Do We Have an Amy Coney Barrett Problem?

[catfish1957]

Just as Dan Bongino gave up a $4M gig on radio and his podcast, Ted Cruz is going to have to give up his Senate seat and take a seat on the Bench.

Absolutely agree.  And a path to a non-fillbuster, would be easy.  His colleagues don't like him, and would prob. pay to get rid of him. 

[corbe]

MAGA has a problem with Amy Coney Barrett. It’s more complicated than they think

By Kaelan Deese
March 9, 2025 8:00 am

MAGA activists have seemingly turned against one of President Donald Trump’s three appointees to the Supreme Court: Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Appointed by Trump in 2020, Barrett has played a key role in several landmark conservative victories, including overturning Roe v. Wade, striking down affirmative action, and expanding Second Amendment rights.

Yet, despite her highly conservative record and devotion to an originalist jurisprudence tethered tightly to the Constitution, MAGA loyalists have begun to attack her, accusing her of betraying the conservative movement.

Trump loyalists reached a boiling point with Barrett on March 5 after she sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three Democratic-appointed justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — to deny a plea by Trump to cancel a lower court’s order to pay $2 billion in federal foreign aid spending for already-completed work.

MAGA’s backlash against Trump’s third high court appointment

<..snip..>

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in_focus/3341332/maga-has-a-problem-with-amy-coney-barrett-its-more-complicated-than-they-think/

Copy the above LINK into the webpage below to get pass the paywall

https://12ft.io/

[catfish1957]

MAGA has a problem with Amy Coney Barrett. It’s more complicated than they think

Yes, its complicated but simple.   We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to correct the mindless spending us into oblivion.  Any one who  gets in the way of that, should be considered an opponent.

[Kamaji]

Yes, its complicated but simple.   We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to correct the mindless spending us into oblivion.  Any one who  gets in the way of that, should be considered an opponent.

And yet, instead of following established procedure in the APA - which would make those changes rock-solid - Trump is thrashing around like a newbie, making a lot of noise and uproar, but not accomplishing anything of real lasting value because what he does can be easily undone simply because he didn't follow procedure.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And yet, instead of following established procedure in the APA - which would make those changes rock-solid - Trump is thrashing around like a newbie, making a lot of noise and uproar, but not accomplishing anything of real lasting value because what he does can be easily undone simply because he didn't follow procedure.

And exactly what, pray tell, is the 'procedure' he didn't follow?

And if you happen to say to follow
Congress's lead, then what has 'lasting value' if another Congress can change the law?

What he has done indeed does have substance, and I have found that only the left has trouble with substance over process.

[catfish1957]

And yet, instead of following established procedure in the APA - which would make those changes rock-solid - Trump is thrashing around like a newbie, making a lot of noise and uproar, but not accomplishing anything of real lasting value because what he does can be easily undone simply because he didn't follow procedure.

Ahhh geezz.....

In industry, we went through reorganizations and efficiency improvements say every 5 years or so.  In that process we went by the 90% rule.  That rule of thumb  meant we were likely going to make a mistake 10% of the time.  But...  within a month or so, after execution, you make changes on the fly, and the whole process is better for it.

What you are suggesting going "by the procedure" might turn this into a 20 year process.  Believe me, I know how the government works, I dealt with EPA 35 years....... And it sucks.

[libertybele]

Just as Dan Bongino gave up a $4M gig on radio and his podcast, Ted Cruz is going to have to give up his Senate seat and take a seat on the Bench.

Who would he replace and a rock solid conservative would need to replace Ted.

[catfish1957]

Who would he replace and a rock solid conservative would need to replace Ted.

Thomas is getting up there, so I hope Clarence will not risk doing a RBG, and take a nice early retirement.

As far as replacing Ted?  Ronny Jackson or Ken Paxton comes to mind.  Ken's kind of shady, but he sure would shake things up.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Just as Dan Bongino gave up a $4M gig on radio and his podcast, Ted Cruz is going to have to give up his Senate seat and take a seat on the Bench.

I prefer Ted just stay put.

He is masterful as a Senator, and honestly, I believe he would not be as happy sitting as a judge as he seems to enjoy the cameras instead of a cloistered judicial position.

He cannot be replaced easily in the US Senate.

His biggest value on the court, besides his obvious conservative creds, is that perhaps his masterful debating persona could possibly influence a court member known as a fence sitter(Barrett).

[Kamaji]

Ahhh geezz.....

In industry, we went through reorganizations and efficiency improvements say every 5 years or so.  In that process we went by the 90% rule.  That rule of thumb  meant we were likely going to make a mistake 10% of the time.  But...  within a month or so, after execution, you make changes on the fly, and the whole process is better for it.

What you are suggesting going "by the procedure" might turn this into a 20 year process.  Believe me, I know how the government works, I dealt with EPA 35 years....... And it sucks.

Here's a clue, genius:  this ain't private industry, and the rules that apply to Twitter do not apply to the federal government.  That's the reality, and those who cannot accept, deal with, and work within, reality are, at best, stupid, and generally don't leave anything of lasting consequence.

[catfish1957]

Here's a clue, genius:  this ain't private industry, and the rules that apply to Twitter do not apply to the federal government.  That's the reality, and those who cannot accept, deal with, and work within, reality are, at best, stupid, and generally don't leave anything of lasting consequence.

