She is freezing in place a policy the president opposes, for all the months and years it may take for the lawsuit to be decided and for appeals to be made, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. Ridiculous." - NY Post
No. What is ridiculous is a former lieutenant Governor not understanding how the country she lives is operates. The emperor here is not the district court judge, who can be then checked by the appeals court and even further by the Supreme Court, but a president who thinks no one should be allowed to check him at all. The Commander in Chief has every right to make decisions involving the military but it is the specific role of the courts to decide if those decisions are legal. What if the Commander in Chief decides to ban black people from serving in the military? Under the logic here, that should be completely up to him, no questions asked. That is ridiculous. This is not defiance; it is a check. The evidence will be heard. The injunction stops the questionable action so that evidence can be heard. McCaughey knows this. By the way, if she is saying the judicial process takes too long in this country, I am sure we all would agree that is correct. Then fix that, do not use it to eradicate how the country is designed to operate.
"The misuse of national injunctions by politically motivated federal judges is not an entirely new problem, nor is it 100% one-sided. During Trump's first term, they were used 64 times to delay his initiatives. They were also used 14 times against the Biden administration, per a Harvard Law Review survey. All the more reason the Supreme Court should crack down without delay.
Justice Elena Kagan has sharply criticized this abuse. "It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process," she told a Northwestern University Law School audience in 2022. During the first Trump administration, Kagan observed, activist groups "used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years they go to Texas" -- "shopping" for a judge willing to issue a national injunction in line with the plaintiff's wishes. Her comments came as a district judge for the Northern District of Texas imposed a nationwide injunction ordering the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval of mifepristone, an abortion drug. How can a single judge in a small courthouse in Amarillo have such power? Angry abortion activists demanded. Good question." - NY Post
Once again, this is not "misuse." It is just decisions they do not like so they are trying to change the rules. McCaughey tries to pull of a little sleight of hand here with this whataboutism. Without getting too far in the weeds, the mifepristone issue ended up at the Supreme Court and they decided that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It also was not just Kagan, singled out here by McCaughey here because she is on the left. It was a 9-0 decision. In the deportation case, we have a president trying to pretend an old law designed for literal war, can be just used as he decides. It cannot. He might win with his compromised Supreme Court but it has to get there first. That is our system. By the way, if everyone dislikes the judge shopping that occurs in both parties then fix that. Do not use it as an excuse to create an imperial presidency.
"Until the Supreme Court acts, Trump is caught in an arduous game of whack-a-mole, pleading with federal appeals courts all over the nation to overturn the endless injunctions and get his stalled policy initiatives up and running again. It's one victory at a time: Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the freeze on Trump's executive order ending discriminatory DEI rules in government contracting, grant-making and hiring. But lefty district court judges are still waging lawfare against Trump -- and the high court isn't doing its job." - NY Post
It of course, is not "lawfare." It is our system behaving exactly as designed. This is not a game, and it is not arduous. It is exactly what was created by our founding fathers. It is in fact the most crucial check on the power of an uncontrolled president. It has three very simple steps. The district judge decides. If you do not like that decision, you go to an appeals court. If either side does not like that decision they can appeal to the Supreme Court, who decides if the appeals court ruling holds or if they wish to take up the case. It is quite telling that the Republican Party now thinks it is arduous to have to go through the designed checks and balances system that has existed since this country was founded. They believe their king should decide by presidential fiat and everyone just needs to bow the knee. Not in this country Betsy.
,On March 5, a divided Supreme Court turned down Trump's request to lift a district court order compelling the State Department and the US Agency for International Development to pay $2 billion in foreign aid, in defiance of the president's policies. Justice Samuel Alito issued a blistering dissent. "Does a single district-court judge . . . have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?" he thundered. "The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No'." Trump's Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris is undeterred. On March 13, she made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, warning these injunctions have reached "epidemic proportions."
This brand of lawfare "stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions," she argued. Harris made her request within the context of the birthright-citizenship cases now before the court -- yet another Trump choice that's been judicially handcuffed. But the court needs to do more than weigh in on Trump's policies on children born to illegal residents. It's time -- past time -- to restrain these district court judges who act like kings. Harris called it a "modest" request, but in fact the progress of Trump's entire agenda -- and the hopes of Americans who voted for him -- depend on it. As Harris told the court, "Enough is enough."' - NY Post
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
