reSee.it - Related Post Feed

charliekirk11
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 6:40 PM
Saved - February 8, 2025 at 10:55 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A New York judge has issued an unprecedented order preventing all political appointees, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, from accessing Department of Treasury data, based on unchallenged conspiracy theories. The ruling was made without notifying Trump's lawyers, allowing only Democrat Attorneys General to present arguments. This decision undermines the elected government's access to financial information, effectively granting more power to Bessent's subordinates. The order is temporary, but there are calls for the Trump Administration to defy it if it becomes permanent, and for sanctions against involved Democrat lawyers.

@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk

New York Judge Paul Engelmayer just forbade all political appointees — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — from accessing Dept. of Treasury data, all based on Blueanon conspiracy theories!! Those theories couldn't be challenged because the order was EX PARTE — meaning Trump's lawyers weren't warned, and couldn't weigh in. Only Democrat Attorneys General were allowed to argue. The judge cites no law or logic to support this unprecedented order, because it defies both. The judge’s ruling is, in essence, that Scott Bessent simply occupies a ceremonial position without real power, like the King of England. This is a grenade thrown into the functioning of the Treasury Department. It forbids the elected government from accessing information about budget and finances. Instead, only the permanent, deep-state government can know what's being spent. It means Scott Bessent's subordinates have far more power than Scott Bessent does. Democrat pundits who whine about the Constitution are liars, and will shred it the first chance they get. For now, the order is only for the next week, but if a court tries to make it permanent the Trump Administration should absolutely consider defying it. Better yet, SCOTUS should bar this judge from ever hearing similar cases again, and every Democrat lawyer involved should be sanctioned.

amuse
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Saved - February 8, 2025 at 11:02 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I am outraged by Judge Paul Engelmayer's ruling that prevents all of Trump's political appointees, including the Treasury Secretary, from accessing Treasury Department data. This decision, made without legal precedent or input from the Trump administration, undermines executive authority and transfers power to unelected bureaucrats. It feels like a blatant judicial power grab, and I believe it sets a dangerous precedent for future cases. The Supreme Court must intervene to restore constitutional governance and prevent further judicial overreach.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: Total BS…

@SenTomCotton - Tom Cotton

Outrageous. Obama Judge Paul Engelmayer didn’t just bar @elonmusk and @doge from Treasury systems, he barred the Secretary of the Treasury himself. Without citing a single law or even allowing Trump admin to appear in court! This outlaw should be reversed immediately and Engelmayer should be forbidden by higher courts from ever hearing another case against the Trump admin. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/federal-judge-blocks-elon-musks-doge-from-treasury-system-e0f1e55c?st=QQJrvW&reflink=article_imessage_share

elonmusk
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 7:55 PM
Saved - February 8, 2025 at 11:01 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

This is an activist posing as a judge

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.

mrddmia
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 8:06 PM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 2:37 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Supreme Court needs to act swiftly to protect the President's Article II powers, as activist judges are undermining the judiciary's legitimacy. A recent ruling by Judge Paul Engelmayer prevents political appointees from accessing Treasury data, based on unfounded conspiracy theories, without allowing Trump's legal team to respond. This order disrupts the Treasury's functioning and elevates unelected bureaucrats over elected officials. Such lawlessness poses a serious threat, and if this ruling becomes permanent, the Trump Administration should consider defiance.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

The Supreme Court must step in quickly and decisively on the emergency docket, as activist judges are illegally sabotaging the Article II power of the President. Otherwise, the judiciary will lose its legitimacy—then its funding. (Do your jobs without law clerks, for example.)

@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk

New York Judge Paul Engelmayer just forbade all political appointees — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — from accessing Dept. of Treasury data, all based on Blueanon conspiracy theories!! Those theories couldn't be challenged because the order was EX PARTE — meaning Trump's lawyers weren't warned, and couldn't weigh in. Only Democrat Attorneys General were allowed to argue. The judge cites no law or logic to support this unprecedented order, because it defies both. The judge’s ruling is, in essence, that Scott Bessent simply occupies a ceremonial position without real power, like the King of England. This is a grenade thrown into the functioning of the Treasury Department. It forbids the elected government from accessing information about budget and finances. Instead, only the permanent, deep-state government can know what's being spent. It means Scott Bessent's subordinates have far more power than Scott Bessent does. Democrat pundits who whine about the Constitution are liars, and will shred it the first chance they get. For now, the order is only for the next week, but if a court tries to make it permanent the Trump Administration should absolutely consider defying it. Better yet, SCOTUS should bar this judge from ever hearing similar cases again, and every Democrat lawyer involved should be sanctioned.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

https://t.co/8ckgqudwBW

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

A judge ruled the President of the United States and his team are not allowed to ask the unelected, career Executive Branch bureaucrats who work for them for information so the President can stop waste, fraud, and abuse. Do you understand how lawless and dangerous this is?

