Decisions on cases related to President Trump's top priorities--curbing illegal immigration and bleeding the Deep State--at SCOTUS this week portend bigger victories ahead.
Julie, I hope that you are seeing the future of this litigation correctly and SCOTUS puts an end to it. But, as you said, they cannot act fast enough. With John Roberts hand on the scale against the President, it is unlikely to get resolved any time soon. It still troubles me that, just like your article about cameras in Federal court, these decisions, while certainly not binding or precedent, do set a standard, by which the many unscrupulous lawyers willing to take a boat load of money, can leverage some crazy new legal theory that will at least get them heard. Whatever happened to judges just throwing a case out based on the fact that it is complete crap?
We are closing in on the finish of Trump's first year in office. If the court ultimately supports the president's use of AEA by say early 2026, an entire year of getting these illegal thugs out of the country will have been wasted.
Ya, such a waste. And all the while, what is the Speaker and the Majority Leader doing to stop this obvious unconstitutional actions by these judges??? Yep, that's right. NOTHING. Why are they so weak with the "power of the purse".
Last time this writer checked, if you serve at the pleasure of the President you can be fired with or without cause. One has to ask, when Ms. Cook, filled out all the many background forms, prior to her confirmation and appointment, many of which include financial disclosures, did she mention she had misrepresented her status as the primary mortgage holder in two different states for two different residences? What a buffoon. She knowingly lied before congress, she had committed a fraud, but figured because she was a beautiful person no one would look, and if they did, say, you go guur! Try for a third home and primary mortgage. Generals and Admirals at the 3 and 4 star level serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be canned any damn time he or she wants to can them. They know this, and yet we have federal employees that feel entitled and feel they are indeed above the law. It has been said many, many times, this crowd is a laws for thee and not for me. The Chickens, as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright opined in a gentle homily to his flock, “have come to home to roost!” Well rather than God Damn America reverend, how about God Damn those that feel themselves above the law, and are now feeling its pinch. They are starting to squirm. Rumor has it John Brennan is on a severe tofu diet and undergoing plastic surgery and finger print change operations…well not really but how ‘bout a little humor!?? We can only hope…
I am working on a follow up piece covering Judge Cobb's granting of the injunction and reinstating Cook. Truly astonishing--and contradictory--reasoning, if that's what you want to call it.
And Michelle, a bigger problem is the total lack of transparency of the Fed. A secret body not subject to Open Records or FOIA. They produce minutes of each meeting and that's all we get. Meanwhile they wield enormous power over all of us.
The question I have is, is there any accountability in the judiciary after SCOTUS overturns their bogus decisions repeatedly. Their political biases are harming our country. These political hack judges should lose their positions for engaging in the lawfare.
I just don't know what Congress is waiting for. And why they are not rewriting the Federal Reserve Act to allow a president to fire without cause or at the very least, past actions can represent cause. It is really frustrating to see their lack of action every day.
Finally Julie, do you think they're waking up? The activist judges must be somewhat unnerved by the fact they'll be overturned again and again as the case winds to the SCOTUS. There they get pounded (except Roberts who thinks they are all the gold standard) by Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and at times Gorsuch by rebukes and dissent that I 've never seen before. Stopping Trump has its ups for media attention, then it's "a kick in the teeth by the highest court". Is it worth it? As the year winds down, hopefully we'll see these lefty judges finally seeing the writing on the wall since their jobs and reputations are on the line. We shall see.
And the attorneys. They get the windfall, but also lose in the end. Abbe Lowell used his juice with Weiss to get that sweet plea deal with Hunter Biden but ran upon against a savvy judge who kicked it to the curb with wide ranging immunity. Lowell didn't seem to close the deal for Biden and then didn't have to do it, since Hunter was pardoned by daddy. He can huff and pull bu the evidence is undeniable for Lisa Cook and with SCOTUS ruling she has nowhere to go but wishful thinking and using the black card. But, once again, the facts do get in the way black or not. We definitely need a shake up at the fed, and Cook isn't qualified in any way, shape or form.
