Timothy Birdnow

A New York appeals court judge has temporarilyupheld a lower court ban on DOGe accessing Treasury Department records. There will be a hearing on Friday to determine if the ban remains in place permanently.

Judge Jeannette A. (Scutt) Vargas issued the ruling from her swank Manhattan courtroom after Democrats argued that DOGE are political appointees, not "trained" to handle such big information as government bureaucrats with their gigantic brains are capable of interpreting.

I'd like somebody to tell me how Democrat AG's had standing in this case in the first place. I'd also like to know how it wound up in a Manhattan court.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice argued the ban was unconstitutional as the Treasury Department works for the President and as such is subject to audity by people he appointed.

I have little doubt this activist judge will make the ban permanent, triggering an appeal to a higher court.

When the Constitution was being debated one of the big sticking points was the judiciary; the anti-federalists worried about it's potential for tyranny as the judges were not elected but selected and had lifetime tenure. The federalists scoffed at that; Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that the courts were the weakest branch of the three and only could issue judgments. They had no money of their own and had no enforcement powers, so were no threat, he argued. Hamilton could not imagine Congress surrendering their power to the courts as a way to avoid political embarassment and let others do the dirty work, nor could he imagine the kind of hyper-partisanship which makes the President impotent in disregarding the courts rulings (which Hamilton himself argued the President could do). The courts have been filled with activists. The Founders didn't think that would happen. (Of course they didn't think taht would happen in the Senate either, but the direct election of Senators via the 17th Amendment which turned the Senate into a purely partisan body,just another version of the House.) Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to stuff it, saying about Worcester v. Georgia (1832) "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".Wor But the matter never came to a head and so Jackson did not face impeachment for refusing to enforce a Supreme Court decision. (Worcester v. Georgia was a case where SCOTUS ruled Cherokee land was sovereign and not subject to the laws of Georgia. Worcester was arrested for living on Cherokee land without a Georgia permit and his appeal argued the law was unconstitutional because Indians were sovereign and not subject to the laws of the states. He won and Jackson said he would not enforce the ruling on Georgia.Georgia repealed the law and Worcester and his co-defendant accepted pardons.)

At any rate there has never been a mechanism put in place to rein in out-of-control judges. There is impeachment but that is difficult in a hyperpartisan atmosphere, and it is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" anyway and not just being jackasses. So the Demo-Left has exploited the courts for generations, getting what they want without actually appealing to the will of the People nor using the political process. Roe v. Wade was a prime example. So too is gay marriage.

And the Democrats always file in jurisdictions that will favor them, as well as jurisdictions where the appeals will end up favoring them as well. It's insane; a low level judge can stop the President with a signature, and all we can do is appeal it to another corrupt judge.

We should end lifetime appointments of judges, or at least impose a retention process on them. There must be a way to remove activists from the courts. But then Congress would actually have to do something, stick their necks out. I doubt it will ever happen.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 644 words, total size 4 kb.