amuse
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 7:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Judge Paul Engelmayer's ruling prohibits Trump's political appointees from accessing Treasury Department data, which critics argue undermines executive authority and violates constitutional principles. The decision, made without notifying Trump's legal team, raises concerns about judicial overreach and the separation of powers. Observers note its potential to set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, allowing judicial activism to influence policy. Calls for intervention from the Supreme Court and public discourse on the implications of this ruling emphasize the need to uphold constitutional governance.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.

@patriot_savvy - The REAL Politically Savvy 🇺🇸

🔥This ruling by Judge Engelmayer echoes historical precedents where judicial overreach has threatened executive authority, reminiscent of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case where the Supreme Court checked presidential power. 🔥 • It's crucial to remember that the separation of powers, as intended by the framers, is under attack here. This isn't just about Trump; it's about preserving the constitutional framework. • The absence of due process in this decision, where Trump's legal team was excluded, mirrors tactics used in political witch hunts, undermining the fairness of our legal system. • With elections on the horizon, this could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, potentially allowing judicial activism to dictate policy over elected officials' decisions. • The judiciary's role should be to interpret law, not to legislate from the bench. This decision blurs those lines dangerously. • Legal scholars and constitutional experts should weigh in publicly to highlight the overreach and its implications for democratic governance. • Citizens and lawmakers alike need to rally for checks against such judicial oversteps to maintain the balance of power envisioned by our Constitution.

SenTomCotton
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 9:12 PM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 10:14 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it outrageous that Judge Paul Engelmayer has not only barred Elon Musk and Doge from Treasury systems but has also excluded the Secretary of the Treasury. This decision was made without citing any law or allowing the Trump administration to present its case in court. I believe this ruling should be reversed immediately, and I think higher courts should prevent Engelmayer from hearing any future cases involving the Trump administration.

@SenTomCotton - Tom Cotton

Outrageous. Obama Judge Paul Engelmayer didn’t just bar @elonmusk and @doge from Treasury systems, he barred the Secretary of the Treasury himself. Without citing a single law or even allowing Trump admin to appear in court! This outlaw should be reversed immediately and Engelmayer should be forbidden by higher courts from ever hearing another case against the Trump admin. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/federal-judge-blocks-elon-musks-doge-from-treasury-system-e0f1e55c?st=QQJrvW&reflink=article_imessage_share

glennbeck
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 10:40 PM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 2:32 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m trying to understand this: the Treasury Secretary can’t access treasury data? That’s surprising. It feels like someone is afraid of the secrets being revealed. This judge wasn’t elected and doesn’t represent us. We demand transparency—this is our money, not theirs.

@glennbeck - Glenn Beck

Let me see if I have this right. The Treasury Secretary CANNOT access any data from the treasury? Wow. Who is afraid the secrets are coming out. This judge was not elected nor was he given the mandate by the people. Enough is enough. WE THE PEOPLE demand transparency. IT IS OUR MONEY, NOT YOURS.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.

mrddmia
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 2:44 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm working on legislation to reform the DC U.S. District Court, which I believe is severely flawed. I'm considering eliminating the unconstitutional DC Superior Court and reallocating responsibilities to current judges, while also involving judges from across the country for other cases. There's a pressing need to address the 13 vacancies in the DC Superior Court. Additionally, I find recent judicial decisions, like the one from Judge Carl Nichols, to be overreaching and indicative of a disconnect between these judges and the realities faced by everyday Americans.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

100% At @Article3Project, we're drafting legislation to "reform" the DC U.S. District Court--the worst of the worst. Maybe we get rid of the (unconstitutional) DC Superior Court, make current DC U.S. District Court judges handle DC street crimes, cut their budgets, and randomly draw U.S. judges from across America to sit by designation for all other DC cases?