One can only hope Roberts senses PDJTS moods as his administration has played by the unjust rulings of the biased jurists letting the SCOTUS do the UN-NECCESARY lifting . It is long past time for Roberts and A.G.Bondi to issue a joint reminder the POTUS was elected by a majority according to the constitution and is vested as the head of government meaning even created departments are his purview .
Remember, Marlan, how Roberts said earlier this year that the judiciary basically referees the other two branches of government? That was quite telling. And I believe many district/circuit judges took that as consent to run roughshod over the White House and the administration.
Maybe SCOTUS is waking up? We will see how they handle any emergency application related to Judge Cobb's order reinstating Lisa Cook. But it does appear the court is setting the stage to side with the executive branch and limit how these lower court judges can intervene.
Abbe Lowell, one of Cook’s attorneys, claims “any such pre-office offense” does not meet the statutory standard;
If Lisa Cook's loan fraud had been revealed before she was put on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors she wouldn't be on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She kept it hidden. Why?
As for ICE-first if the states would cooperate and help get rid of the worst of the worst ICE raids would be less prevalent. They could stay focused on the really bad people but states like California and Illinois like illegal criminals. They've prove this by paying for them and not for legal citizens. They want the illegal votes.
IMHO, if you're not here legally-you're not here legally. Therefore you don't have any rights to stay. And for those that have been here for 30 years, the left likes to argue, if they haven't applied for citizenship in 30 years they do not want to become citizens.
The world is upside down.
And here's a thought-totally unrelated. I suspect that the "Phillies Karen" arguing with a father and taking a home run ball intended for his young son-self identified as a man but she didn't have any balls.
I also think the media's coverage--or lack thereof until they were shamed into it--of the murder of Iryna Zarutska is red-pilling people about the utter lack of rule of law, common decency, and humanity. Something drastic must change--the inmates have to stop running the asylum in this country.
Count me anong those that thought Johnny and the Supremes would do nothing untoward to their lesser brethren. I an starting to come around to Julie's thinking that serious sanctions will be forthcoming if this insubordination continues. I still think articles of impeachment are in order, but that may require house members to be late for lunch, or God forbid, late for a fund raising cocktail party.
Roberts could--and should--say something about the egregious and politically-motivated overreach of the judiciary. There is a patterns of this dating back months; Roberts knows this and so do his colleagues. Even Neil Gorsuch had to address the defiance of lower courts in terms of following SCOTUS directives. Everything is out of control--perhaps Roberts is now realizing he needs to bring some discipline to the courts but I suspect it is too late.
On appointees, as Vivek has said often, if you can’t fire them, then they do not work for you.
And as to immigration, several of those quoted opinions sent me scrambling for a dictionary.
I get it that maybe that’s the one perfect word, but I think that these judges would do well to consider their audience is not just jurists and attorneys, but real world humans.
(Kind of like why I follow Margot Cleveland on cases but count on you to make more of it meaningful for me.)
I AGREE! These judges have a responsibility to make their opinions understandable to the general public. I think many intentionally "legalese" their opinions so people just give up trying to make sense of what they are saying. Citing case law is fine (and necessary.) Overtalking and repeatedly hammering home the same point with fancy words is judicial preening at its worst.
The entire regulatory state is really unconstitutional. Laws must pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the president, or be passed by 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress overriding a presidential veto. Regulations don’t get passed by either House, and ain't signed by the president, but are treated as law anyway. They have become tyrannical edicts that are easily imposed, and hard to get rid of.
Sounds simple, right, Douglas? One would think Congress would act fast to reform the Federal Reserve Act and give the president--whoever he is--the authority to remove existing governors for whatever reason they want. I realize this will apply to a Democratic president, but so be it.
I hope this leads to a complete unwinding of the tentacles of the Deep State, as they are illegitimate.
The biggest problem I see is that the overall actions of most of these entities is based upon Article I, which states what powers Congress has in the nation's internal affairs. At the same time, their actions can only be performed if explicitly authorized by Congress. A proper interpretation would mean that Congress has to issue strict instructions, through the passage of laws, for these entities to have any power; they can't just say that they may implement actions "as authorized by the Secretary" of the department.
