Posted on 08/26/2018 9:52:01 AM PDT by antidemoncrat
A federal judge dealt a blow Saturday to President Donald Trumps efforts to promote more efficient government, ruling that key provisions of three recent executive orders undermine federal employees right to bargain collectively under federal law. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said Trump had exceeded his authority in issuing the orders.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
This is what happens when people are appointed based on skin color.
Rescind 10 Obama EOs likely close to her interests on Monday
You’re right!
NBC/WSJ POLL- ---Trump approval remarkably-stable-after-a-stormy-week of Cohen, Manafort, Bumbarosa......
Flipping Repubs just don’t know how to lead ( rule ?)
keep an eye on this:
https://freebeacon.com/issues/labor-watchdogs-warn-reappointing-obama-labor-holdover/
also note this article, where nobody did anything about this:
https://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-nlrb-wiped-4500-years-legal-precedent/
Yet a sole Judge gets to identify presidential powers limits when it goes against labor ?
President tries to save taxpayers money. Leftist judge, appointed by leftist president, backing leftist unions, decides government employees will have no limit to how much they can steal from taxpayers. Wasn’t this country created, partly, to get away from this?
If the judicial branch insists on functioning as a second legislative branch, then it needs to be subject to the same conditions as the other one- a set term of office, and elected, not appointed.
U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Barack Obama appointee. You do not need to know anything else. That says it all.
Thanks for the ping, Jane.
The subject of this thread is another liberal, anti-Trump episode straight from the Twilight Zone imo.
As usual, I tried to reference the actions of the unconstitutionally big federal government with a constitutional clause that reasonably justifies the action.
In this case, the referenced judge said something similar to the following.
" ruling that key provisions of three recent executive orders undermine federal employees right to bargain collectively under federal law [??? emphasis added]."
So after some scratching, here is what I found concerning the judge's decision.
History of Twilight Zone openings for ambience for reading rest of post.
As far as I can tell, the judges reference to the so-called right of federal employees to bargain collectively based on "federal law" is actually based on executive orders, the first one made by JFK, Nixon revising JFK's order with another executive order.
Executive Order 10988
So the judge is actually trying to stop Pres. Trump from using an executive order to reverse previous executive orders imo.
Note that the reference to executive order 10988 above mentions the FDR era National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The problem with that act is that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect collective bargaining.
In fact, not only had a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justifies clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce, but the congressional record shows that constitutional lawmaker Rep. John Bingham had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people to the states, not the federal government.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added]. Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Whomever is the new republican Speaker, upon taking the oath, they should announce the new policy of impeaching any federal judge whose ruling regarding another branch of government is overturned by a superior court. We can do better than politically motivated and incompetent judges.
“dealt a blow” my arse!
No Judge has the powers of POTUS, none.
Sh*t Judge making a political move, not a judiciary move....this Judge was where when ObamaIdiot was throwing around E.O.’s like candy?!
Affirmative-action feral “educated” beyond her intellect.
>>Its up to the SCOTUS to determine that, not some insignificant federal judge.<<
The President should simply ignore this affirmative-action appointment to the federal bench.
Can he?
>>This is what happens when people are appointed based on skin color.<<
No question about it, which is why, after the work of the SJWs is completed, Americans of “no” color will be able to “enjoy” the RSA experience.
Fire Jeff Sessions and appoint an Attorney General who will ignore these lower court Federal Judges!!!
A midnight transfer to tropical resort maybe needed. I understand there is space available at the Club Gitmo.
Thank you!
I am sick of cookie-cutter conservative sycophants who praise JFK.
His administration also gave George Soros citizenship.
Take your ‘yelling’ somewhere else...I don’t MAKE the rules, I just follow them...
If YOU ARE so much better than the rest of us on here, then run for a seat in YOUR area and do something about it!!!
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.