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@mrddmia Defund DC courts. That’s the answer

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

Seems like the ideal time to get rid of the (unconstitutional) DC Superior Court:

@elainemittleman - Elaine Mittleman

DC Superior Court has 13 vacancies. The vacancy date for Judge Morin was 9/30/2020. A replacement was nominated on 3/20/2024. Nauta attorney Stanley Woodward complained in MAL case that DOJ attorney Jay Bratt had threatened him about Woodward’s possible judgeship nomination.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

Looks like we already got a great U.S. senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee to sponsor the legislation:

@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee

Interesting idea

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

The temporary-restraining order by DC U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols against the President's USAID personnel decisions is truly lawless and dangerous. (The President cannot order U.S. officials overseas to come home within 30 days? Seriously? Judges actually think they have that power?) Nichols proves even former Clarence Thomas clerks who go DC big-law are unreliable picks for the federal bench.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

Translation: Former Gorsuch clerks dismantling the Deep State (While former Thomas clerk Carl Nichols protects it) https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-doge-lawyers-supreme-court

The Elite Lawyers Working for Elon Musk’s DOGE Include Former Supreme Court Clerks Much attention has been paid to the young Silicon Valley engineers working for Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, but the group has also hired high-powered legal talent. propublica.org

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

https://t.co/2gG50CzeyN

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

These DC uniparty judges are shockingly insulated from Real Americans in Real America. They are arrogant and delusional enough to believe they are saving America from Trump. Even though Trump campaigned on doing precisely what he’s doing. And won a decisive electoral mandate.

KeithGrossFL
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 11:08 PM

@KeithGrossFL - Keith Gross

A judge has no Constitutional authority to ban an Executive Branch appointee from accessing anything in an Executive Branch agency. The President is the head of the branch. The judge has no power over that plenary Constitutional authority. Defy the orders. Impeach the judge.

elonmusk
Posted - February 9, 2025 at 7:11 AM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 2:02 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

A corrupt judge protecting corruption. He needs to be impeached NOW!

@glennbeck - Glenn Beck

Let me see if I have this right. The Treasury Secretary CANNOT access any data from the treasury? Wow. Who is afraid the secrets are coming out. This judge was not elected nor was he given the mandate by the people. Enough is enough. WE THE PEOPLE demand transparency. IT IS OUR MONEY, NOT YOURS.

elonmusk
Posted - February 10, 2025 at 3:47 PM
Saved - February 10, 2025 at 7:26 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

There is a massive effort by the UNELECTED bureaucracy to oppose the ELECTED President, House & Senate!! This is why I say the true & noble battle is to restore DEMOcracy, rule of the people, from the BUREAUcracy, rule of the bureaucrats.

@alx - ALX 🇺🇸

Will be interesting to find out the people who greenlit this and hear their explanation on why they think they have the authority to subvert the President’s agenda and the will of the voters. Are Democrats outraged by this decision made by some unelected bureaucrat?

elonmusk
Posted - February 10, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Saved - February 10, 2025 at 7:14 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

What happens is that those who want the government corruption & waste to continue will shop around the country for an activist judge to do their bidding. It is an undemocratic and unconstitutional power grab by a tiny group of radical leftists!

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: Obama-appointed judge threatened Trump and his team with arrest if they don't restore every last dime of funding that has been paused or cancelled. If the president wants to delay any payment he will need to justify his request to the judge's personal satisfaction.

julie_kelly2
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 1:47 AM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 2:08 AM

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

For four years, these same DC judges routinely lamented attempts to “overthrow democracy” on Jan 6. Now these same unelected judges are defying the will of a president who won at least 77 million votes to protect unelected nameless bureaucrats.

@kyledcheney - Kyle Cheney

JUST IN: Judge Amy Berman Jackson becomes the 5th judge *today* to block an aspect of Trump's early-term orders, this time the firing of ethics watchdog Hampton Dellinger. And night isn't over. yet ... https://t.co/dUaxwZeOmq

elonmusk
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 9:00 AM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 6:32 PM

@elonmusk - Harry Bōlz

We are witnessing an attempted coup of American democracy by radical left activists posing as judges!

@jeffreyatucker - Jeffrey A Tucker

Pay attention to what has happened. Over the last days, several appointed federal judges, on their own subjective judgment and using all their power, have written pieces of paper that overruled the wishes of 74.2 million Americans who have expressed their will concerning the shape of the regime that rules them. Instead, they say, permanent bureaucrats should rule all without any say from the voters who pay all the bills. That is called tyranny.

RepEliCrane
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 2:46 PM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 10:02 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer, as I believe partisan judges pose a threat to democracy. The left has caused "irreparable harm," and President Trump and his team are working to address this. I see Judge Engelmayer's actions as judicial overreach, trying to prevent White House employees from accessing systems they oversee. I question where in the Constitution it states that a President and his team cannot address waste, fraud, and abuse.

@RepEliCrane - Rep. Eli Crane

🧵 I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer.   Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy. The left has done “irreparable harm” to this country. President Trump and his team at @DOGE are trying to fix it.

