Posted on 02/10/2025 5:44:14 AM PST by Rummyfan
Trump and Musk are unraveling the deep state’s secrets at record speed, and the left is panicking—wielding emergency orders, judicial overreach, and legal theatrics to stop the exposure.
Here we go again. At the beginning of his first term as president, Donald Trump issued an executive order temporarily banning travel from several countries—Yemen, for example, Sudan, Libya, and four others—that had been identified as major exporters of terrorism. The left went nuts, excoriating Trump for his “racist” “Muslim travel ban.”
It wasn’t a “Muslim travel ban,” but try telling that to Seattle District Court judge James Robart. He sniffed the air, sensed the pleasing hysteria and press coverage, and issued a cursory restraining order against Trump’s executive order. The humorous part of Robart’s order came towards the end. As I wrote at the time, Robart insisted that the “declaratory and injunctive relief” outlined in his order be applied immediately and on a “nationwide basis” (my emphasis).
Seattle has spoken, Comrades! Judge Robarts finds (where? how?) that his court has jurisdiction over … well, over just about everything: the president and the head of the Department of Homeland Security, for starters, but also “the United States of America (collectively).”
So all across the fruited plain, “Federal Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED” from enforcing the President’s executive order.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
The overreach by the judges this time will come to be a weapon of the left’s own demise.
This is going to be yet more of their own undoing.
This is a winning issue for you Dums, add it to open borders and men in womens’ bathrooms.
I love the suggestion of finding a conservative district judge to issue a counter-manding order with full nationwide effect granting full access to Treasury computers.
To the forum here, have federal judges always made rulings and declared them to apply “nation-wide”? Or is that a more recent thing?
Has the scope ability of any federal judge to issue a ruling that covers the entire nation ever been challenged?
OK, I recall Marbury vs Madison 1803 as the OK for it but I am thinking it did not ramp up, number-wise, to the hysterical political level of opposition defiance behavior until much more recently, no?
Transparency would reduce politicians running by 2/3 at least.
add it to open borders and men in womens’ bathrooms.
**********
If you have to go then you gotta go.
Move over and let the dribble begin.
p
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/district-court-reform-nationwide-injunctions/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.