@isthatRachel39 Absolutely

RT @NahBabyNah: Big news! 🚨 A judge has rejected the Democrats' attempt to block Elon Musk and DOGE engineers from accessing the Departmen…

I'm not a lawyer. But I have more than a passing acquaintance with Constitutional law - I've been studying it ever since I was an individual amicus in the Supreme Court case that struck down the Communications Decency Act back in the 1990s. After 30 years of studying issues around the First and Second amendment and the doctrine of judicial review, I have some thoughts. There are several intermingled issues here. First: when JD Vance says that the courts do not have the authority to intervene in the administration of the executive branch, he is probably correct. The judicial review power is generally considered to extend to modifying or striking down laws, not to allowing any judge to interfere in the president's administrative authority over the executive branch. Second, any judge that rules that the Treasury of the Secretary may not have unlimited access to Treasury department data is setting himself up for reversal. This has never been litigated because it's a ridiculous overreach that has never been attempted before. Third, there are serious questions about the authority of federal judges below the level of the Supreme Court (what the Constitution explicitly calls "inferior" courts) that may now be forced to a resolution. For purposes of separation of powers, only the Supreme Court itself is considered co-equal to the executive and legislative branches. Inferior judges are not. One question, therefore, is whether the President may assert separation of powers as a defense against rulings of an inferior judge. Certainly invoking separation of powers against a ruling of the Supreme Court itself would trigger a constitutional crisis, but that's not the situation we're talking about here. This has not been litigated, but I think the Peesident is likely to prevail on the question. The fourth question is about the authority of federal circuit court judges to issue injunctions with nationwide effects outside the circuit where they have formal authority. Until very recently, federal judges were so reluctant to raise this Constitutional issue that they almost never issued such injunctions. They issued injunctions only for their own circuits, and left it to the Supreme Court to resolve questions about nationwide application. But nationwide injunctions in contentious cases have become more common recently, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be forced to address whether inferior-court federal judges do in fact have nationwide authority. I think it is quite unlikely that the Supreme Court will affirm this. I am not addressing here the question of whether I think Trump and DOGE's authority to block Treasury payments should prevail. I am predicting that it almost certainly will prevail.

RT @elonmusk: Yeah, it’s crazy. My rough guess is that there are tens of millions of media & software subscriptions that are unnecessary…

@Mick_O_Keeffe @CindyLouRoad Need to go maga over there

I'm not a lawyer. But I have more than a passing acquaintance with Constitutional law - I've been studying it ever since I was an individual amicus in the Supreme Court case that struck down the Communications Decency Act back in the 1990s. After 30 years of studying issues around the First and Second amendment and the doctrine of judicial review, I have some thoughts. There are several intermingled issues here. First: when JD Vance says that the courts do not have the authority to intervene in the administration of the executive branch, he is probably correct. The judicial review power is generally considered to extend to modifying or striking down laws, not to allowing any judge to interfere in the president's administrative authority over the executive branch. Second, any judge that rules that the Treasury of the Secretary may not have unlimited access to Treasury department data is setting himself up for reversal. This has never been litigated because it's a ridiculous overreach that has never been attempted before. Third, there are serious questions about the authority of federal judges below the level of the Supreme Court (what the Constitution explicitly calls "inferior" courts) that may now be forced to a resolution. For purposes of separation of powers, only the Supreme Court itself is considered co-equal to the executive and legislative branches. Inferior judges are not. One question, therefore, is whether the President may assert separation of powers as a defense against rulings of an inferior judge. Certainly invoking separation of powers against a ruling of the Supreme Court itself would trigger a constitutional crisis, but that's not the situation we're talking about here. This has not been litigated, but I think the Peesident is likely to prevail on the question. The fourth question is about the authority of federal circuit court judges to issue injunctions with nationwide effects outside the circuit where they have formal authority. Until very recently, federal judges were so reluctant to raise this Constitutional issue that they almost never issued such injunctions. They issued injunctions only for their own circuits, and left it to the Supreme Court to resolve questions about nationwide application. But nationwide injunctions in contentious cases have become more common recently, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be forced to address whether inferior-court federal judges do in fact have nationwide authority. I think it is quite unlikely that the Supreme Court will affirm this. I am not addressing here the question of whether I think Trump and DOGE's authority to block Treasury payments should prevail. I am predicting that it almost certainly will prevail.