@RepEliCrane - Rep. Eli Crane

This is obviously judicial overreach. Judge Engelmayer is attempting to stop White House employees from accessing the very systems they oversee. Where in the constitution does it say a President and his team cannot root out obvious waste, fraud and abuse?

PressSec
Posted - February 13, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Saved - February 14, 2025 at 11:26 AM

@PressSec - Karoline Leavitt

🚨It's a media hoax that President Trump is causing a “constitutional crisis.”   The real crisis is taking place within our judiciary, where activist judges are abusing their power to unilaterally block the President's basic executive authority and thwart the will of the people. https://t.co/YnaL4EmSoV

Video Transcript AI Summary
There's a constitutional crisis within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts are abusing their power to block my executive authority. These judges are judicial activists, not honest arbiters. They've issued at least 12 injunctions against my administration in the past two weeks, often without evidence. This is a concerted effort by Democrat activists and a weaponization of justice against me. A reminder to these judges: 77 million Americans elected me. Each injunction abuses the rule of law and thwarts the will of the people. We will comply with the law and the courts, but we'll seek every legal remedy to overturn these radical injunctions and enact my policies.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch where district court judges and liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block president Trump's basic executive authority. We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. And they have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past fourteen days. Often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. This is part of a larger concerted effort by democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against president Trump. Quick news flash to these liberal judges who are supporting their obstructionist efforts. 77,000,000 Americans voted to elect this president, and each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law and an attempt to thwart the will of the people. As the president clearly stated in the Oval Office yesterday, we will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure president Trump's policies can be enacted.
mrddmia
Posted - February 14, 2025 at 4:25 AM
Saved - February 14, 2025 at 12:44 PM

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

This is insane. A DC federal judge has ordered the commander-in-chief not to bring home overseas foreign-service officers. This is lawless. And a dangerous sabotage of the President’s Article II constitutional powers. (Maybe this judge has a conflict of interest?) https://t.co/VOnWOQmOES

GovRonDeSantis
Posted - March 5, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Saved - March 7, 2025 at 12:50 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Justice Alito is correct. The liberal district judge overstepped by ordering Trump to send billions abroad. The Supreme Court missed a chance to curb rogue district courts from meddling in executive operations, allowing “resistance” judges to disrupt the President's authority.

@GovRonDeSantis - Ron DeSantis

Justice Alito is right. The (liberal) district judge has no authority to order @POTUS Trump to send billions of dollars overseas. The Supreme Court missed a huge opportunity to put a stop to rogue district courts interfering with executive branch operations. Now, this decision gives a green light to every “resistance” judge to throw sand in the gears of the President’s Article II authority.

WallStreetApes
Posted - March 12, 2025 at 10:50 PM
Saved - March 13, 2025 at 2:00 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Today, I’m frustrated with activist judges who ordered the release of illegal migrants and ruled against the President's ability to revoke security clearances for Perkins Coie. Article II of the Constitution clearly states that executive power lies with the President, and no court should interfere with that authority. I’m left wondering why there haven’t been any impeachments for these judges. We elected Donald Trump, not these liberal activists.

@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes

Today activist judges - Ordered the release of illegal migrants back into America - Told the President of the United States he can’t revoke security clearances of George Soros funded law firm Perkins Coie And yet, “Article II of the Constitution states that the executive power shall be vested in @POTUS. No court may take over that rule. No court may define or limit the scope of the duties of an official within the Executive Office of the President.” So what the heck is going on here? Why have no impeachments been started on these judges? We elected Donald Trump as President not these activist liberal judges

