things much easier had Congress added this language that WSJ suggested into the Reconciliation Bill that COngress passed

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal years 2025-26 the president is hereby authorized and directed to identify and eliminate at least $500 billion of waste, fraud and abuse in federal spending by auditing expenditures, discharging employees or officers, canceling grants and reducing or eliminating agencies and departments.”

[tomder55]

This can't be emphasized enough . Regional activist Federal judges ;the lowest rung on the ladder of the judiciary ,are using national TROs and injunctions to delay the President.... the Chief Executive ,elected by 77.3 million people from enacting his agenda.

There is 94 district courts with a total of 677 judgeships There is one President.

Most of the judges are appointed ...not elected ... for political reasons or patronage. Their role is to decide regional cases based on the law.

Yet they increasingly affect national issue.

When it was used (infrequently ) against Clueless Joe ; lib Associate Justice Elena Kagan said

“When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that’s when there’s a problem — and that’s when there ought to be a problem,”

During her remarks on Wednesday in a conversation with Northwestern Law Dean Hari Osofsky, Kagan took a notably hostile and forceful stand against a practice that hasn’t generated much public debate but has roiled the legal community in recent years: individual U.S. District Court judges blocking federal government policies nationwide.
Executive branch officials from the Biden, Trump and Obama administrations have all complained about their major policy initiatives often being hamstrung by a single judge.
“This has no political tilt to it,” Kagan said, taking aim not only at the sweeping injunctions but at the transparent “forum shopping” by litigants filing cases in courts they think will be friendliest to them.
“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right,” Kagan said. “In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Kagan repeats warning that Supreme Court is damaging its legitimacy - POLITICO

Then a President waits for SCOTUS to get around to making a decision which effectively puts the President's agenda on hold and perhaps never get implemented .

Associate Justice Sam Alito bitterly complained about the practice this month in dissent of a SCOTUS ruling that forced the government to shell out $2 billion in foreign aid after Trump had put a freeze on it.

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.

24A831 Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (03/05/2025)

Since 2019 Trump has had to contend with lawfare against himself and against his agenda . The Dems have used this practice excessively They did it during his 1st term far more than Repubs used it against Clueless Joe. But at the rate it is being done now they may exceed the number of district court rulings done in his whole 1st term ,in his first 100 days .

Trump administration hit with over 100 lawsuits since inauguration - ABC News

The most recent example is Judge Ana Reyes (DC district court ) ruled that Trump’s order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights..

Trump is the Commander in Chief of the military .

In her decision she said

“The court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes,”

Fed judge blocks Trump admin from banning trans people from military service

Yes that debate happened during the campaign,. When Trump called for impeachment of some of the judges ,John Roberts weighed in

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in the statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

John Roberts Rebukes Trump: Impeachment Not 'Appropriate' For Disagreeing With Judge's Ruling | HuffPost Latest News

Well yes and no .Impeaching judges is rarely used and would not be effective. The Repubs in the Senate do not have the votes.

But as Ron DeSantis said ,there are other means to reign in rogue judges if the Repubs in Congress would come back from vacation and do their jobs.

Except for SCOTUS ,none of the courts are constitutionally mandated. Congress could get rid of the judge by removing their district OR limiting their power.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
(Article 3 Sec 1)

Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place. The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by ‘resistance’ judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills teed up at the onset of this Congress?”

(1) Ron DeSantis on X: "Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place. The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by “resistance” judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee’d up at the onset of this Congress?" / X

Excellent question . Repubs have the majority in both Houses. Where are they ?

[tomder55]

All you need to do is listen to Rod DeSantis and Senator Josh Hawley . The solution is in hand if Congress had the will.

DeSantis Gives His Unvarnished Take On Federal Judge Who Ordered Halt To Trump Deportation Flights

Hawley Previews Legislation To Crack Down On Liberal Judges' Nationwide Injunctions

But what about the filibuster ? DeSantis says to attach any legislation restricting the power of Federal District Court Judges to legislation that has to be passed.

When someone responded by asking how such a move could pass when 60 votes would be needed to push it through the Senate, DeSantis replied, "Attach it to a ‘must pass' bill…"

DeSantis proposes solution as Trump's agenda is stymied by judges

When was a "must pass bill " last debates ? Oh yeah ;the continuing resolution that Senator Schmuck Schumer is taking heat from his own party for casting a deciding vote in favor of passing.

Now why would the leader of the opposition support that bill. He tried to say that he was being the responsible statesman who put the nation ahead of partisan interests .

The real reason was that there was no reason for the Dems to oppose it . Oh they wanted more bankrupting spending true. But when push came to shove ,only the hopelessly socialist/progressives in their ranks could possibly be upset with basically the same budget that they had when Madam Mim Pelosi was the Speaker .

It still increases the budget to levels that at very least will include the inflationary trend ;something that they will say came under Trump's watch.

I used to not give credit the Schumer because he would do things like put cheese on raw hamburger meat while pretending to be a common man at a barbeque.



