Posted on 02/11/2025 2:43:15 PM PST by packagingguy
@DOGE, a single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data. There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds.
This will be a repeat problem for the Trump administration, just like it was in the first term, unless something is done to rein in frivolous injunctions. Activist judges could single-handedly gum up the entire Trump/DOGE agenda.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used!
When I was in the White House, in Trump’s first term, I suggested this, but DOJ didn’t make it happen. Imagine if we had applied this to the travel ban – activists would think twice before blocking policies with potentially billions at stake.
The government has expert economists who can easily price out the cost of policies like birthright citizenship or wasteful spending. Price injunction bonds fairly, and frivolous lawsuits become a financial risk, not a free pass.
Without injunction bonds, the American people bear all the costs of activists and judges blocking the agenda they voted for. Why should activists and judges get to overrule the American people with no penalty if they’re wrong? Our system wasn’t meant to work this way.
For national injunctions, we’re talking bonds in the hundreds of millions or even billions. It will become prohibitive unless the activists have a slam dunk case.
If a judge tries to lowball the bond amount, it’s a quick and easy reversal given the unambiguous language in the federal rules...
This doesn’t block activists from court; it just stops them from using preliminary injunctions to pause government action based on arguments that might not hold up in an appellate court.
(Excerpt) Read more at revolver.news ...
I hope there is a remedy to rein this in.
Frivolous lawsuits is how they hounded Palin out of office as Governor of Alaska.
Valuation of injunction bonds? That looks like a Leticia James thing? She’s great at valuations of financial instruments. /s.
Let it be so
Bond would need to be a minimum of the amount of fraud and abuse DOGE is uncovering each day. Current DOGE clock shows $84B identified, and 22 days since Exec Order Created Doge. Effectively, 21 days, which is an even $4B/day.
So Judgey Poo ... you want a TRO for a week, that would require a $28B bond.
If it’s up to the judge to set the bonds I don’t see how this will work. These Leftist judges are not going to play along.
The thought that any of these communist thugs think that laws apply to them. They’ve been laughing in our faces for years about this.
Simply enforce the existing laws.
They cross the line, cuff ‘em and stuff’em.
They think they’re untouchable. They’re not.
They’ve ruined the lives of many on our side for much less.
You want to stop activist Judges? Suspend their paychecks.
In the article it says:
“If a judge tries to lowball the bond amount, it’s a quick and easy reversal given the unambiguous language in the federal rules.”
So at least on a Federal level there could be guidelines imposed for posting bonds. Similar to state laws requiring bail bonds be a certain amount or not granted at all for certain crimes.
I think this is a very good idea. Only issue is that the lawfare-supporting leftist judges who are hearing the case are also the ones who will be deciding what the bond should be. I imagine they would be very lenient with their fellow radicals, who after all, are only acting in the public interest.
A solution that I have been advocating is to change the rules of venue and jurisdication for cases against the Executive branch. This is entirely within Congress’ purview, under the constitution. I would propose a law providing that jurisdiction for lawsuits seeking a halt or change to an action taken by the President must be sent outside of DC. No place has worse federal judges than DC, not even NY (2d circuit) or California (9th Circuit). The law can say that jurisdiction for such cases shall be sent, at the discretion of the President, to any jurisdiction impacted by the president’s action. Also, that injunctions against a President’s action may be immediately appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Also that any judge whose decisions finding against the President are overturned by a higher court is henceforth disqualified from hearing any suits against the executive branch. Those simple changes will go a long way to ending lawfare and delays against what the people voted for.
Also, the system by which the various districts select which judge gets assigned to a case needs to be made transparent and open to all parties to the action. Right now, there is a supposed random assignment system in each District, and for the 3 judge panels in the Courts of Appeal. I don’t believe that this is what is happening for a second. EVERY SINGLE TIME there is one of these lawfare cases, it gets assigned to some lunatic judge who the left knows will do the deep state’s bidding. I have no doubt that the Chief Judge in those left wing districts (NY, LA, SF, Chicago, DC, Atlanta, etc.) is jimmying the system to put his/her best soldiers on the case. There’s no oversight, so no one would be able to say it wasn’t random. That’s why it needs to be transparent and open. There are lots of systems that could be designed to ensure that.
These injunctions have been so blatently unconstitutional, why not simply arrest the judge and the attorneys who asked for the injunction on charges of attempting to overthrow the government by usurping the power of the executive branch. Let them spend money to fight the charges as the case and the appeal on the injunction both work their way up the court system.
bttt
.
Yes, please!
Bttt.
5.56mm
How about any lower courts ruling against the President are automatically on hold until the Supreme Court acts?
I am personally in favor of an EO that declare lower court rulings null as it pertains to the executive branch.
The theory is that the SCOTUS is co-equal. The lower courts are not. This means that EOs have more authority than their rulings. If they want to appeal to SCOTUS they are welcome to, but that is not cheap.
BTTT
BTTT
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.