Republicans now act just like AOC and the Progressive cancel culture activists.
Trump Cancel Culture
Massive applause for Chief Justice Roberts for his willingness to stand up to the Republican Cancel Culture.
The Wall Street Journal reports Chief Justice Roberts Criticizes Trump’s Call to Impeach Judges
Chief Justice John Roberts decried calls from President Trump and his supporters to impeach judges who have ruled against administration policies, saying that the court system should be left to resolve legal disputes through the traditional system of litigation.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said Tuesday in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
The comments came following an extraordinary statement from Trump, who on social media demanded the impeachment of a federal judge who is hearing a challenge to the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under a long dormant 18th century statute, the Alien Enemies Act.
Trump lashed out at Boasberg in a social-media post, calling the judge “a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama.” The president continued: “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
For weeks, the president’s supporters—including his billionaire benefactor Elon Musk—have been calling for impeachment of judges who found against the administration in preliminary stages of litigation over its policies.
My stand is on Roberts’ statement, not the ruling of Boasberg.
By calling for the removal of Boasberg, Trump has proven to be no better than AOC and the Progressive Left that wants to pack the court and remove any judge who disagrees with them.
“Judges in America are completely out of control, they literally have ZERO accountability, that is not normal,” said one of my followers on X.
Actually, Trump is completely out of control and Roberts is correct.
Following Court Orders
Please recall that that I was angry with Biden for trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision on student loans.
But that was nothing like this. Biden resisted the student loan order, but not by disobeying, rather concocting another legal theory, which ultimately also lost.
It’s one thing to take a court order and try to change what you’re doing in such a way to achieve your objectives. But Trump is just refusing to follow court orders. This is new.
No President or Vice President never said that the Administration might not follow court orders, until now.
If you have an argument and you think the judge has wrongly decided the issue, you obey the order and appeal to an appellate court, on an emergency basis if you have to.
If you’re right, you win there. But no one, under any circumstances has the right to determine that a court is wrong and ignore its order.
There is no question about that. That is what is fundamentally wrong about this remarkable affair.
Activism In the Eyes of the Beholder
Democrats thought the Supreme Court ruling on abortion was “activism”.
The TCC calls every disagreement ” activism”.
Attacking Lawyers for Representing Clients
The Trump Cancel Culture (TCC) is even smacking law firms for simply representing someone.
On March 12, the Washington Post commented Judge says Trump penalties on law firm send ‘chills down my spine’
Last week, Trump signed an executive order hitting Perkins Coie with a sweeping directive that bans the federal government from hiring the firm, or from using contractors who work with it, except in limited circumstances. The order also bars Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings and suspends their security clearances.
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled from the bench after the two-hour hearing, saying Trump exerted “extraordinary power” and that Perkins Coie proved it had suffered immediate damages from the penalties.
“I have enormous respect for Williams & Connolly,” Howell said, referring to the law firm representing Perkins Coie in the case, “and enormous respect for them taking this case when not every law firm would.”
The judge said Trump’s executive order appeared to violate the First Amendment rights of Perkins Coie and noted that the firm was not granted any due process. She said the Trump administration wrote the order in such a broad manner that it was hard to determine any goal beyond retaliation.
“It sends little chills down my spine,” Howell said, describing the executive order as the president punishing a company he believes is not acting in the president’s interest. “Why shouldn’t we be chilled by this?”
Everyone is constitutionally entitled to defense. John Adams represented the British soldiers who fired at the Boston.
In the history of our country, no one has ever gone after lawyers for whom they represent. Trump is doing that now and I expect the Court to snack Trump.
Trump will lose.
The Autopen
The Constitution does not require that a pardon even be in writing, much less signed. This is in contrast to laws, which the Constitution says the President must sign.
Consistent with this reasoning, in 1929, the DOJ wrote an opinion that the form of a pardon was immaterial. This opinion was relied upon by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals the only time the question has come up. And in 2005, the Bush DOJ concluded the same thing.
Further, there has never been any question that an autopen is acceptable so long as the President directs that it be used. In legislation, where a signature really is required, Presidents have used the autopen for decades. Thomas Jefferson first devised and used an autopen. So, if autopens don’t work, many statutes in the book are invalid.
I do not believe Biden knew what he was signing, But there is no way to prove that.
Trump will lose.
