Judge Rules the White House Failed to Comply With Court Order

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

{{ Both Judge McConnell and a federal judge in Washington, D.C., had previously ordered the White House to unfreeze federal funds locked up by a memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget that demanded that billions of dollars in federal grants be held back until they were determined to comply with President Trump’s priorities, including with ideological litmus tests.

On Friday, 22 Democratic attorneys general went to Judge McConnell to accuse the White House of failing to comply with his earlier order. The Justice Department responded in a filing on Sunday that money for clean energy projects as well as transportation infrastructure allocated to states by the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure bill was exempt from the initial order, because it had been paused under a different memo than the one that prompted the lawsuit.

Judge McConnell’s ruling on Monday explicitly rejected that argument.

His initial order, he wrote, was “clear and unambiguous, and there are no impediments to the Defendants’ compliance with” it. }}

Potentially the judge could have one of his court officers collect who ever is responsible (i.e., Musk, members of the DOGE Team) and put them in the holding cell at the court house.

Be interesting to see how the courts respond to the challenge to their authority.

intercst

13 Likes
2

Who is going to take the fall? The openly racist one or the one who steals information from his employer? There are so many fall guys in that zoo I am starting to lose count. It is what they call a target rich environment.

3 Likes
3

If there is to be any force acting to slow this stuff down, any equal and opposite re-action, that’s where it will be. They will keep shoving until they come across a Trump judge who will act in Trump’s favor. Then back and forth again. Hopefully, eventually, the courts will see themselves as courts and an actual branch of government and not as mere henchmen, and act accordingly.

The fail safe / dead-man switch, however, is the Atty General. Courts by design don’t get to enforce much. That’s why it was imperative to have an Atty General who is in the tank. The courts can rule till they’re blue in the face and what are they gonna do about it? Whatever the Atty Gen says, that’s what.

When Bush/Cheney were Pres and careening at will, someone on one of the chat shows asked: How much power does the Pres really have? The answer was “Whatever he can get away with.”

I heard a few moments ago that Vance has already said (paraphrasing) they won’t obey or enforce any court rulings they don’t like. I guess that’s where the buck stops.

7 Likes
4

Think big. Overturn the entire principle of judicial oversight.

Steve

4 Likes
5

THAT is truly frightening… Congress HAS to get a backbone or they will lose everything, everyone! Now or later, if we haven’t suddenly discovered we can’t learn Russian or Chinese! Truly sickening to see it happening…

2 Likes
6

HA, yes. I think I ref’d that in my post. But really, in recent years we have learned that our entire system of government isn’t really a government at all. It’s an informal arrangement or “Precedents,” Protocols," and “gentlemen’s agreements” that, in the final analysis, mean nothing and are not enforceable because they are not “LAW.” Madisonian Sleight of Hand. Talk about The Emperor’s New Cloths.

1 Like
7

Recall US history. There is nothing in the Constitution explicitly giving the court authority to pass muster on Congressionally passed laws, or Presidential edicts. That is an authority the court assigned to itself.

Steve

2 Likes
8

Yes, to an extent. While the current Supremes have a few nutjobs, even this crew would be unlikely to undo Marbury.

It’s one thing to overturn “settled” law such as Roe (which, though it had very practical reasoning, always had a shaky legal foundation), but to overturn a precedent that is over 200 hundred years old and written by virtually a founding father, using logic right out of the Constitution itself in Article III, section 2*, would completely re-write the national order. Remember, while Marbury was a landmark in terms of finalizing any question about judicial review, judicial review did not come out of the void: it was discussed and assented to at the Constitutional Convention, it was asserted in Federalist #78, and even before Marbury, lower courts at both state and federal levels had already exercised judicial review.

Pete

*“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

1 Like
9

No, they are not all capitals LAW, but rather they are all capitals POLITICS, from the Greek meaning

the social system whereby people can live in mutual dependence in safety, doing the productive work of being humans (a polis) as opposed to anarchy or tyranny.

