All errors should be reported to

Friday, May 10, 2019

Obama judge ready to pounce on Trump

CNN reported that federal Judge Amit Mehta has fast-tracked President Donald John Trump's lawsuit against Congress, which seeks his private financial records. The cable channel said he is "putting the case on an even faster track than it previously looked to be."

Welcome to hyperspace justice.

The story failed to mention the most pertinent fact: Obama appointed Mehta.

Once again, the luck of the draw has the forces of evil drew a friendly judge. We have been through this nonsense before. The initial judge makes a crazy decision, the president appeals, and a circuit court overrides the Obama appointee.

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

There is, of course, no reason for Congress to have this personal information. There is no legislation involved.

This is harassment.

But the days of some whack-o judge in Hawaii blocking a president from carrying out his duties may soon end. Vice President Mike Pence said the administration of Donald John Trump is preparing a Supreme Court challenge to the practice of having one district judge issue a nationwide injunction.

It is about time.

This was not how we set up the judiciary.

Take that Hawaiian judge. He blocked a perfectly legal moratorium on visas from six countries.

Obama had done the same thing.

The Supreme Court later overturned this idiot's order but the damage had been done. Who knows who got in while the judge in Hawaii played god?

The Daily Caller reported that Pence told a Federalist Society conference, "The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them — and it’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation.

"In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court — to ensure that decisions affecting every American are made either by those elected to represent the American people or by the highest court in the land."

Justice Clarence Thomas is on the record with his reservations about this power of injunction.

In his concurrence on overturning the Hawaiian judge, Justice Thomas wrote, "I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions.

"These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality."

As the head of the judiciary. Chief Justice John Roberts could rein them in and limit a district judge's injunctions to his jurisdiction.

But he won't. Looks like President Trump must force the court to do its job.


  1. Force the courts to do their job? Good luck with that. Easier to herd cats. Black cats. At night. With a new moon and no torches.

    1. Do not force the courts to do their job. Force citizens to take care of judges that will not do their jobs. Its time for pitchforks and ropes.

  2. This is a good move on the part of the Administration. the timber industry suffered under the the Greens for years. Friendly judge, an d the 75,000 jobs disappear over night. That and the destacking of lefty Judges (9th circus, I'm talking about you.)
    is going to be a lsting legacy for freedom..
    I love it..

  3. A liberal judge is like having a cramp in your little toe. Makes getting anything done hard to do. Sometimes you just need to get rid of that little toe.

  4. Chief Justice John Roberts? You mean Chief Justice Souter Roberts?

  5. Judges are mostly given to not working too hard. Roberts would really increase his own caseload if he prevented his extraterrestrial clown posse from issuing national injunctions. The ability to circumvent the Constitution by issuing an unconstitutional executive order, which is then upheld by a like minded judicial slave, the method of Generalissimo Zero, has become so attractive to the Democrats that legislation has become obsolete as policy. Gaining the presidency has become the only end of politics (and, perhaps,a one vote margin in the Senate). Trump is slowly fraying that trope by appointing more judges than ever, but it is a long process. A second term might really deliver a fatal blow in the SC, hence, madness.

  6. It seems to me that Federal level judges who are continually overturned should lose their jobs as judges. If I was continually marked as doing wrong by my superiors I wouldn't keep my job. I would be unemployed.

    Why is it that these judges get to do their damages, giving the media their usual uninformed field day bashing of a Republican President, only to have it overturned after a lengthy delay, and nothing happens to the judge who injected politics into the law?

    Till there becomes a law where the judges have a rating which is in a sense a job review, and if they have a number of their judgements overturned, the are fired, our judicial system will never be healed.

    Counting on Roberts is another scary thing to deal with. Maybe the law should also include supreme court rulings.

    It is also past the time when the Supreme Court be treated as if they are a god. They were never meant to be the final arbiter of governing this country, yet today they are the only voices that seem to matter, regardless of how poorly they choose their positions.

    1. The mechanism is in place. Just need to have a few egregious examples impeached, convicted and removed from office.

    2. The first elected official that stands up to a judge as Andrew Jackson did will collapse the whole clown posse. Let judges try and enforce their dickats, they can pound sand.

  7. What are the little stable geniuses so afraid of the supposed business success revealing his financials?

    Is as if they are in on the scam.

    To be fair, when Trump claimed to be a billionaire, he didn't specify the color of the ink.

    1. Note to Nonny the Ninny:

      It's called "privacy".
      It's also called "none of your business".

      BTW, I love that you read this blog every day. Now if just a bit of Don Surber's writings were to sink into that little pointed head of yours, your life would improve.

    2. Trump has to be rich. Just think of all the money he's saved living in your head rent free.

    3. His pointy little head has room for only one letter. "A" was too big, so they settled on I.

    4. I know Don enjoys the idiocy of nonny here, and we occasionally find him amusing, but what really puzzles me is this: for all his money, why can't Soros hire better trolls?

    5. Not even about the topic at hand.

      What? You skeered dealing with real, substantive issues?

    6. Greg, when they get the third brain cell they leave the dimocrap plantation for good.

  8. This should be a slam dunk case but for the liberal judge. Sad that liberal judges don’t rule following law, but emotion and ideology.

    The Supreme Court case should be a slam dunk but for the liberal justices and Roberts.

  9. Why do we call them "district" judges if they rule for the entire nation? An appeal court decision normally only affects the residents of the states represented by the court.

  10. "As the head of the judiciary. Chief Justice John Roberts could rein them in and limit a district judge's injunctions to his jurisdiction.

    But he won't."

    As long as we are talking impeachment all over the place, perhaps Roberts should be impeached fro failure to properly do his job.

    1. Roberts should be impeached for not overseeing and stopping the abuses of the fisa court in the attempted coup that was a thousand times worse than Watergate

    2. That may very well be a prophetic comment....something all of us might want to remember... Barr does not (so far) appear to be a political wind surfer....he's going for the big one. (ones). Plus...liberals have attacked HIM (not the process). He has more than "justice" to answer for.... Beware the soft-spoken jurist....

  11. If the politicians and talking heads retire this narrative they'll be out of work until the find a new one.

  12. Shortly after trump was sworn in, us rep(d-ca) brad sherman said if trump came out in favor of mothers day, the dems would be against it.

    That was the last time I agreed with a democrap statement of fact.

    Happy mothers day to all.

  13. nuke them from orbit
    its the only way to be sure