Quote:The insane overstepping of the lower federal courts in defense of Democrat priorities has reached a new level of impropriety. On Monday, a judge in Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration has violated a temporary restraining order and is now ordering the end of all spending freezes instituted by the White House.

All those crazy grants that were being given out by USAID to organizations promoting transgenderism and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in foreign countries? A left-wing judge just told American taxpayers they have to keep paying them and that the executive branch has no discretion in how federal bureaucracies operate. It's hard to see that as anything other than a soft coup.

Normally, a temporary restraining order can't be appealed, but due to the extreme circumstances involved, the above suggestion is to seek mandamus. In layman's terms, a lawsuit would be filed in the appellate court accusing this rogue judge of operating outside his authority. An order could then be issued for him to stop.

A judge is not supposed to expand a TRO outside of the scope of the original complaint. In this case, it appears that's exactly what happened.

The strategy of these left-wing judges is simple. They want to keep issuing TROs in favor of Democrat politicians and activists because that would theoretically keep the Trump administration in a type of legal purgatory, unable to appeal. It was one of their most effective tools during the president's first term.

One can only hope some of the remedies being mentioned are effective. The issue of control over the federal bureaucracy has to get to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Without a broad ruling from the high court putting a stop to this nonsense, it will just continue for the next four years, stealing constitutional authority from an executive branch rightfully won by Republicans. Democrats and their allies were never going to willingly let Trump be president. They are going to have to be forced to.

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

(02-10-2025 03:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

Oh they absolutely can. Without Chevron deference they have no obligation to defer to anything an agency says. Doesn't mean a higher court can't or won't overrule this one or any of the rulings, but any court can now interpret essentially anything an agency does and they are to be given zero deference.

"The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”

I didn't think this was a good idea. This is a fundamentally bad idea that allows the opposition to just stall and tie things up in friendly courts for them for potentially years, but oh well I wasn't the one who wanted this nonsense to be a thing.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

(02-10-2025 03:36 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

NOTHING in the Federal Government is funded past March 14th. Another idiot judge. Time to start Impeachment Hearings for Judges that ignore the Constitution for political reasons.

(02-10-2025 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

Curious where you stand on DOGE or the executive branch just walking all over congressionally approved spending?

(02-10-2025 03:41 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

Oh they absolutely can. Without Chevron deference they have no obligation to defer to anything an agency says. Doesn't mean a higher court can't or won't overrule this one or any of the rulings, but any court can now interpret essentially anything an agency does and they are to be given zero deference.

"The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”

I didn't think this was a good idea. This is a fundamentally bad idea that allows the opposition to just stall and tie things up in friendly courts for them for potentially years, but oh well I wasn't the one who wanted this nonsense to be a thing.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

Thats in regards to law interpretation

Im talking about day to day management

A judge can't order to you to put a Pepsi machine in the break room instead of a Coke machine, which is basically what this judge is doing on a much grander scale

(02-10-2025 03:41 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

Oh they absolutely can. Without Chevron deference they have no obligation to defer to anything an agency says. Doesn't mean a higher court can't or won't overrule this one or any of the rulings, but any court can now interpret essentially anything an agency does and they are to be given zero deference.

"The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”

I didn't think this was a good idea. This is a fundamentally bad idea that allows the opposition to just stall and tie things up in friendly courts for them for potentially years, but oh well I wasn't the one who wanted this nonsense to be a thing.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

Thats in regards to law interpretation

Im talking about day to day management

A judge can't order to you to put a Pepsi machine in the break room instead of a Coke machine, which is basically what this judge is doing on a much grander scale

(02-10-2025 03:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

Curious where you stand on DOGE or the executive branch just walking all over congressionally approved spending?

What congressionally approved spending has been denied that the law said specifically could not be withheld?

(02-10-2025 03:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:41 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-10-2025 02:53 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Oh darn, now judge shopping to friendly districts is a bad thing LOL. Also, the whole point of getting rid of Chevron deference was to give judges the power to completely disregard any agency interpretation of their own statutes. I remember saying less than a year ago that getting rid of that was going to make it way easier for liberals to forum shop, get injunctions, and grind things Trump wants to do to a halt if he won. No one cared about that then, but now these judges are committing "soft coups" LOL.

Federal judges cannot tell the executive branch how to administer their office

It is blatantly unconstitutional to tell the Treasury secretary he cannot access Treasury information

Oh they absolutely can. Without Chevron deference they have no obligation to defer to anything an agency says. Doesn't mean a higher court can't or won't overrule this one or any of the rulings, but any court can now interpret essentially anything an agency does and they are to be given zero deference.

"The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”

I didn't think this was a good idea. This is a fundamentally bad idea that allows the opposition to just stall and tie things up in friendly courts for them for potentially years, but oh well I wasn't the one who wanted this nonsense to be a thing.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

Thats in regards to law interpretation

Im talking about day to day management

A judge can't order to you to put a Pepsi machine in the break room instead of a Coke machine, which is basically what this judge is doing on a much grander scale

Pretty sure there's a massive difference between should we have a Coke machine vs saying we have the right to pause and/or eliminate congressionally allocated funding. Maybe you win on the merits that you can just ignore what congress tells you to spend money on, but that's absolutely an interpretation of the law.

A left-wing judge just told American taxpayers they have to keep paying them and that the executive branch has no discretion in how federal bureaucracies operate. It's hard to see that as anything other than a soft coup.

That's exactly what removing Chevron allows, any federal judge to tell the executive branch they have to be given zero discretion. Sorry not sorry, I didn't want that to be the ruling but it was. Go complain to Gorsuch.