I would also argue that Mr Lowell's claim that pre-hiring actions can't be used as justification for a future termination, because the Federal Reserve Act does not place such limits on the firing actions of a President; it only says, "for cause". And any financial action taken by a member of the Board is connected to that person's job. Some of us still remember that when Barack 0bama appointed Timmy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, and he had the matter of a tax evasion issue come up at his confirmation hearing. He had to get a waiver from the IRS to be able to have his confirmation hearing go forward toward his eventual confirmation. This was obviously something he would have oversight when confirmed, and would have been something that could have resulted in a "for cause" termination at any time thereafter if it wasn't cleared in advance.
Judge Cobb just endorsed Lowell's view even though Lowell himself during the August 29 hearing could not definitively say that past conduct does not represent "cause" for termination. And all of these cases emphasize why Trump was right about the "deep state" and why its imperative to raze it to the ground.
In a continuation of the thread about Judge Rao, I would also contend that the structure of the Constitution is important.
Article 1 was placed first because the Founders considered the legislature to be the most important part of the government. It is also the longest and most detailed portion of the Constitution. The Articles that follow are shorter, and there is a general sequence of shortening as one reads the document. My interpretation of this is that the most important was placed first, and that each subsequent Article was of diminishing importance, with Article 7 almost an afterthought.
Additionally, I believe a proper reading of the Constitution would conclude that the powers assigned to the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court can't be delegated; their performance is limited to those mentioned in the respective Articles.
Thanks for this brief piece, Julie. I appreciate what the reasonable justices on the Supreme Court have rendered in their recent decisions pertaining to the judicial coup d'etat but I fear that their decisions will be too little, too late because the entire objective of these ridiculous lower tier federal district judges' rulings is to delay and obstruct the agenda for which President Trump was elected last November. These Marxists-Wearing-Black-Robes have accomplished precisely what they intended to do, regrettably. That's why, at the risk of being redundant, I continue to advocate for President Trump to openly defy these agenda-delay attempts and bring this issue to a head, so to speak.
Julie, I hope that you are seeing the future of this litigation correctly and SCOTUS puts an end to it. But, as you said, they cannot act fast enough. With John Roberts hand on the scale against the President, it is unlikely to get resolved any time soon. It still troubles me that, just like your article about cameras in Federal court, these decisions, while certainly not binding or precedent, do set a standard, by which the many unscrupulous lawyers willing to take a boat load of money, can leverage some crazy new legal theory that will at least get them heard. Whatever happened to judges just throwing a case out based on the fact that it is complete crap?
We are closing in on the finish of Trump's first year in office. If the court ultimately supports the president's use of AEA by say early 2026, an entire year of getting these illegal thugs out of the country will have been wasted.
Ya, such a waste. And all the while, what is the Speaker and the Majority Leader doing to stop this obvious unconstitutional actions by these judges??? Yep, that's right. NOTHING. Why are they so weak with the "power of the purse".
An activist judge will be an activist. To them no case is worth throwing out(unless the defendants are left leaning)
Last time this writer checked, if you serve at the pleasure of the President you can be fired with or without cause. One has to ask, when Ms. Cook, filled out all the many background forms, prior to her confirmation and appointment, many of which include financial disclosures, did she mention she had misrepresented her status as the primary mortgage holder in two different states for two different residences? What a buffoon. She knowingly lied before congress, she had committed a fraud, but figured because she was a beautiful person no one would look, and if they did, say, you go guur! Try for a third home and primary mortgage. Generals and Admirals at the 3 and 4 star level serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be canned any damn time he or she wants to can them. They know this, and yet we have federal employees that feel entitled and feel they are indeed above the law. It has been said many, many times, this crowd is a laws for thee and not for me. The Chickens, as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright opined in a gentle homily to his flock, “have come to home to roost!” Well rather than God Damn America reverend, how about God Damn those that feel themselves above the law, and are now feeling its pinch. They are starting to squirm. Rumor has it John Brennan is on a severe tofu diet and undergoing plastic surgery and finger print change operations…well not really but how ‘bout a little humor!?? We can only hope…
I am working on a follow up piece covering Judge Cobb's granting of the injunction and reinstating Cook. Truly astonishing--and contradictory--reasoning, if that's what you want to call it.