Cancelling Pardons
No president had ever challenged a prior president´s pardons.
That is a betrayal of a constitutional order.
Trump will lose.
Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Pause on USAID Payouts
On March 5, I commented Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Pause on USAID Payouts
My Warning Then Is Now Reality
As I said on February 6, “The unfortunate impact might very well be the courts block everything when some very good things may have happened if Trump took a legitimate case-by-case look.“
That this quite conservative court overruled Trump on timing does not bode well for Trump’s more ridiculous actions such as ending birthright citizenship.
As I also said on February 6, “We should not be in this setup.”
Yes this was a temporary ruling. Trump will appeal. So what?
If you can’t prevent the distribution of Congressionally approved funds, you certainly can’t shut down an agency that Congress has mandated.
All Trump has to do is go to the Republican-controlled Congress and get it to repeal the USAID statute. A President can’t do that. Or at least not assuming we’re still living in a country governed by the US Constitution.
Hello DOGE, Judge Orders Thousands to Be Rehired, What Will That Cost?
On March 13, I commented Hello DOGE, Judge Orders Thousands to Be Rehired, What Will That Cost?
Chalk up another loss for Trump in the Courts. Wins have been few, losses many.
Another Ill-Advised Self-Inflected Mess. The judge’s ruling is correct.
On March 14, I commented Why Did Trump Lose in Court on the Mass Firing of Government Workers?
The short answer is DOGE did not follow the law. The long answer is complex.
Alsup Wants an Appeal
“If you want to appeal this, God bless you. I want you to because I am tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth, giving me snippets. I want someone to go under oath and tell us what happened in these phone calls, and agencies claiming they did this on their own” .
So Stupid
This is all so stupid. Team DOGE did mass firings of people, including those with perfect reviews, on grounds of performance.
Alsup says that the government can reduce its force under the RIF Act, but has to follow the process. So why not follow the process?
Trump was supposed to give 30 days’ notice but did not bother. And he fired people with impeccable reviews on grounds of incompetence.
Fools label the judge’s order as “activism”.
If and when Trump decides to get rid of employees under the RIF act in a legal manner, he will win. Otherwise he will lose.
Strategic Crypto Reserve
On March 8, I asked By What Authority Can Trump Create a Strategic Crypto Reserve?
If the answer is none, then there won’t be one, without Congress.
There is no vested power for Trump to fund a crypto reserve with taxpayer or Treasury funds.
Even crypto fans should be nauseated by this effort, the hypocrisy, and the obvious inherent corruption.
If Congress approves and funds a crypto reserve, then we will have one.
Birthright Citizenship
No president has ever challenged birthright citizenship by executive order.
Supposedly it’s “activism” to reject Trump’s ridiculous claim despite the fact that the circuit and appeals court have no choice other than follow the law of the land, as already ruled by the Supreme Court.
I have discussed this subject many times, most recently in Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
The Appeals Court ruling was 95 percent likely, so this is no shocker. But let’s review the case.
Trump will lose.
Make Plaintiffs Pay
On March 6, CNN reported White House Memo Aims to Chill Emergency Lawsuits by Making Plaintiffs Pay
The Trump administration is taking a shot at the onslaught of emergency lawsuits being filed against it by invoking a rarely used rule that can force people who challenge the government to post money at the start of a court case, according to a White House memo.
In theory, the move could chill individuals, unions and advocacy groups from filing cases, and legal experts say it could be a sly and potentially effective tool for the Justice Department.
Several lawsuits against the Trump administration are being filed each day, often in opposition to immigration and diversity policy changes, spending freezes, the firing of government employees and the efforts of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. As of Thursday, nearly 100 lawsuits like these are active in the federal courts.
The White House circulated the memo to agency leaders on Thursday criticizing the lawsuits as partisan-driven efforts that are potentially frivolous, “undermining the democratic process” and exploiting courts where there may be sympathetic judges.
But a handful of the lawsuits have been successful in early stages, convincing judges that changes the Trump administration has made may be unlawful, and agencies have had to put on hold some of the administration’s plans. One federal judge on Thursday, for instance, decided the Trump administration “put itself above Congress” unlawfully when it categorically froze federal grants toward states’ health care programs and to highway, electric grid, broadband and clean water improvement projects.
This is humorous. The White House has no right to change the American system of litigation costs.