But now he is a diabolical genius as a Minority Leader . I am shocked the rank and file Dems are too stupid to get that.
BUT keep in mind that the Repubs ousted Kevin McCarthy for passing the very same budget . Speaker Mike Johnson has done nothing different.

a footnote to DeSantis' comments about Jefferson "eliminating judges " .That is only partly true.

Flashback 1801 After the very bitterly contested election of 1800 ; John Adams attempted to do what the Dems are doing today. In the 12th hour of his term Adams and his lame duck Federalists passed 'The Judicial Act of 1801 which expanded federal jurisdiction, eliminated Supreme Court justices’ circuit court duties, and created 16 federal circuit court judgeships. Adams quickly filled the new positions with Federalist lifetime appointees. They were called 'The Midnight Judges' . Adams also appointed his Sec State John Marshall to Chief Justice SCOTUS .

When Jefferson was sworn in his majority Democratic-Republican Congress repealed the act.
This led to the most unconstitutional decision ever by SCOTUS ;Marbury v Madison.

What happened was that some of the people who were promised judgeship were not appointed by the time of the repeal. Jefferson refused to seat them before the bill was repealed .William Marbury decided to mount a challenge to that decision.
Marshall's court decided to hear the case.

SCOTUS' rule prevented Marbury from becoming a justice in doing so it struck down a Federal law . This was the 1st time SCOTUS had done so .In doing so it greatly expanded it's power beyond what the framers intended I believe (although history is divided in that opinion.... some historians believe the framers assumed SCOTUS would have judicial review power ) Because of the ruling SCOTUS has unequal power to check the judiciary . But there are few checks that have been exercised against the judiciary .

We see where that has led. Instead of being non-partisan arbitrators ,the judiciary serves as just another political branch .......with lifetime appointments ; unlimited jurisdiction ;and little chance of removal.


All you need for proof of that is the USAID ruling.

District Court Judge Theodore Chuang,( an emperor appointee,) wrote that “the Court finds that Defendants’ actions taken to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAID Officer, likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways"
Does 1-26 v Musk - 2025-03-18 Memorandum Opinion | DocumentCloud

This is how President's decisions get blocked by making the claim that the President likely violated the law ??????????? He doesn't even bother citing the sections of the law or the Constitution that he thinks Trump violated !!!!!


He says that Congress was deprived of their power because the agency was created by them.

But USAID was created by a JFK executive order.

Executive Order 10973—Administration of Foreign Assistance and Related Functions | The American Presidency Project

Now yes ;Congress has authorized $$$$$ to USAID . So here's how it works . Congress authorizes the $$$ and the executive decides if; when ;and how to spend it .

It won't be the 1st time an EO is reversed by an EO ;or funding authorized and not spent .

I have more to say but ran out of time .

[tomder55]

The total injunctions against Trump in his first term exceeded all the other Presidents of this century combined .The chart was for week 6 of his current term . As of this week the number has ballooned to over 120 injunctions ; TROs and other court interference.

“The President ‘occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme,’ as ‘the only person who alone composes a branch of government.’ ”

( Trump v USA John Roberts majority opinion)
The U.S. Supreme Court and American Constitutional Law : Trump v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024) | H2O

District Court Justices should not have the sole power to stymie the President from doing his job.

[tomder55]

Alexander Hamilton got it wrong

Federalist 81

It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.

Not only does it encroach legislative power ;it does also encroach on the power of the executive .Impeachment as a tool have proven to be a useless deterrent .

[tomder55]

"Jesus must uncrush the head of the serpent": A judge ruled in favor of sin and death that their destruction was unlawful and therefore null and void.

8 More Rulings Being Handed Down By Federal Judges | Babylon Bee

[tomder55]

This trend continues with Emperor and Clueless Joe appointed judges ;mostly in the DC Circus ruling against Trump orders .

Too many to track . Here is the list given the day and time the cases filed against Trump are in excess of 200.

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

The deep state strategy is clear. Whether there is merit or not ;delay the Trump agenda by judge shopping and having a local yokel Federal Judge ;whose jurisdiction should at most be regional ;make sweeping rulings that apply nationally . Then the cases slow walk up the appeals ladder where a divided SCOTUS takes their time .

This is more Cloward Piven overwhelming the system.

Latest example. A judge from the DC Circus ,appointed by the emperor has reversed Trump's EO to revoke the security clearances of lawyers from Perkins Coie ;the law firm that Evita hired to hire Christopher Steele to create a fictitious dossier against Trump as a campaign trick. The dossier was then used by the emperor's Justice Dept to pursue lawfare against Trump.

Judge Beryl Howell quoting Shakespeare ; reversed his entire order calling it unconstitutional.
gov.uscourts.dcd.278290.185.0.pdf

It was my understanding that clearances are granted at the discretion of the Executive Branch . The judge says the order violates the 1st 5th and 6th amendments. I guess the presumption is that everyone has a right to security clearance. I'll be submitting my application in the coming days .