I'm not a lawyer. But I have more than a passing acquaintance with Constitutional law - I've been studying it ever since I was an individual amicus in the Supreme Court case that struck down the Communications Decency Act back in the 1990s. After 30 years of studying issues around the First and Second amendment and the doctrine of judicial review, I have some thoughts. There are several intermingled issues here. First: when JD Vance says that the courts do not have the authority to intervene in the administration of the executive branch, he is probably correct. The judicial review power is generally considered to extend to modifying or striking down laws, not to allowing any judge to interfere in the president's administrative authority over the executive branch. Second, any judge that rules that the Treasury of the Secretary may not have unlimited access to Treasury department data is setting himself up for reversal. This has never been litigated because it's a ridiculous overreach that has never been attempted before. Third, there are serious questions about the authority of federal judges below the level of the Supreme Court (what the Constitution explicitly calls "inferior" courts) that may now be forced to a resolution. For purposes of separation of powers, only the Supreme Court itself is considered co-equal to the executive and legislative branches. Inferior judges are not. One question, therefore, is whether the President may assert separation of powers as a defense against rulings of an inferior judge. Certainly invoking separation of powers against a ruling of the Supreme Court itself would trigger a constitutional crisis, but that's not the situation we're talking about here. This has not been litigated, but I think the Peesident is likely to prevail on the question. The fourth question is about the authority of federal circuit court judges to issue injunctions with nationwide effects outside the circuit where they have formal authority. Until very recently, federal judges were so reluctant to raise this Constitutional issue that they almost never issued such injunctions. They issued injunctions only for their own circuits, and left it to the Supreme Court to resolve questions about nationwide application. But nationwide injunctions in contentious cases have become more common recently, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be forced to address whether inferior-court federal judges do in fact have nationwide authority. I think it is quite unlikely that the Supreme Court will affirm this. I am not addressing here the question of whether I think Trump and DOGE's authority to block Treasury payments should prevail. I am predicting that it almost certainly will prevail.

I'm not a lawyer. But I have more than a passing acquaintance with Constitutional law - I've been studying it ever since I was an individual amicus in the Supreme Court case that struck down the Communications Decency Act back in the 1990s. After 30 years of studying issues around the First and Second amendment and the doctrine of judicial review, I have some thoughts. There are several intermingled issues here. First: when JD Vance says that the courts do not have the authority to intervene in the administration of the executive branch, he is probably correct. The judicial review power is generally considered to extend to modifying or striking down laws, not to allowing any judge to interfere in the president's administrative authority over the executive branch. Second, any judge that rules that the Treasury of the Secretary may not have unlimited access to Treasury department data is setting himself up for reversal. This has never been litigated because it's a ridiculous overreach that has never been attempted before. Third, there are serious questions about the authority of federal judges below the level of the Supreme Court (what the Constitution explicitly calls "inferior" courts) that may now be forced to a resolution. For purposes of separation of powers, only the Supreme Court itself is considered co-equal to the executive and legislative branches. Inferior judges are not. One question, therefore, is whether the President may assert separation of powers as a defense against rulings of an inferior judge. Certainly invoking separation of powers against a ruling of the Supreme Court itself would trigger a constitutional crisis, but that's not the situation we're talking about here. This has not been litigated, but I think the Peesident is likely to prevail on the question. The fourth question is about the authority of federal circuit court judges to issue injunctions with nationwide effects outside the circuit where they have formal authority. Until very recently, federal judges were so reluctant to raise this Constitutional issue that they almost never issued such injunctions. They issued injunctions only for their own circuits, and left it to the Supreme Court to resolve questions about nationwide application. But nationwide injunctions in contentious cases have become more common recently, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be forced to address whether inferior-court federal judges do in fact have nationwide authority. I think it is quite unlikely that the Supreme Court will affirm this. I am not addressing here the question of whether I think Trump and DOGE's authority to block Treasury payments should prevail. I am predicting that it almost certainly will prevail.

@TheRealJ6Shane @happydogs2011 Welcome home

@BryceMLipscomb @CindyLouRoad Definitely be nice wouldn't it. Now if we can get our government in line. Then might just happen one day

@UlfberhtKaz @WorldHallOfFun @RadioGenoa That's ok your not welcome here either racist garbage

@B25Roman @RadioGenoa Absolutely

RT @twatterbaas: Great message Jason.

RT @dearborndenim: I manufacture jeans in the USA.

@twatterbaas @laralogan Wow that is awful for people to have endure. God bless them

@ScottPresler Thank you Scott.

@ScottPresler That is great Scott keep up the good fight brother

@trumplicans2024 Thank God for that lol

@Primrose771646 @parm36052708 @JustinMe75 Done