Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« Mid-Morning Art Thread | Main | Terrorist-Friendly Propaganda Aggregator Reuters Took $9 Million from Biden's DoD For... "Large Scale Social Deception" and "Active Social Engineering" »
February 14, 2025

THE MORNING RANT: In Response to Rogue Judiciary, Perhaps Trump Should Expand Executive Branch Purview and Start Firing Federal Judges

There has been a great deal of discussion in recent days about rogue federal judges unconstitutionally inserting themselves into the administration of Executive Branch departments. Federal judge Paul Engelmayer of New York decreed that only career bureaucrats in the Treasury Department can have access to the department’s payment system, but that the boss, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (who was appointed by Donald Trump), was barred from all access. Similarly, federal judge John Bates just unconstitutionally inserted himself into the administration of several federal health agencies by reversing President Trump’s executive order that removed sex change propaganda from the heath agencies’ websites. Judge Bates demanded that the various gender and sexual lifestyle links be re-instated.

So how should the Trump administration respond? Here’s an idea:

President Trump should fire these rogue federal judges and instruct all Executive Branch employees to ignore any rulings that come from federal judges that he has fired.

Some people might argue that Trump has no constitutional authority to fire federal judges. They’d be right. But those rogue federal judges also have no constitutional authority to insert themselves into the administration of the Executive Branch departments.

By the current playbook, if a rogue judge unlawfully issues an injunction to impede or change the workings of the Executive Branch, the President must abide with the ruling. The only recourse is to appeal to an appellate judge or court to seek a reversal of the ruling, with a likely escalation of appeals and counter-reversals that will take an extended period of time.

So, if the President declares that a federal judge has been terminated of his job, shouldn’t that judge have to stand down until the appeals process plays out too? If not, why not? If the judiciary can interfere with the administration of the Executive Branch, why can’t the Executive Branch reciprocate?

Obviously, the judiciary has no constitutional reason to consent to the President firing federal judges, and it is free to ignore such a request. Likewise, the President has no obligation to acknowledge or respect a clearly unconstitutional intrusion into its affairs by the judiciary. Forcing the judiciary to refuse Executive Branch intrusion into its turf would be extremely helpful.

And clearly, the notion of the President firing federal judges is preposterous, but it is no less preposterous than what the judiciary is doing. If a federal judge ruled that the President must re-segregate the government in the manner of Woodrow Wilson’s policies, would the President have to engage in those actions until the appeals process played out? Of course not. But allowing a federal judge to demand that sex-change information be put on government websites is happening right now, and it’s just as outrageous.

In our Constitutional system of “checks and balances,” Congress has the authority to impeach judges and abolish courts, but it has proved that it won’t do so. There is no defined Executive Branch mechanism to check the judiciary, however, and unchecked power leads to abuses. We now have hundreds of federal judges who have the unchecked power to unilaterally veto any legislation, reverse any Executive Order, and implement regulatory whims.

Politely asking the judiciary to stay in its lane has been futile. There needs to be consequences or it will never stop.


It is not possible to swat away the endless injunctions and rulings from activist judges. The appeals process will consume the entire Trump presidency. That leaves the Executive Branch with two options, ignore the rulings from rogue judges, or punch back. “Firing” federal judges would force the judiciary to go on defense, and somehow explain why it can assume unconstitutional authority but the President can’t.

Of course, the usual suspects would demand that President Trump be impeached, again, if he were to announce the firing of federal judges. That’s fine, we should be having a discussion about impeaching federal officials who trample on the Constitution. There are a lot of judges that need to be impeached and removed from the bench.

I’m aware that some conservatives whom I regard very highly are confident that the Supreme Court is about to slap down all these rogue federal judges, and very soon. I certainly hope so, but I don’t expect it. For some reason, and despite a lengthy history to the contrary, these conservative legal minds cling to an idealistic belief that principles and fidelity to the Constitution will suddenly swell in the justices’ hearts and minds.

