Federal judges on the loose again

[Smitty192]

How the fuck is this even possible?

BREAKING: Obama Judge Blocks Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Provision Barring Funding For Planned Parenthood | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a provision in President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill that barred Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[mi650]

Throw a bunch of shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks.

 

[Alphatreedog]

Y'all just gotta vote harder .

 

[jbuck88]

So passed the house, senate and president desk? Everyone said the same thing?

 

[Mike278th]

Until Congress decides to defend and jealously guard the power granted to them, and NOT the judicial branch, this stuff will keep happening. They have the power to impeach

 

[nso123]

The only way I can see a judge getting involved is if they say the law is unconstitutional, then it would have to work its way to the Supreme Court if one side digs in.

 

[Franko]

Federal judges play political games because nothing short of being impeached by the Senate can result in them losing their jobs; which is nearly impossible due to how our political system works. I think a lot of the bullshit we are dealing with could be dealt with by allowing the Supreme Court to discipline lower court judges.

 

[flogxal]

What would that discipline be? Angry words on twitter/x?

SCOTUS isn't exactly snow white virginal these days, entire fed judiciary is unreliable compared to 25+ yrs ago.

It sucks -- but that is how things are right now. Things you may have learned in k-12 about the role of fed courts and SCOTUS, they are just about non-applicable these days. Same with Congress and same with the Exec branch. The whole circus is heavily compromised, but it is very hard to notice as much if your info sources are domestic. Domestic "news" and opinion sources these days are spending their time creating Team Red vs Team Blue boxing matches, and covering up how bad things are otherwise.

 

[Franko]

What would that discipline be? Angry words on twitter/x?

SCOTUS isn't exactly snow white virginal these days, entire fed judiciary is unreliable compared to 25+ yrs ago.

It sucks -- but that is how things are right now. Things you may have learned in k-12 about the role of fed courts and SCOTUS, they are just about non-applicable these days. Same with Congress and same with the Exec branch. The whole circus is heavily compromised, but it is very hard to notice as much if your info sources are domestic. Domestic "news" and opinion sources these days are spending their time creating Team Red vs Team Blue boxing matches, and covering up how bad things are otherwise.

Discipline requires the Supreme Court be able to remove any problem lower court judge. Anything less isn't going to work.

Right now the Judicial branch can't really regulate itself and the Legislative can't either because impeachment isn't politically feasible. That needs to change and in my mind allowing the Judicial branch to police itself is preferable to granting the Legislative more power over a rival branch of government.

 

[flogxal]

How is a Congress motivated toward an impeachment process if the same forces/interests are running all three branches of govt?

What is the solution when the govt is captured by interests and people who represent numerically or per capita no more than 5-7% of the legal citizenry?

Talking about SCOTUS being able to remove lower judges, well I don't think that would play out as you imagine. Not as of 2025 and looking forward, that is.

It is annoying, frustrating, sad, difficult but things are very captured right now and vote smarter/vote harder is not any kind of solution, nor are things that might work if the system otherwise were healthy and functional.

I suggest going basic/granular and looking at your local city council or whatever. What do you know about each person? Their business background? Their family/community background? Their education? What they do for recreation? Do you know if they receive big lump donations from anyone? If so, who are those big donors and what do they expect for their $$?

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

Homos gonna homo, trannies gonna tranny.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

How the fuck is this even possible?

BREAKING: Obama Judge Blocks Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Provision Barring Funding For Planned Parenthood | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a provision in President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill that barred Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

When you have a hand full of people trying to subvert the will of the people, the solution is very simple,... well as long as the both sides are not in on it, that is.

 

[Basic user]

How the fuck is this even possible?

BREAKING: Obama Judge Blocks Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Provision Barring Funding For Planned Parenthood | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a provision in President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill that barred Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Well today, anything's possible. Though, it's just a judge. I have yet to see any Governor or President arrested for not listening to a court's ruling.

 

[NoDopes]

Didn't the SC just rule judges can't issue nation wide injunctions?

 

[NoDopes]

Until Congress decides to defend and jealously guard the power granted to them, and NOT the judicial branch, this stuff will keep happening.

Until the American citizens use the power protected from infringement for them this stuff will continue.

 

[flogxal]

Didn't the SC just rule judges can't issue nation wide injunctions?

As a matter of process/procedure, a Federal District Court judge's rulings have effect within that District on State law matters, and on Federal law matters, the judge can rule on what he thinks the Federal law means across the country.

This means that on Federal law rulings by a Dist Ct judge, you can have different rulings/views/opinions. Both within a District, and then within the Circuit (of Appeals judges) the District sits in. You can have conflicting Federal law rulings among the Districts. And they can take years to resolve.

SCOTUS can certainly say that a Dist Ct judge's injunction (an equity power vested in Fed Dist Ct judges) has only the scope of that District. Functionally, a Dist Ct judge has no authority, power, process to oversee violations of the injunction in another District.

 

[NoDopes]

So, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government is responsible for providing healthcare? Is this another bastardization of the general welfare statement?

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

Didn't the SC just rule judges can't issue nation wide injunctions?

