1) A Federal judge rules that the President cannot cut Federal funding to cities that refuse to enforce Federal laws. The argument is that Congress has approved the spending, and therefore the money must be spent! I'll grant that there's a kind of legitimacy to the Article I argument being made here, but it is surprising to learn that the executive -- who swears to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' -- is forbidden from taking action to try to see that laws are in fact faithfully executed rather than ignored.
2) A Federal judge ruled that the administration is forbidden to refuse to pay for sexual reassignment surgery for transgender troops. I can't tell from the article what the legal reasoning was here; as presented in the article, the judge apparently accepts that this is a 'harmful consequence' of Trump's policy, and therefore(?) it must be stopped. I suppose no soldier has ever suffered a harmful consequence from a President's policy? Stop-loss, for example?
3) That judge and another Federal judge both ruled that the President cannot restore the policy on transgender troops that the last President maintained until his final year in office, which policy every previous President maintained throughout their entire term in office. The argument is that the policy that was universally practiced until last year "shocks the conscience."
This is an aggressive set of rulings, all from just the last couple of days but of a piece with the judiciary's highly aggressive approach to this administration. I wonder if they won't regret it in the long term.
6 comments:
Sooner or later, a president—possibly this one, possibly not—will conclude that obeying one of these court decisions is inconsistent with his oath of office.
No good will come of it.
Trum's getting a good old crow pie for all the times he sided with Demoncrats against Bush on various anti terror policies.
What goes around as karma and purity, returns. All that was needed was for Trum to become a Republican.
Now if Trum adopts JFK conspiracy theories, he might as well adopt Flat Earth Model too.
It is my hope, that when ( Not If, mind you!) Judge Roy Moore is elected Senator, that he is appointed to the senate judiciary committee, and that he works diligently to make sure those life time appointments of judges currently going on in the senate, will select candidates who will put the likes of the Clinton crime family away in jail for a very long time.
This is something to really pray for.
We need to do this for our children ya know.
-Mississippi
The New Yorker? Washington Post? Slate? Yuck! Zionist's lugenpresse!
Why are you narrowly sourcing your links from such a small Jewish minority publications?
All of these organization are owned and support liberal jewish views
Hell the Slate article is writing about a Jewish obstructionist Judge, Marvin Garvis pushing a deviant immoral view of sexuality on the rest of Americansa, A fine example of Jewish Rag writing about a Jewish Judge. More self promotion and BS from the morally bankrupt Jewish press,
Judge William Orrick was appointed by Obama and is one sick cookie who actively promotes infantcide from the bench,
Read: Judge censors video exposing Planned Parenthood. See it here.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-judge-censors-video-exposing-planned-parenthood.
more on Judge William Orrick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Nwwl4Tw7A
20 state Attorneys General tell Supreme Court to release videos exposing Planned Parenthood
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/20-state-attorneys-general-tell-supreme-court-to-release-videos-exposing-pl
Who's the anonymous commenter who seems to have a problem with Judaism? Rule here is you have to have a name- real or nom de plume. Maybe also make an argument beyond 'ew! Joooos!'.
From the second to last link:
"Trump is nominating candidates before they are reviewed by the American Bar Association;"
Seems almost like an admission that the ABA is an arm of the Democrat party.
He's right about the rule.
Separately, I'm not sure it's still accurate to take "liberal Jews" and "Zionists" as having a lot of overlap. That may have been an earlier Israel, more secular, more socialist. The Israel that is coming to be is less of both of those things.
Post a Comment