Video Transcript AI Summary
The executive power is vested in the President of the United States, as stated in Article Two of the Constitution. No court can assume that role or define the duties of those in the executive office. This amendment violates the separation of powers and Article Two, implying a federal court could limit the duties of individuals within the President's office, which isn't their role. Without action, presidents face numerous claims across multiple states, potentially using non-official funds to respond. Since 2017, courts have been used nefariously. Lawfare has been weaponized against President Trump, even after his presidency. The President defines the duties of personnel within the office, as clearly stated in Article Two.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you. Article two of the constitution states that the executive power shall be vested in a president of The United States Of America. In other words, it is the president that defines the executive branch. When you read this language, says that no court may take over that role. No court may define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the executive office of the president, the people who work in the executive office. I think that what your amendment does is a violation of separation of powers, and it's a violation of article two of the constitution. Speaker 1: Would general lady yield? Speaker 0: Yes. I will. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's always good when the the constitutional specialist comes in. It it helps us all. So what you're saying is is that the bill codifies article two of the for purposes of the court being reminded and instructed of their limitations and the amendment would undo that. Speaker 0: That's exactly right. Because then it would imply that a federal court could in fact define or limit the scope of the duties of those individuals who work within the executive office of the president, and that is not a federal court's role. That is for under article two section one of the constitution, that power is vested in a president of The United States Of America. Speaker 1: Could the gentlelady further yield for another question? Yes. And your understanding is with the current president or the last one or the next one, if we don't do something like this, realistically, the the chief executive, well president, would continue to have to answer a myriad of claims in up to not just 50 states, but multiple places in 50 states. And if that tactic was used even more so than it may have been used in the past, that you would have a president having to use non official funds to answer a series of cases alleged not to be that way. Is that true? Speaker 0: That's the way that I read this, and I think that it's very clear, especially starting in 02/2017 when president Trump was sworn in the first time that the court courts have been used for nefarious purposes, on a variety of issues. In fact, yesterday, we had a hearing in our constitutional subcommittee about lawfare and how lawfare had been weapon weaponized against president Trump both while he was president as well as well after his presidency. So, again, I I guess that I'm very skeptical of the idea that people are not willing to use well, lawfare to go after a current or former president. We've seen this over the last nine years, in in many different instances. But the president is the one who gets to define the limit and scope of the duties of the personnel within his office. That is very clear from article two of the
elonmusk
Posted - March 14, 2025 at 4:13 AM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 4:23 AM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Without judicial reform, which means at least the absolute worst judges get impeached, we don’t have real democracy in America

@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk

Clinton appointee Judge William Alsup says the Trump Admin has to rehire 30,000 laid off probationary hires. He says that trying to cut headcount is a "sham" and actually it's legally mandatory for taxpayers to keep paying them. What will blue judges come up with next? Will they order Trump to declare war on Russia? Micromanage troop movements? Dictate what Trump eats for breakfast? This isn't judicial review. It's dictatorship by a big ego with a gavel. SCOTUS must intervene.

PressSec
Posted - March 14, 2025 at 8:47 PM
Saved - March 15, 2025 at 2:06 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Executive Branch can't function if activist judges block presidential actions nationwide. If a judge wants executive power, they should run for President. The Trump Administration will fight back against these unconstitutional orders, as the American people support Trump's agenda.

@PressSec - Karoline Leavitt

The Executive Branch cannot properly function if activist liberal judges can unilaterally block presidential actions over the entire country. If a federal district court judge wants executive powers, they can try and run for President themselves. The Trump Administration will immediately fight back against these absurd and unconstitutional orders. The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump's agenda, and it will be fully implemented.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker addresses board rulings concerning fire and provisionary workers, stating the administration will "fight back" against an injunction they believe is unconstitutional. They claim a low-level district court judge cannot usurp the executive authority of the President. The speaker asserts the President has the authority to fire employees, and lower-level judges are attempting to block the President's agenda. They cite a statistic claiming 15 injunctions against the administration occurred in February alone, compared to 14 in three years under the Biden administration, alleging judicial activists are trying to block the President's executive authority. The speaker references President Trump's legal team's fighting back, emphasizing that indictments and injunctions have been unconstitutional and unfair, led by partisan activists attempting to usurp the President's will.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Board rulings about all the fire and provisionary workers. You used the same language here just now that was in the statement about fighting back against that ruling. Do you mean appealing or something else? And does the administration plan to comply with those orders in the meantime? Speaker 1: Fighting back by appealing, fighting back by using the full weight of of the White House counsel's office and our lawyers at the federal government who believe that this injunction is entirely unconstitutional, and it is for anybody who has a basic understanding of the law. You cannot have a low level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the president of The United States. That is completely absurd. And as the executive of the executive branch, the president has the ability to fire or And you have these lower level judges who are trying to, block this president's agenda. It's very clear. And as I just cited, I was appalled by the statistic when I saw it this morning. In three or, in one month in February, there have been 15 injunctions of this administration in our agenda. In three years under the Biden administration, there were 14 injunctions. So, it's very clear that there are judicial activists throughout our judicial branch who are trying to block this president's executive authority. We are going to fight back. And as anyone who saw president Trump, and his legal team fighting back, they know how to do it. He was indicted nearly 200 times, and he's in the office now because all of the indictments, all of these injunctions have always been unconstitutional and unfair. They are led by partisan activists, who are trying to usurp the will of this president, and we're not going to stand for it. Thanks, guys.
RodDMartin
Posted - March 19, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Saved - March 20, 2025 at 4:23 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m excited to share that AG Pam Bondi has announced the continuation of deportation flights, defying a federal judge's order. She emphasizes that these flights target foreign terrorists, including members of the Tren de Aragua gang, who are illegally in the U.S. Bondi argues that one judge shouldn't have the power to halt national security measures and criticizes what she sees as judicial overreach. She believes the Trump administration is acting within the law to protect families and is determined to push back against perceived deep state interference. Expect more deportations ahead.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

