July 08, 2025
Legal Insurrection
Timothy Birdnow
What part of the Supreme Court's ruling against nationwide injunctions don't the leftist judges understand?
Federal Judge Blocks Planned Parenthood Defunding in Big, Beautiful Bill
From Just the News:
See what they are doing? They know they are going to be rebuked by SCOTUS but they don't care; they want to waste time, tie up the Administration, and snipe at them from the shadows. As SCOTUS has no actual authority over lower courts (just authority over their decisions) they cannot enforce their own ruling about sweeping injunctions. What we are seeing is an insurrecftion by lower courts.
So, let me get this straight - this judge says Congess is expressing "disapproval of, attacking, and punishing" Planned Parenthood and somehow that is wrong. Well, how are they doing it? Simply by cutting off taxpayer dollars to the pro-abortion organization. I ask you, would it somehow be acceptable for Congress to fund, say, the Ku Klux Klan? No? Then why are they legally obligated to fund Planned Parenthood. In fact why are they legally obligated to use taxpaer dollars to fund ANYTHING? Where in the Constitution does it say Congress must use taxpayer money to fund private organizations?
And of course to issue such an injunction this judge MUST appeal to Constitutionality. He has no leg to stand on otherwise as this is a law, duly and properly passed by Congress. His only option in stopping it is to declare it unconstitutional.
So,where in the Constitution is the authorization for this? I can't find it in my copy. It's not listed in the enumerated powers.
And animus towards an organization is not within the scope of this judge's authority. She is supposed to rule on the law, not on feelings or fairness-and especially not on assumed emotions. You might think a person who has their house foreclosed on is getting a raw deal and they might be but if the protocols set forth by the law are followed the judge is obligated to rule for the lender. How is this any different?
Judges are supposed to follow the law, not their own whims.
Sadly there is no mechanism short of impeachment or dissolving the court that allows for the removal of such a judge. There should be, and SCOTUS should be able to file a writ against any judge who openly disobeys their rulings. But that provision is not there so these creeps can keep pulling this and face no disciplinary actions.
Well, there are other ways to discipline besides removal. I would suggest the House and Senate judiciary committees call this judge before them and rack her over the coals. Lay a perjory trap for her. Send the IRS to investigate her business dealings. Look into her political contacts. Make life miserable for this Puta.
Until there are real consequences for this kind of lawless behavior it will keep happening. Congress needs to address this.
What part of the Supreme Court's ruling against nationwide injunctions don't the leftist judges understand?
Federal Judge Blocks Planned Parenthood Defunding in Big, Beautiful Bill
From Just the News:
A federal judge in Boston on Monday blocked the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act’s provisions to defund Planned Parenthood, just days after President Donald Trump signed the law.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued the temporary restraining order
The ruling comes in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that dramatically limited the scope of nationwide injunctions by lower court judges and is sure to lead to a legal fight with the administration.
"The true design of the Defund Provision is simply to express disapproval of, attack, and punish Planned Parenthood, which plays a particularly prominent role in the public debate over abortion,” Planned Parenthood argued in its suit, per Reuters. The case in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued the temporary restraining order
The ruling comes in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that dramatically limited the scope of nationwide injunctions by lower court judges and is sure to lead to a legal fight with the administration.
"The true design of the Defund Provision is simply to express disapproval of, attack, and punish Planned Parenthood, which plays a particularly prominent role in the public debate over abortion,” Planned Parenthood argued in its suit, per Reuters. The case in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts.
See what they are doing? They know they are going to be rebuked by SCOTUS but they don't care; they want to waste time, tie up the Administration, and snipe at them from the shadows. As SCOTUS has no actual authority over lower courts (just authority over their decisions) they cannot enforce their own ruling about sweeping injunctions. What we are seeing is an insurrecftion by lower courts.
So, let me get this straight - this judge says Congess is expressing "disapproval of, attacking, and punishing" Planned Parenthood and somehow that is wrong. Well, how are they doing it? Simply by cutting off taxpayer dollars to the pro-abortion organization. I ask you, would it somehow be acceptable for Congress to fund, say, the Ku Klux Klan? No? Then why are they legally obligated to fund Planned Parenthood. In fact why are they legally obligated to use taxpaer dollars to fund ANYTHING? Where in the Constitution does it say Congress must use taxpayer money to fund private organizations?
And of course to issue such an injunction this judge MUST appeal to Constitutionality. He has no leg to stand on otherwise as this is a law, duly and properly passed by Congress. His only option in stopping it is to declare it unconstitutional.
So,where in the Constitution is the authorization for this? I can't find it in my copy. It's not listed in the enumerated powers.
And animus towards an organization is not within the scope of this judge's authority. She is supposed to rule on the law, not on feelings or fairness-and especially not on assumed emotions. You might think a person who has their house foreclosed on is getting a raw deal and they might be but if the protocols set forth by the law are followed the judge is obligated to rule for the lender. How is this any different?
Judges are supposed to follow the law, not their own whims.
Sadly there is no mechanism short of impeachment or dissolving the court that allows for the removal of such a judge. There should be, and SCOTUS should be able to file a writ against any judge who openly disobeys their rulings. But that provision is not there so these creeps can keep pulling this and face no disciplinary actions.
Well, there are other ways to discipline besides removal. I would suggest the House and Senate judiciary committees call this judge before them and rack her over the coals. Lay a perjory trap for her. Send the IRS to investigate her business dealings. Look into her political contacts. Make life miserable for this Puta.
Until there are real consequences for this kind of lawless behavior it will keep happening. Congress needs to address this.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:54 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Now waitjustaminute! Aren't these cretins the ones who yell that they are "preserving the Constitution," or some such nonsense?
Let's have a contest to determine which party these dudes and dudettes voted for -- and the first two guesses don't count.
Let's have a contest to determine which party these dudes and dudettes voted for -- and the first two guesses don't count.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at July 10, 2025 11:59 PM (zjwe/)
24kb generated in CPU 0.0072, elapsed 0.6385 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.6332 seconds, 174 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.6332 seconds, 174 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
