Posted on 02/20/2025 11:47:14 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
President Trump campaigned on a platform of hiring Elon Musk, establishing DOGE, and shrinking the federal government by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. The American people liked what they heard, and they gave Trump a broad electoral mandate.
Trump is now doing the unthinkable in Washington: He’s doing exactly what he promised voters he’d do. And the DC uniparty, fat and happy for too long while real Americans in real America have suffered, is stunned and angry.
The executive power, according to Article II of the Constitution, is vested in the president, who is also commanded to "take care" that laws are faithfully executed. Trump has already begun his work at agencies like USAID and the Treasury Department, uncovering appalling levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. Activist federal judges, however, have halted these efforts, basing their decisions on politics and policy disagreements rather than law.......
If appellate courts do not intervene, the Supreme Court must address these activist judges through its emergency docket. When activist judges issue baseless rulings like preventing the Secretary of the Treasury from accessing departmental records, it erodes the legitimacy of the courts. Such rulings would be as absurd as preventing senators or representatives from reviewing records within their respective chambers—or the Supreme Court reviewing lower courts.......
President Trump is exercising core Article II executive power. He’s not stealing Article I legislative power from Congress nor Article III judicial power from the Supreme Court. These activist judges are stealing and sabotaging Article II executive power from the president.
The crisis created by today’s activist judges’ overreaching rulings justifies Congress using its power of the purse to limit the reach of these courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
While this truth is obvious, we have a Chief Justice who hates the President. If all these whack a mole Judges were doing this to Obongo the SC would have shut this BS down already without even being asked to.
Or the Secret Service should SWAT them. The division of power needs to be resolved.
They need to stop talking and do it
...and continues to waste taxpayer dollars as these black & white issues must be litigated before leftists, however reluctantly, are forced to acknowledge the plain meaning of words.
I’m not sure John Roberts likes lower court judges encroaching on the Supreme Court’s authority and prerogative either. If any low level flunky can override the President why do we need a Supreme Court?
I can see Roberts siding with Trump on this.
I think there needs to be a law, or perhaps a constitutional amendment, that creates a Presidential prerogative to give the Supreme Court immediate jurisdiction over any lawsuit the President chooses, whether or not it involves the government, and the Supreme Court must act on it promptly. Exactly how “promptly” would be worded to give them time to hear both sides, deliberate, and write their judgment, I don’t know, but I’m sure some wordsmiths could do it.
Expand the SC by 4 more seats just as the Dem have been threatening for ages. Preempt them and fill new seats with strict conservative judges like Alito to reduce the case backlog.
I wasn’t the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse. But I want it done constitutionally. The only way to get to the supremes is through rulings of the lower courts. Just because we like it doesn’t mean we aren’t to follow the correct protocols. And just because the 24 hour degree lawyers around here say let him do what he wants doesn’t necessarily make it right.
The courts have no jurisdiction over the executive. They are way outside their lane per the constitution. Just because some previous administrations submitted to them doesn’t make it constitutional.
bkmk
Or the house can use their constitutionally granted power and impeach then
The Court also ruled that when the President exercises his discretionary (political) powers, "no power.... exists... to control that discretion," that "the decision of the executive is conclusive," and that "questions, in their nature political... can never be made in this court."
The Court extends this ban on interfering with the executive's discretionary power to his officers who are acting on his instructions.
74
By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.75
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing the department of foreign affairs. This officer, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the president. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.76
But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others.77
The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the president, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.99
It is scarcely necessary for the court to disclaim all pretensions to such a jurisdiction. An extravagance, so absurd and excessive, could not have been entertained for a moment. The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.
128
To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.129
It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true; yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.131
The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.135
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.136
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.137
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.140
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.141
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.142
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.143
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
In 1978, Congress created two offices: 1) the Office of Special Counsel, and 2) the Merit System Protection Board. They added provisions for these offices that the President cannot fire the members except for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
(a) There is established the Office of Special Counsel, which shall be headed by the Special Counsel. The Office shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed. The Office shall have its principal office in the District of Columbia and shall have field offices in other appropriate locations.
(b) The Special Counsel shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of 5 years. The Special Counsel may continue to serve beyond the expiration of the term until a successor is appointed and has qualified, except that the Special Counsel may not continue to serve for more than one year after the date on which the term of the Special Counsel would otherwise expire under this subsection. The Special Counsel shall be an attorney who, by demonstrated ability, background, training, or experience, is especially qualified to carry out the functions of the position. A Special Counsel appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the end of a term of office of the Special Counsel’s predecessor serves for the remainder of the term. The Special Counsel may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The Special Counsel may not hold another office or position in the Government of the United States, except as otherwise provided by law or at the direction of the President.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Are there limits on this plenary power? The President is "vested" with all of the Executive power.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
I say that Congress does not have the power to limit how the President manages the inferior offices under his Executive leadership. Putting limits on the President's ability to fire inferior officers is an unconstitutional encroachment on the President's power, just like when Congress expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Both were violations of separation of powers. A Constitutional amendment would be needed to make such changes to the powers of those branches.
SCOTUS needs to rule on these questions ASAP, or we will be dealing with this for the next 18 months.
-PJ
with Roberts and ABC, good luck.
They should do that, but that doesn’t expedite the resolution of these types of lawsuits. We need fast action. And impeaching them without 2/3 of the Senate doesn’t remove them.
This is going to be Trump’s biggest challenge - finding a way to rein in leftist judges.
At a time when heroism is desperately needed and the USA is struggling for survival, the Supreme Court is impotent and incompetent because of feckless, intellectually and morally weak justices who are in way over their heads, incapable of rising to the challenges before them, and completely lacking in the desperately needed heroism.
Impeaching the rogue judges doesn’t hinder the speedy review of the case.
Their job is to impeach.
What the senate does is not their concern.
Yep
Jefferson dealt with lower activist courts. Trump can do the same. Jefferson knew what he did was Constitutional.
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.