🚨 BREAKING: @AGPamBondi DEFIES Federal Judge, Says Deportation Flights WILL Continue Gosh I just love her. ❤️ Here are the details.... 1/🧵

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 2/ Obama-appointed Judge Boasberg tried stopping deportation flights of Venezuelan terrorists. He wants them on OUR STREETS. But AG Bondi just dropped a BOMBSHELL: "We will ABSOLUTELY continue the flights" 🔥

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 3/ “These are foreign terrorists, that the president has identified them, and designated them as such, and we will continue to follow the Alien Enemies Act,” Bondi said Monday

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 4/ Let's be CLEAR what we're dealing with: • Tren de Aragua gang members • Designated TERRORISTS • Illegally in America • Caught committing crimes in OUR country • Trump deporting them according to the law

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 5/ DIRECT QUOTE from Border Czar Tom Homan that'll make your jaw DROP: "I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming."

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 6/ He's right. Trump is following the law. And the three branches have EQUAL power to interpret and enforce the Constitution. One local judge does NOT have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction, esp on national security. Time to "resist". https://www.rodmartin.org/p/judicial-despotism-how-to-end-nationwide

Judicial Despotism: How to End Nationwide Injunction Abuse Democrats are attempting to win in court what they lost at the ballot box. But their strategy abuses the legal system and upends the Constitution. Here's what to do about it. rodmartin.org

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 7/ 🔥 The real story? Deep state trying to block Trump admin from protecting YOU and YOUR FAMILY. They're also trying to neuter the Presidency through unconstitutional judicial activism. But Bondi isn't backing down. Will Judge Boasberg hold her in contempt? Good luck.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 8/ And don't forget: this is a dirty judge. He was on the FISA court that authorized domestic spying on a political opponent (Trump 2016). That's Watergate times 1,000. He's been part of the lawfare for a decade. Absolutely corrupt.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 9/ It's time to stop judges from acting like dictators. The Constitution does NOT give them executive authority. We can't have hundreds of unelected Presidents. The voters elect one. This isn't against legitimate judicial authority. It's against unconstitutional abuse.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 10/ Expect more flights. More deportations. And more fireworks from Judge Boasberg and John Roberts. It's time to settle some of these issues. Trump has the guts to stand up. No Republican before ever did.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

@AGPamBondi 11/11 If you enjoyed this content, please like and share; and also, sign up for your FREE subscription to my newsletter at http://RodMartin.org.

The Rod Martin Report | Rod D. Martin | Substack Tech Entrepreneur. Futurist. Christian. "Philosopher Capitalist". Click to read The Rod Martin Report, by Rod D. Martin, a Substack publication with thousands of subscribers. rodmartin.org
mrddmia
Posted - March 20, 2025 at 9:05 PM
Saved - March 21, 2025 at 1:07 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I can't believe this. An activist judge has ruled that the President's staff can't access information at an Executive Branch agency to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. This violates Article II, which grants the President the power to ensure our laws are executed properly.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

This is insane. An activist Obama judge illegally rules the President's staff cannot access information at an Executive Branch agency for the purpose of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. This is a clear violation of Article II, which gives the President all the executive power. This includes his constitutional duty to "take care" our laws are faithfully executed--free of waste, fraud, and abuse. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/doge-musk-access-social-security-blocked

Musk and DOGE barred from accessing personal Social Security data by judge "The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA," the judge wrote. axios.com
amuse
Posted - April 1, 2025 at 12:50 PM
Saved - April 1, 2025 at 8:07 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that judges appointed by Democrats who issue nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration are overstepping their constitutional and statutory powers. If Congress and the Supreme Court don't intervene, the rule of law could deteriorate into judicial overreach.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: Democrat-appointed judges who issue nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration are acting beyond both their constitutional and statutory authority. If Congress and the Supreme Court fail to rein them in, the very idea of the rule of law risks collapsing into judicial fiat. h/t @WallStreetApes