The same people who were ignored when they said “text, history and tradition” would allow me to 2a all up and down this bitch full auto, suppressed w a 12.5” barrel?

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

So, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government is responsible for providing healthcare? Is this another bastardization of the general welfare statement?

Man don't just stop w/healthcare,... where does it say they have the right to legally steal from me, to provide anything to the lazy?

 

[flogxal]

So, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government is responsible for providing healthcare? Is this another bastardization of the general welfare statement?

Law students spend an entire year on such questions in Constitutional Law, and some of them still can't understand things.

The Constitution is not a recipe book. It is not a list of things that must be in govt and does not talk about the sneaky ways people try to get the govt to behave or be operating unConstitutionally.

It's just a framework. If the nation were a house, the Constitution would be its foundation and if stick-built, its framed structure but nowhere near its finished structure.

 

[Redmanss]

Man don't just stop w/healthcare,... where does it say they have the right to legally steal from me, to provide anything to the lazy?

Sixteenth Amendment is where the politicians fully ratified the fleecing of their constituents’ wallets into the Constitution. Everything else like socialist security and mediscare are just “taxes” held constitutional through the 16th.

 

[lash]

Boston.
“US District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and set a preliminary injunction hearing for July 21.”

Elsewhere:
“U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, in Boston, issued a ruling on April 14, 2025, temporarily halting the Biden administration's planned termination of the humanitarian parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV). This decision prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from revoking the parole status of these individuals, impacting approximately 532,000 people,”

National Science Foundation (NSF) Indirect Costs:
She sided with universities in blocking the NSF's 15% cap on indirect costs.

She’s been really busy for her chosen political backers.

 

[flogxal]

You can quickly see how the fed judiciary is aligned, or not, with how much deference this Boston MA based judge (District of Massachusetts) receives in other injunction applications or lawsuits around the country.

Technically speaking this injunction cannot extend beyond the judge's District. Normally, any other Districts in the country, they have to have a separate application for injunction, and they would probably cite this Mass judge's injunction as their persuasive evidence of need. But there is no obligation for another District Court's judge to follow this -- unless they are other judges in the District of Massachusetts. And even there, another Dist judge in MA might disagree and deny the injunction.

 

[david walter]

Ignore it. SCOTUS already ruled on it.

Until we start ignoring district and local courts’ usurpation of SCOTUS decisions, like Bruen, this shit will keep happening.

 

[flogxal]

Sixteenth Amendment is where the politicians fully ratified the fleecing of their constituents’ wallets into the Constitution. Everything else like socialist security and mediscare are just “taxes” held constitutional through the 16th.

Since the Internal Revenue Service wasn't even an idea, didn't even exist, as of 1789 -- all SCOTUS rulings on what is a "tax" have to be read a little strangely. Normally your frame of reference would be IRS/Treasury imposed taxes. But SCOTUS has to look at what existed in 1789, and what that concept has become over the interim. Sometimes, like Justice Roberts and his "penaltax" ruling, they get it wrong.

 

[Redmanss]

Since the Internal Revenue Service wasn't even an idea, didn't even exist, as of 1789 -- all SCOTUS rulings on what is a "tax" have to be read a little strangely. Normally your frame of reference would be IRS/Treasury imposed taxes. But SCOTUS has to look at what existed in 1789, and what that concept has become over the interim. Sometimes, like Justice Roberts and his "penaltax" ruling, they get it wrong.

No, that’s not the case. The original Constitution may have been written and ratified in 1789, but amendments add to or even change the actual text of the original document. Saying SCOTUS has to look at 1789 is saying they should ignore the Bill of Rights as they weren’t ratified until 1791.

The 16th Amendment which allows the USG to tax the people’s incomes and distribute it how they wish by ignoring proportioning by population allowed the Congress to create all the tax bullshit and divvy it out by what gets them votes to keep them in power. The Supreme Court HAS to look at that basis, as the Constitution includes all ratified Amendments the same as if it was part of the original 1789 document.

This is how the dems slid through Obamacare by calling it a tax (and the lib justices going along with that), as well as how GOA is suing to remove SBR, SBS and suppressors from the NFA because their basis was also held due to the tax that no longer exists. I really hope we get that win playing their own fucking game.

 

[flogxal]

You are barking up the wrong tree arguing with me about Constitutional provisions here, probably because you do not know my background.

You can post all authoritatively to an audience of non-lawyers. Sometimes a guy like me will have to clarify or correct what you allege.

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

You are barking up the wrong tree arguing with me about Constitutional provisions here, probably because you do not know my background.

You can post all authoritatively to an audience of non-lawyers. Sometimes a guy like me will have to clarify or correct what you allege.

Get em!

 

[flogxal]

I threw him a life preserver, maybe he'll use it. Maybe he'll drown.

 

[rjacobs]

There are arguments on whether the 16th amendment is even legal...

 

[flogxal]

Anyone wanting to argue the Constitution had better be well versed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the 1789 Constitution, and all amendments to the Constitution. All of it. This stuff does not arise in a vacuum and is not done by time-specific snapshots.