Author Topic: Judge Cites Trump's Press Secretary in Looming Restraining Order Decision  (Read 506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 176,860
 
Judge Cites Trump's Press Secretary in Looming Restraining Order Decision
Story by Aila Slisco • 13h


U.S. District Judge John McConnell says he may grant a restraining order against President Donald Trump's federal funding freeze due in part to a social media post by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment on Wednesday.
 
Why It Matters
A Trump administration memo that on Monday ordered a pause on federal grants and loans was rescinded by the administration on Wednesday. The order had already been partially blocked by a different federal judge on Tuesday.

Leavitt indicated a short time after the memo reversal that the move was made "to end any confusion created by the court's injunction" and insisted that Trump's funding freeze would "remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented."

"This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze," Leavitt wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter. "It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-cites-trump-s-press-secretary-in-looming-restraining-order-decision/ar-AA1y5ttf?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=918ab985d7b141c4959504a9e33f0d1c&ei=65
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth.  George Washington - Farewell Address

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 176,860
I'm no lawyer but, to me, this seems like a real stretch of legal reasoning.  If the judge can use the comments of someone who has no real power in the administration, the comments of the WH custodian can be used too. :shrug:
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth.  George Washington - Farewell Address

Offline Timber Rattler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,762
  • Conservative Purist and Patriot
No sure how a judge in the Judiciary branch can order the co-equal Executive Branch to spend or not spend appropriated or unappropriated money.
aka "nasty degenerate SOB," "worst of the worst at Free Republic," "Garbage Troll," "Neocon Warmonger," "Filthy Piece of Trash," "damn $#%$#@!," "Silly f'er," "POS," "war pig," "neocon scumbag," "insignificant little ankle nipper," "@ss-clown," "neocuck," "termite," "Uniparty Deep stater," "Never Trump sack of dog feces," "avid Bidenista," "filthy Ukrainian," "war whore," "fricking chump," "psychopathic POS," "depraved SOB," "Never Trump Moron," "Lazarus," and "sock puppet."

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."  ---George Orwell

Offline The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,754
No sure how a judge in the Judiciary branch can order the co-equal Executive Branch to spend or not spend appropriated or unappropriated money.

There are several reasons:  First, if the expenditures were required by statute, the judge is simply commanding the executive to carry out the President's function of seeing to it that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed.  Although trial courts cannot issue writs of mandamus, they have some powers that give a partial analogue of the common law writ, and this being a stay of an order it was not really compelling an action.  Second, some grants are in the nature of a contract between the Federal government and the grantee, so the application of the order to existing grants, rather than just new grants, is a subject for the courts since even when the Federal government is one party to a contract, contract law is adjudicated by the courts, not the whim of the President.
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.

Offline mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62,081
Aren't judges supposed to base their decisions only at evidence properly presented to the court?
The abnormal is not the normal just because it is prevalent.
Roger Kimball, in a talk at Hillsdale College, 1/29/25

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 62,050
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
O'Bastard Judge.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline MeganC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,924
  • Gender: Female
  • Putin, the low rent Hitler
Aren't judges supposed to base their decisions only at evidence properly presented to the court?

Not when they set themselves up as kings.
Resistance to Jim Robinson is obedience to God.

Offline mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62,081
Not when they set themselves up as kings.
"Okay, according to this influencer's TikTok video, paid for by the DNC, Trump is guilty of pulling the wings off of flies."

But, your honor, that's just a social media allega...

"Enough! The court has spoken! Off with your head! You're in contempt, pay the $1,000,000 fine. Next case?"
The abnormal is not the normal just because it is prevalent.
Roger Kimball, in a talk at Hillsdale College, 1/29/25