Video Transcript AI Summary
A senator questions a witness about universal injunctions, which are court orders affecting parties beyond the specific case. The witness admits there's no statutory or Supreme Court basis for them. The senator suggests these injunctions circumvent the need for class action lawsuits. The witness agrees that universal injunctions encourage forum shopping, where plaintiffs seek favorable judges to enjoin policies nationwide. The senator states universal injunctions were unknown in English common law and cites that only about 27 were issued in the 20th century, but 86 were issued against President Trump in his first term, and 30 so far in his second. The senator suggests universal injunctions have become a weapon against the Trump administration. The witness confirms Article Three doesn't mention universal injunctions, and the senator proposes Congress could limit judges' power to impact those outside their courtroom, suggesting class actions as the appropriate mechanism.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Senator, a universal injunction is what we call, an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case, but applies nationwide or in some cases universally to enjoin the gov Speaker 1: Is it sometimes referred to as a nationwide injunction? Speaker 0: Yes. It is, senator. Speaker 1: What's the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of a statutory basis, senator. Speaker 1: There is no statutory basis, is there? Speaker 0: No, senator. Speaker 1: What's the sir United States Supreme Court opinion which interprets the constitution in a way that allows a federal district court judge to do this? Can you name me that case? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of one senator. Speaker 1: There isn't one, is there? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of one senator. Speaker 1: Explain to me how this works. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everybody else other than those in front of him or her. How is that possible? Speaker 0: It shouldn't be possible, senator, but district courts do it all the time. I think on the theory that the the courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it as nationwide so all nonparties are protected by that injunction. Speaker 1: I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action. Speaker 0: That's correct here, senator. Speaker 1: So why don't the federal judges, instead of issuing a a universal injunction with no legal basis, tell the part the plaintiff, look. You gotta go file a class action if you wanna impact parties who aren't subject to my court. Speaker 0: Senator, the Department of Justice makes that argument all the time in our briefs. I think in many cases, class actions would be inappropriate. They wouldn't the the the the plaintiffs couldn't satisfy rule 23 to establish a class. Speaker 1: So they couldn't? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: So they prefer to ask for a universal injunction? Yes. Does this encourage forum shopping? Speaker 0: Yes, senator. Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to pick find one judge that will enjoin a single policy nationwide. If you have five lawsuits, a plaintiff one of only one of those five cases needs to be successful. Speaker 1: Okay. We've established that there's no basis in statute and no basis in supreme court precedent for universal injunction. How about a common law? I mean, this is universal injunction is basically an equitable remedy. Did this exist in common law courts in England on which our law is based? Speaker 0: I don't believe so, senator. I think we've the government has cited, cases, from the Supreme Court that says, you know, courts are really bound by the scope of relief that a court in equity would have granted, back in England before the founding, and the courts at that time would grant relief to the parties in the in the case, not far beyond the Speaker 1: A universal injunction is a remedy is is unknown in English common law, is it not? Speaker 0: I haven't done the research that far back, but I'm not aware of it. Speaker 1: I have. It's unknown. Wasn't part of of equity. Only about 27 universal injunctions were issued in the twentieth century. Does that sound about right? Speaker 0: That's that sounds about right, senator. Speaker 1: But 86 of them were issued against president Trump in his first term. Is that correct? Speaker 0: I don't know the specific number, but they were a high number. Speaker 1: And so far in president Trump's second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him. Have they not? Speaker 0: Senator, I don't have a specific number, but that sounds about right. Speaker 1: The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not? Yes. And tell me again in my last ten seconds. Tell me the basis for universal injunction in article three. I I read article three, which defines judicial power. Where does it mention universal injunction? Speaker 0: It does not, senator. It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties to the case. Speaker 1: So the congress could act and say, look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can't impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action. That's why God created class actions, isn't it? Speaker 0: Yes, senator.
WallStreetApes
Posted - April 2, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Saved - April 2, 2025 at 8:42 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the troubling issue of federal judges issuing universal injunctions against Donald Trump's orders, which I believe undermines the Constitution and creates a potential constitutional crisis. I noted that 15 district judges have effectively taken control of executive duties in just six weeks, resembling a judicial coup. Reflecting on President Jefferson's approach, I highlighted how he chose to abolish certain courts rather than impeach judges, emphasizing the legislative and executive branches' power to reshape the judiciary. This serves as a reminder of the ongoing power struggle.