Experience tells me otherwise. In fact, Alexandria Brown stated my thoughts about this subject better than I can state them myself in this outstanding Twitter/X thread quoted below.

A warning to all my legal peeps, most notably myself, that we are ignoring the Normies' responses to the lawfare at our own peril. The Normies are sick of all of this with reason. So grab your coffee, which we all know has a solid 80% chance of being Irish, and let's get it.

We, the legal peeps, are going on about having to respect the legal process and sure, sure, it may take a bit and that's annoying but the mills of God grind slowly but fine and just you wait, Thomas is going to bench slap the national injunctions, don't you worry about it!

Meanwhile, the Normies have pesky questions such as, Alex, nationwide injunctions have been around as long as Thomas has been on the bench, including now that there's the supposedly solid 6-3 majority and yet nothing's been done yet so why should I believe it will happen now?

The Normies note minor things like you are saying I should trust the process, you mean the one where Roberts has invented an entire separate set of precedents for the Obamacare cases, and where it took 50 years to overturn Roe and Casey, you mean that process?

The Normies wonder just why it is that 77 million people voting turns out to matter less than the votes a total of at most 23 people. (Here's the math - 1 SDNY district court judge, 13 Second Circuit court judges, 9 Supremes). [I suppose to be picky you could say 2 SDNY judges.]

The Normies want to know why one single judge in one single district can put an immediate stop to a matter that sure seems to be part of what the Executive can do in the Executive branch, causing months of delays and, when that judge is wrong, nothing bad happens to the judge.

The Normies want to know why, if the claimed danger by the actions of the Executive are so immediate as to require a restraining order, those same actions aren't so immediate as to require that the Circuit court and then SCOTUS to hear it within days or weeks rather than months.

The Normies see, to pick someone at random, me, saying these cases are bait and unitary executive theory is going to be entrenched at SCOTUS and want to know what possible monkey crack I've been smoking to assume that Roberts is going to uphold unitary executive authority.

These are all absolutely fair questions. Falling back on, look, I know it's awful, however, respect for the judiciary is imperative as it has taken centuries to even claw mankind to this low level of using court orders and not kinetic responses to solve matters is a crutch.

We (I) are (am) asking people to respect a judiciary that absolutely appears to have two tiers of law. People who trespass at abortion clinics are sentenced harshly while people who firebomb a Federal courthouse have their cases dismissed or are given community service.

The Normies are done, utterly done, with lawfare and sue and settle and being told to trust the process. You mean the process that tries to avoid answering any difficult questions directly until there is no choice? That process? Sure, Jan.

The Normies have absolutely valid concerns that any of these cases will resolve in a matter that does not benefit the Left. The Normies have even more valid questions about why all of this takes so long. All of that is fair. Saying that's just how it works? Not enough. /f

[buck.throckmorton at protonmail dot com]

digg this
posted by Buck Throckmorton at 11:00 AM

| Access Comments




Recent Comments
TC: "What the hell was wrong with us in the 70's as it ..."

Software Pembukuan Service Hp: "Quality articles is the important to interest the ..."

RickZ: "Just getting rid of a smelly sock 'fore I forget. ..."

Ciampino - miserably humid: "42 When you're born in February you learn early on ..."

apply for e-visa india from usa: "Please let me know if you're looking for a writer ..."

potential: "With havin so much content and articles do you eve ..."

weft cut-w45t45tgw45t[/i][/b] [/s]: "I made 6 burritos yesterday. Tri-tip, rice. I just ..."

Romeo13: "446 So Dems are astroturfing GOP congress town hal ..."

Its Go Time Donald: "So Dems are astroturfing GOP congress town halls ..."

Romeo13: "Yeah, you know all those jokes about a Fence Turtl ..."

Nightwatch: "Well then, Good Night to the Most Amazing Ever ..."

Miklos, anticipating horizontality: "It is now the Time of Recline. Bedbugs are to b ..."

Recent Entries
Search


Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64