Politics must not fall into a power struggle of mere egoists, but rather must be the work of finding the will of the people (the polis).thriving together. Never was easy, and always required true heroism from citizens.

Oh well.

1 Like
10

This confrontation is important.

There are different schools of thought in decision making.

But at rock bottom the 53 are living in sheer terror. At this time they need to face that. The sooner the better for the nation.

The 53 individually can believe they are making their agenda happen. But many of them will see their own personal terror looking back in the mirror at rock bottom. There is nothing else for them regardless of the buffoonery.

I am glad we are here and now because the longer it goes on the more damage that will be done by TI. Straight up 53 who among you walks away?

1 Like
11

He can be impeached as well. He can also be charged with crimes in 2029. He is young enough to do time.

Elections have consequences.

2 Likes
12

Well I can’t say you, and some others above, are missing my point because I know you’re getting it are but all these things/safeguards that can happen won’t. Or it’ll be a long time coming. Impeached? By whom? Not congress. And, no Democrats won’t be elected next time either. That’s what this election was all about. The future is now. Courts? Pffft! Judge issues unfriendly decision. Next day he’s arrested, or fired. Not impeached. Fired. And who will stop it? And how will they stop it?

Flyer…
No, they are not all capitals LAW, but rather they are all capitals POLITICS, from the Greek meaning

Not “Law” = No controlling legal authority. (To quote somebody else in a different context) There is nothing on the front end to prevent this and no punishments on the back ed to deter it. As I stated earlier, the politics is all about getting away with it." The current group has all this figured out.

But, I regard all this like The Ghost of Christmas Future’s premonitions. These are the things that could be. Not the things that must be. But at the moment I cannot tell them apart

2 Likes
13

And one more dumb question:

  1. What does T.I. stand for? (I’m guessing the Prez)
  2. Who are “The 53”? That’s not the # of Senators?
14

There are 53 Shinies in the Senate. 53 intimidated by TI, just like the “JCs” I worked for ruled by bullying and threats?

Steve

2 Likes
15

iirc many recent nominees were required to pass a litmus test as “Constitutional originalist”. The Constitution, did not explicitly give the court the power it assumed.

All cases *under…the laws", not the legality of the laws themselves.

Consider the First Amendment, prohibiting Congress passing any law regarding “establishment of religion”. Congress passed laws making “In God We Trust” the national motto, inserting “under God” in the Pledge, and requiring the POTUS to declare a “national day of prayer” each year. The court has always found some excuse to refuse to hear a challenge to these clear violations of the establishment clause. If the court can wink at blatant violations of the Constitution, they can certainly overturn a 220 year old precedent, and declare they have no authority to hear a challenge to the legality of a Congressionally passed law, or Presidential decree.

Steve

2 Likes
16

The Americans put the opposing party in charge when ever anyone has power. In 2026 more of them in the Senate are up for reelection and at risk.

17

You’re just sounding hopeful. And I hope you are right. But this is not a law of nature. And even if it were, one purpose of the recent election was to thwart that tendency. And, to use a well-known metaphor: “How many ethnic people or highly paid degree’d professionals does it take to change a light bulb”? “How many Democrats will it take to change this light bulb?” The answer is likely to be far more than any currently gerrymandered US election can provide.

2 Likes
18

I saw a meme a few months ago, about a national government of republican form being destroyed in 53 days.

Steve

1 Like
19

1.5%
49.8%

the loss was by only 1.5% in a winner take all
the win was not by a majority

More people voted for TI than now approve of him.

20

FCorelli

I apologize for not commenting on your main point at the beginning of my somewhat academic response.

I agree completely with your main sentiment. I am now one month away from being a dual USAMexico citizen, and detest that I feel relief where before I felt affection in both directions. I am still feel ancestrally and personally responsible for what happens for mankind if we not only lose “the last best hope for mankind”, but also greatly empower the spread of a nasty dark collapse of democratically chosen rule of law system of nations.

Ugh.

3 Likes