The law and every state and then federal courts is that, boring a specific legislative action, allowing the recovery of cost, each party bears its own cost.
In the event that plaintiff files a frivolous lawsuit, the defendant can seek cost, but it is extraordinarily rare that this is granted. As in less than one percent of cases.
Trump will lose.
TCC Activism – Ten Things
- Ending Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order
- Firing employees without required 30-day notice
- Firing employees for no reason despite that RIF requirement
- Openly defying court orders, triggering as statement from the Supreme Court
- Acting against law firms and lawyers for representing clients the TCC doesn’t like
- Ridiculous Litigation Cost mandate
- Funding new programs not authorized by Congress
- Blocking programs funded by Congress
- Cancelling pardons
- Rejecting Autopens used since Jefferson
That’s 10 extreme to obviously unconstitutional things that Trump has done.
Fools complain about lawsuits and an “activist” court. What a hoot!
Once again, I support DOGE provided it is done in accordance with the law. Otherwise I don’t.
With a majority in Congress, Trump can and should be able to win many things, but not everything.
So far, Trump has mostly a string of losses in court and I expect most of those losses will hold by the Supreme Court.
I have not looked at the deportation case. I can say that open defiance of a court order is very problematic for reasons stated. If Trump had a strong case, he would have won on appeal.
On all of the other issues, had Trump just followed legal paths, some of them very easy, he would be much better off, and so would the country.
A King or a President?
Trump does not want to be President. He wants to be king. And the supporting TCC wants to pick judges that disagree with the king.
This is a terrible setup for obvious reasons.
If we don’t have an independent judiciary, we don’t have rule of law. And if we don’t have rule of law, there is no point to having a constitution at all.
Investors will abandon the US.
Moreover, the next time the Democrats are King they will reverse everything in the opposite direction. It’s no way to run a country.
A few votes in key states the other way, and we might be looking at Queen Kamala.
The current path is sickening. I cannot and will not support unconstitutional orders by King Trump any more than I would those of Queen Kamala or King Biden.
Thus, I openly and loudly cheer Roberts. Everyone who does not want to trash the Constitution for a Monarchy should as well.
Addendum
Excellent WSJ Article came out on this subject shortly after my post.
Mr. Trump should know better than anyone the poisonous impact of partisan impeachment proceedings and should be urging his congressional supporters not to use this tool as Democrats have. Political and philosophical differences are not high crimes or misdemeanors, nor is it treasonous to reach a different interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
For reasons that have nothing to do with the particulars of this case or immigration policy, Mr. Boasberg just so happens to be a disgrace to the federal judiciary.
But this column is aware of no evidence that he committed any crimes. Impeachment is not the answer. The lawfare abuses against Donald Trump may tempt him to give his partisan adversaries a taste of their own medicine, but his duty is to our country.
Addendum 2 Security Bonds
Please consider Trump Memo on Civil Procedure Rules Spawns Confusion and Misinformation
A recent example involving the security bond requirement: a federal case, National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump. A group representing college diversity officers sued the Trump administration over an executive order that barred colleges receiving federal funding from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, seeking a preliminary injunction to temporarily block Trump’s order from taking place.
On February 21, a federal court in Maryland issued the injunction and set a security amount at $0. “Because a bond of the size Defendants appear to seek would essentially forestall Plaintiffs’ access to judicial review,” U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson wrote in his ruling, “the Court will set a nominal bond of zero dollars under Rule 65(c).”
The Trump administration’s memo, issued 13 days after the federal court granted that injunction, disagrees with this reasoning. “Injunctions can cost taxpayers millions or even billions of dollars,” the White House said in a March 6 fact sheet. If courts were to end exceptions for litigation filed on constitutional grounds, the White House argues, that would result in fewer injunctions issued, and more savings for American taxpayers. “Consistent enforcement of this rule is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges,” Trump’s memo stated.
However, such enforcement authority does not lie with the executive branch. That rule clearly states that courts determine the security amount. Even if the president disagrees with courts that set that amount to $0, discretion lies with the courts and not the executive branch.
Once again Trump is FOS.
Trump did an EO on this as if he decides.
Legal jackasses take a few words out of context with no understanding of case law.
I repeat. Trump will lose.
Importantly, everyone in their right mind should want Trump to lose. Otherwise the next Democrat King would do the same thing.