If she was willing to do a run around the laws with her own money, what does she have to stop her from abusing ours?
And Michelle, a bigger problem is the total lack of transparency of the Fed. A secret body not subject to Open Records or FOIA. They produce minutes of each meeting and that's all we get. Meanwhile they wield enormous power over all of us.
Agreed
The question I have is, is there any accountability in the judiciary after SCOTUS overturns their bogus decisions repeatedly. Their political biases are harming our country. These political hack judges should lose their positions for engaging in the lawfare.
I just don't know what Congress is waiting for. And why they are not rewriting the Federal Reserve Act to allow a president to fire without cause or at the very least, past actions can represent cause. It is really frustrating to see their lack of action every day.
Finally Julie, do you think they're waking up? The activist judges must be somewhat unnerved by the fact they'll be overturned again and again as the case winds to the SCOTUS. There they get pounded (except Roberts who thinks they are all the gold standard) by Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and at times Gorsuch by rebukes and dissent that I 've never seen before. Stopping Trump has its ups for media attention, then it's "a kick in the teeth by the highest court". Is it worth it? As the year winds down, hopefully we'll see these lefty judges finally seeing the writing on the wall since their jobs and reputations are on the line. We shall see.
And the attorneys. They get the windfall, but also lose in the end. Abbe Lowell used his juice with Weiss to get that sweet plea deal with Hunter Biden but ran upon against a savvy judge who kicked it to the curb with wide ranging immunity. Lowell didn't seem to close the deal for Biden and then didn't have to do it, since Hunter was pardoned by daddy. He can huff and pull bu the evidence is undeniable for Lisa Cook and with SCOTUS ruling she has nowhere to go but wishful thinking and using the black card. But, once again, the facts do get in the way black or not. We definitely need a shake up at the fed, and Cook isn't qualified in any way, shape or form.
One can only hope Roberts senses PDJTS moods as his administration has played by the unjust rulings of the biased jurists letting the SCOTUS do the UN-NECCESARY lifting . It is long past time for Roberts and A.G.Bondi to issue a joint reminder the POTUS was elected by a majority according to the constitution and is vested as the head of government meaning even created departments are his purview .
Remember, Marlan, how Roberts said earlier this year that the judiciary basically referees the other two branches of government? That was quite telling. And I believe many district/circuit judges took that as consent to run roughshod over the White House and the administration.
Maybe SCOTUS is waking up? We will see how they handle any emergency application related to Judge Cobb's order reinstating Lisa Cook. But it does appear the court is setting the stage to side with the executive branch and limit how these lower court judges can intervene.
Abbe Lowell, one of Cook’s attorneys, claims “any such pre-office offense” does not meet the statutory standard;
If Lisa Cook's loan fraud had been revealed before she was put on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors she wouldn't be on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She kept it hidden. Why?
As for ICE-first if the states would cooperate and help get rid of the worst of the worst ICE raids would be less prevalent. They could stay focused on the really bad people but states like California and Illinois like illegal criminals. They've prove this by paying for them and not for legal citizens. They want the illegal votes.
IMHO, if you're not here legally-you're not here legally. Therefore you don't have any rights to stay. And for those that have been here for 30 years, the left likes to argue, if they haven't applied for citizenship in 30 years they do not want to become citizens.
The world is upside down.
And here's a thought-totally unrelated. I suspect that the "Phillies Karen" arguing with a father and taking a home run ball intended for his young son-self identified as a man but she didn't have any balls.
Ha! Love the last line.
I also think the media's coverage--or lack thereof until they were shamed into it--of the murder of Iryna Zarutska is red-pilling people about the utter lack of rule of law, common decency, and humanity. Something drastic must change--the inmates have to stop running the asylum in this country.
Count me anong those that thought Johnny and the Supremes would do nothing untoward to their lesser brethren. I an starting to come around to Julie's thinking that serious sanctions will be forthcoming if this insubordination continues. I still think articles of impeachment are in order, but that may require house members to be late for lunch, or God forbid, late for a fund raising cocktail party.