Security clearance is a privilege ;not a right . Trump could deny my application and never give me a reason for it . I guess some judges think otherwise.

Guv Ron DeSantis gave us the remedy if the Repubs in Congress had the testicular fortitude to act.

Problems with rulings? Ron DeSantis suggests eliminating Judges

But until such time as Congress reasserts it's role under Article 1 then we have rule by judicial fiat .

[tomder55]

SCOTUS will take up the question of judicial overreach through the use of universal injunctions. It is long overdue to reign in the imperial judiciary .

The judicial pyramid is upside down. A SCOTUS ruling is by 9 justices . The Appeals Courts frequently decide with a 3 judge panel. Yet a single unelected district judge can make rulings that cover the entire country and reverse decisions by the only elected person who has sole executive power under the constitution .
U.S. Constitution - Article II | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Although they don't have to final say ;they can really unnecessarily undermine executive authority. This puts them on par with the President . There are almost 700 judges at that level ;none elected . It is clearly undemocratic .

[tomder55]

More Cloward- Pivens

In an unsigned opinion with two noted dissents, the court said the migrants haven't had enough time or information to protect their rights.

Supreme Court deals blow to Trump, blocks him on deporting Venezuelans


Roberts and pseudo conservatives Barrett and Kavanaugh( Shmuck Shumer must've scared the bejesus out of him ) sided with the majority .


Buried in this pro illegals article that argues against mass deportation is the cost in time and $$ for deportations that follow the due process they believe illegals are entitled to .

Deporting one million immigrants per year would incur an annual cost of $88 billion, with the majority of that cost going towards building detention camps. It would take over ten years, and the building of hundreds to thousands of new detention facilities, to arrest, detain, process, and remove all 13.3 million targeted immigrants—even assuming that 20 percent of that population would depart voluntarily during any multi-year mass deportation effort. The total cost over 10.6 years (assuming an annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent) would be $967.9 billion.

Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy | American Immigration Council

So far Trump is mostly concentrating on the worse of the worse . And SCOTUS just said they need more time to get a hearing.

[tomder55]

Update since Trump's term began there have been 184 universally applied injunctions imposed on Trump by regional black robed appointed for life oligarchs.
Trump Administration Lawsuits Tracker: DOGE, Transgender Rights and More - The New York Times
Although SCOTUS under Chief Justice John Roberts has on occasion granted Trump temporary relief ; SCOTUS has largely allowed these district judges to continue to go rogue.
Roberts in a bizarre twist of words claimed that judicial supremacy was in fact the co-equal role of the judiciary .

"In our Constitution ... the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president,"

John Roberts defends independent judiciary as Trump officials criticize courts

By definition ,if the courts have the power to strike down laws and acts of the President then they are not co-equal .They are the more powerful branch. The only way this would be a co-equal arrangement would be if the President or Congress had the power to overrule a judicial decision.

He has orchestrated a Constitutional crisis and the left has now taken it to the streets .

[jlisenbe]

By definition ,if the courts have the power to strike down laws and acts of the President then they are not co-equal .They are the more powerful branch. The only way this would be a co-equal arrangement would be if the President or Congress had the power to overrule a judicial decision.

That's a good observation.

[tomder55]

So yesterday in response to Trump's Army day celebration ;the left held a mostly peaceful 'No King' protest around the nation.
Photos: See No Kings protests around the country : The Picture Show : NPR
(Note the photo album above is published in publicly funded NPR )

The reason I post that here is because it is befuddling how Trump can be considered a king . I guess this is a new try because Hitler ;Nazi ;Dictator have been used up .
But as Trump noted ;he just doesn't feel like a king. If he were king the budget bill would already be law.
If her were king he would throw all those regional black robed appointed for life oligarch judges who have blocked almost 200 of Trump's "proclamations " into jail or worse .
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? Scene from Becket.

Now Trump got this idea of a military parade after going to France and watching a Bastille Day celebration. That commemorates the day that the French began to liberate themselves from a monarchy.

The left just doesn't think these things through .

[tomder55]

and just like that ;in the dead of night ;Sr Justice for California's Northern District Charles Breyer made himself king by stripping Article 2 power from the President .
gov.uscourts.cand.450934.64.0.pdf
Trump’s federalizing of California’s National Guard in the face of the LA mostly peaceful riots was “illegal,” and that he must return control of the forces to Guv. Newsom

Trump used the law to mobilize the Guard
10 USC 12406: National Guard in Federal service: call

The law says he can call up the guard if there is "rebellion" or the danger of if he determines there is a need for more than regular forces to deal with it .

It is for the elected President to decide that ;not the hundreds of local black robed ;appointed for life oligarchs to make the call.

The framers created the 3 branches . The judiciary part of the 3 equal branches is SCOTUS . Congress created every other Federal court . They are in themselves not on the level with the President who has sole executive powers under the Constitution.

This abuse of power by the judiciary is pretty much rubber stamped by Chief Justice John Roberts who in an attempt to protect the judiciary has allowed this unelected branch to become the most powerful one.