@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes

Official Hearing: Federal Judges are violating the US Constitution with universal injunctions against Donald Trump’s orders “There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch's effort to fully override the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges effectively seize control of various executive branch duties in the first 6 weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d'etat. It clearly violates the constitution and more than 200 years of American history.” “President Thomas Jefferson's agenda: President Jefferson concluded that impeaching the judges would take too much time. He and the Congress simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of 1802. This is a constitutional balance of power. The legislative and executive branches can reshape the judiciary branch. It is a useful reminder in considering the current situation unelected lower court judges have been steadily grabbing power for years.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch overriding the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges seized control of executive branch duties via nationwide injunctions in the current presidency's first six weeks, potentially a judicial coup d'etat. In the past, President Jefferson and Congress abolished courts via the Judiciary Act of 1802. From 2001 to 2023, district courts ordered 96 nationwide injunctions, with 64 during President Trump's time in office. 92% of injunctions against President Trump were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Since 01/20/2025, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the current Trump administration, compared to six during George W. Bush's eight years, twelve during Barack Obama's eight years, and 14 during Joe Biden's four year term. The courts have often been challenged, as seen with Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln. The legislative and executive branches can defend their rights, as the Judiciary Act of 1802 proves. The Supreme Court could intervene by suspending nationwide injunctions and immediately taking them up. Congress and the President can take steps to bring the judiciary back into a constitutional framework through hearings and legislation like the "No Road Rulings Act."
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That a preliminary stage of the case without the guidance of the lower courts, they're gonna have to overrule some of their decisions. Let me end where I began. This practice is mistaken as a matter of law and unwise as a matter of policy. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker Gingrich. Speaker 1: Thank you, chairman Isa and Roy, ranking members Johnson and Scanlon, and all the members of the subcommittees for allowing me to testify. There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch's effort to fully override the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges effectively seized control of various executive branch duties in the first six weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d'etat. It clearly violates the constitution and more than two hundred years of American history. To set the stage for this hearing, let me mention 12 former federal judges appointed by president John Adams. Richard Bassett, Edward Benson, Benjamin Bourne, William Griffith, Samuel Hodge Hitchcock, Philip Barton k, Jeremiah Smith, George Keith Taylor, Oliver Wilcott junior, Williams McClung, Charles McGill, and Williams Tillman. President Johnson president Adams appointed these federal judges on his way out of office to hamstring the incoming president Tom Thomas Jefferson's agenda. President Jefferson concluded that impeaching the judges would take too much time. He and the congress simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of eighteen o two. This is a constitutional balance of power. The legislative and executive branches can reshape the judiciary branch. It is a useful reminder in considering the current situation. Unelected lower court judges have been steadily grabbing power for years. It was such an obvious threat that in 02/2012, Vince Haley and I wrote, bringing the court back under the constitution. It is an historic study which I am submitting for the record. According to Harvard Law Review, there were 96 nationwide injunctions ordered by district courts from 02/2001 to 02/2023. Two thirds of them, 64, were issued during president's time in office. Furthermore, 92% of the injunctions against president Trump were issued by judges appointed by democratic presidents. Since 01/20/2025, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the current Trump administration. This is compared to six during George w Bush's eight years, twelve during Barack Obama's eight years, and 14 during Joe Biden's four year term. The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the executive branch and override a commander in chief who received 77,300,000 votes should trouble every American. This is particularly troubling for issues of national defense and public safety. Around May, Sun Tzu asserted in the art of war that, quote, speed is the essence of war. How can The United States have speed and national security issues if opponents can judge Shupt to find someone ambitious or arrogant enough to block, repudiate, or delay the president's decisions? There are 677 authorized district judgeships. How many think they can override duly elected presidents? This summary statement is four propositions. First, the courts have often been challenged. President Jefferson wrote, quote, judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy, close quote. President Andrew Jackson was in constant fights with the Supreme Court. President Abraham Lincoln made the Dred Scott decision expanding slavery a centerpiece of his eighteen fifty eight senatorial campaign. In his first inaugural, president Lincoln warned that if the Supreme Court held supreme rule, quote, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal, close quote. Second, as the judiciary act of '18 o prove 18 o two proves, the legislative and executive branches can constitutionally defend their rights, and they have in the past. It is historically and constitutionally wrong to think the legislative and executive branches are helpless against judiciary actions. Third, the Supreme Court could intervene to eliminate this attack on the executive branch by district judges. Chief justice Roberts could end the growing confrontation by establishing a rule that any nationwide injunction issued by a district court against the executive branch would be suspended in implementation and immediately taken up by the supreme court. This would remedy the lengthy appeals process. Fourth, the congress and the president can take decisive steps toward bringing the judiciary back into a constitutional framework. This hearing is a good first step. There could be a series of hearings on the constitutional and historic framework, which ensures no single branch of government can acquire dictatorial powers, specifically the judiciary in this committee. These hearings would educate the members and the American people. They would create a national understanding of the need to defend the constitution against overreaching branches of government. I would also recommend that the congressman that the congress passed chairman ICE's no road rulings act, which is a good signal to the courts that they have gone too far. Thank you, and I
View Full Interactive Feed