Thanks.....      Your comments and snark  have perfectly encapsulated why the uber and unnecessarily over complex government Fedzilla needs to be gutted to the utter max.  Never thought you were this naive and obtuse to defend the government at this level, but I learn someting every day.

Again...  thanks.

[libertybele]

I prefer Ted just stay put.

He is masterful as a Senator, and honestly, I believe he would not be as happy sitting as a judge as he seems to enjoy the cameras instead of a cloistered judicial position.

He cannot be replaced easily in the US Senate.

His biggest value on the court, besides his obvious conservative creds, is that perhaps his masterful debating persona could possibly influence a court member known as a fence sitter(Barrett).

I agree.  Ted is needed in the Senate.  I believe it was mentioned to him awhile back about being on the bench and he said he would decline the offer.

[Cyber Liberty]

Just because a justice isn't a lapdog who will roll over and give Trump a B.J. there must be closet liberals.

Y'all don't seem to understand how an independent judiciary works.

I think she may have ruled correctly on the case that has people so pissed.  A contractor performed the service requested.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Thanks.....      Your comments and snark  have perfectly encapsulated why the uber and unnecessarily over complex government Fedzilla needs to be gutted to the utter max.  Never thought you were this naive and obtuse to defend the government at this level, but I learn someting every day.

Again...  thanks.

Agree totally.

Government should mimic the people and to instill processes within the govt that ensures transparency and not instead a bureaucracy encapsulating the problem with government. There is an urgent need to destroy this senseless entitlement which has no place in our country.

[Wingnut]

Justice is the handmaiden of law. 
You said law was the handmaiden of justice.
Works both ways.
-Judge Roy Bean

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A bit more on the APA which supposedly was not followed. Hint: It was not applicable

Everything You Know About the USAID Case May be Wrong
By Ted Noel
Welcome to your chance to nerd out on the difference between process and merits in legal actions. Our case of interest is AIDS Vaccine Advocacy v. Department of State. For non-lawyers, this is the case challenging President Trump’s order to freeze all payments from USAID until they can be fully reviewed for compliance with the law and the administration’s policies. If your claim has merit, it will be paid. If not, pound sand. And if you think you’re owed money that the government says they won’t pay, you can go to the Court of Federal Claims. The District Court does not have jurisdiction to hear you. Nor does it have the power to order anyone to pay you.

After Donald Trump was elected, on December 2, 2024, Joe Biden hustled (I think that means he shuffled less slowly…) to appoint Amir Ali, a reliable left-wing lawyer, to a seat in the reliably left-wing District Court for the District of Columbia, a reliably left-wing locale. Ali had barely gotten his chair adjusted when the USAID case landed on his desk. The plaintiffs asserted Administrative Procedure Act violations as a lever to pry a bill payment case into the wrong court. Supreme Court Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh emphatically pointed this out. The fact that Justice Barrett didn’t join them has led to unsubstantiated charges that she’s turning to the left.

To explain, you’re going to need a little more background. On January 20, President Trump ordered a 90-day pause on all foreign aid payments. This case started on February 10 in a case assigned to Judge Ali that was later consolidated with a different case filed on February 11 with Judge AliKhan. On February 13, Judge Ali issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) against Trump’s funding pause.

Brace yourself. Here’s where things get nerdy.

TROs are very short-term orders that basically order the parties to “stand still.” The court doesn’t yet know who’s right, although it’s inclined to think that the petitioning party might be right or that the egg might be so badly scrambled by the time the case is finally resolved that a “stop everything” order is proper. It’s designed to keep any disputed activity from happening until everything is figured out.

Ali’s order, however, was different. It didn’t stop everything. Instead, it only stopped Trump’s funding pause, therefore requiring money to be paid (which money may never be recovered), and reversing a presidential order that already told USAID to “stand still.” When you figure out how a presidential order that already freezes things in place can be reversed by a Court order that freezes things in place, let me know. I’m sure the Mad Hatter will appreciate an explanation.

At the February 18 status conference, the government stated that the review process for each payee was continuing, and that the order presented a significant number of statutory ambiguities. Also, because the order presented substantial logistic problems, it was impossible to make any payments by the 18th. Despite this, upon the plaintiffs’ motion, Ali insisted that his earlier ruling was to be enforced. In his order, he stated that “Plaintiffs had satisfied their demanding burden for temporary injunctive relief.” Oops! This was a TRO, not a temporary injunction. TROs aren’t ordinarily appealable, but TIOs are. Which was this?

By the 24th, USAID had not paid anything. The next day, Ali issued an order mandating that USAID comply within 48 hours. The government immediately filed a motion with Ali for a stay pending an appeal on the merits. That was summarily denied.

The government then filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (“DCCA”). However, because it was filed a mere four hours before Ali’s deadline, it dismissed the appeal.

The DCCA, however, made things clear for an appeal to the Supreme Court. TROs are supposed to preserve “the status quo ante” (that is, the situation up to the point of the order). But the status quo ante was the temporary freeze that Trump had imposed, not Ali’s mandated payments.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/03/everything_you_know_about_the_usaid_case_may_be_wrong.html