Roberts could--and should--say something about the egregious and politically-motivated overreach of the judiciary. There is a patterns of this dating back months; Roberts knows this and so do his colleagues. Even Neil Gorsuch had to address the defiance of lower courts in terms of following SCOTUS directives. Everything is out of control--perhaps Roberts is now realizing he needs to bring some discipline to the courts but I suspect it is too late.
Thanks for the recaps!
On appointees, as Vivek has said often, if you can’t fire them, then they do not work for you.
And as to immigration, several of those quoted opinions sent me scrambling for a dictionary.
I get it that maybe that’s the one perfect word, but I think that these judges would do well to consider their audience is not just jurists and attorneys, but real world humans.
(Kind of like why I follow Margot Cleveland on cases but count on you to make more of it meaningful for me.)
I AGREE! These judges have a responsibility to make their opinions understandable to the general public. I think many intentionally "legalese" their opinions so people just give up trying to make sense of what they are saying. Citing case law is fine (and necessary.) Overtalking and repeatedly hammering home the same point with fancy words is judicial preening at its worst.
The entire regulatory state is really unconstitutional. Laws must pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the president, or be passed by 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress overriding a presidential veto. Regulations don’t get passed by either House, and ain't signed by the president, but are treated as law anyway. They have become tyrannical edicts that are easily imposed, and hard to get rid of.
Sounds simple, right, Douglas? One would think Congress would act fast to reform the Federal Reserve Act and give the president--whoever he is--the authority to remove existing governors for whatever reason they want. I realize this will apply to a Democratic president, but so be it.
I hope this leads to a complete unwinding of the tentacles of the Deep State, as they are illegitimate.
The biggest problem I see is that the overall actions of most of these entities is based upon Article I, which states what powers Congress has in the nation's internal affairs. At the same time, their actions can only be performed if explicitly authorized by Congress. A proper interpretation would mean that Congress has to issue strict instructions, through the passage of laws, for these entities to have any power; they can't just say that they may implement actions "as authorized by the Secretary" of the department.
I would also argue that Mr Lowell's claim that pre-hiring actions can't be used as justification for a future termination, because the Federal Reserve Act does not place such limits on the firing actions of a President; it only says, "for cause". And any financial action taken by a member of the Board is connected to that person's job. Some of us still remember that when Barack 0bama appointed Timmy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, and he had the matter of a tax evasion issue come up at his confirmation hearing. He had to get a waiver from the IRS to be able to have his confirmation hearing go forward toward his eventual confirmation. This was obviously something he would have oversight when confirmed, and would have been something that could have resulted in a "for cause" termination at any time thereafter if it wasn't cleared in advance.
Judge Cobb just endorsed Lowell's view even though Lowell himself during the August 29 hearing could not definitively say that past conduct does not represent "cause" for termination. And all of these cases emphasize why Trump was right about the "deep state" and why its imperative to raze it to the ground.
With a very heavy heart, I just want to thank you for your excellent coverage on such issues.
This particular article is especially poignant and I can't wait to see how this issue plays out. I think you have given us a good insight.
Thanks for all you do, Julie. RIP Charlie Kirk.
In a continuation of the thread about Judge Rao, I would also contend that the structure of the Constitution is important.
Article 1 was placed first because the Founders considered the legislature to be the most important part of the government. It is also the longest and most detailed portion of the Constitution. The Articles that follow are shorter, and there is a general sequence of shortening as one reads the document. My interpretation of this is that the most important was placed first, and that each subsequent Article was of diminishing importance, with Article 7 almost an afterthought.
Additionally, I believe a proper reading of the Constitution would conclude that the powers assigned to the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court can't be delegated; their performance is limited to those mentioned in the respective Articles.
Thanks for this brief piece, Julie. I appreciate what the reasonable justices on the Supreme Court have rendered in their recent decisions pertaining to the judicial coup d'etat but I fear that their decisions will be too little, too late because the entire objective of these ridiculous lower tier federal district judges' rulings is to delay and obstruct the agenda for which President Trump was elected last November. These Marxists-Wearing-Black-Robes have accomplished precisely what they intended to do, regrettably. That's why, at the risk of being redundant, I continue to advocate for President Trump to openly defy these agenda-delay attempts and bring this issue to a head, so to speak.
🇺🇲✅️🗽⚖️🦅🇺🇸👍