by Clarice Feldman, American Thinker:
While numerous federal district court judges have issued ill-conceived restraining orders against the administration, I have long believed that it will prevail in its efforts to place control of the state in the hands of the elected executive, away from the deep state bureaucracy and its black-robed judicial allies. As the litigation of these matters proceeds, I think my belief will be justified. We will return to a constitutional republican form of government. For a day-to-day look at the progress of these multiple cases, I urge you to go to X and follow Professor Margot Cleveland, who is (bless her) keeping track of them and providing links to the pleadings and orders.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Three of these cases were appealed to the federal circuit courts. In one, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the President acted within his powers in dismissing members of “independent” agencies — the NLRB and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
That same circuit stayed the district court injunction banning Musk and others from working with USAID. In D.C., the Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision (in which each member filed a separate statement) ignored the fact that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and improperly certified the class of Tren de Aragua members residing anywhere in the U.S. (District Judge James Boasberg did this to justify issuance of a nationwide injunction challenging the legality of the Alien Enemies Act.)
In a sign that the Administration was prepared for this eventuality, the next day, the Solicitor General filed a motion to vacate the order in the Supreme Court. I concur with Bill Shipley’s take:
This is the third case this week where DOJ has raised this issue before the Supreme Court. Earlier it asked SCOTUS to vacate the Injunction issued by the federal judge in San Francisco ordering the reinstatement of approximately 16,000 employees who were terminated while still in their probationary period. The Court has ordered the plaintiffs in that case to respond to the DOJ motion by today.
Yesterday DOJ filed a motion seeking to vacate the order by a Judge in Massachusetts that the Administration restore $65 million in grants to states to address teacher shortages because the grants expressly required that DEI be used in the decision-making for hiring new teachers. The Administration demanded that the DEI conditions be removed, and the states refused.
At first glance these three cases may not seem to have much in common beyond the fact that single district judges in three different locations — Washington D.C., Boston, and San Francisco — have used their positions to obstruct the efforts of the Administration [snip] The California case, where it was ordered by a federal judge to reinstate 16,000 terminated employees, goes to its power over the Executive branch in making efforts to shrink the size of the federal workforce and make it operate in a more efficient manner.
Taking up the case involving the grants for hiring teachers goes to its authority to reverse policies — not laws — of the Biden Administration requiring the consideration of DEI issues in hiring. The Trump Administration policy is the opposite — if a state wants federal money, it must accept the strings that come attached.
Now taking up the Venezuelan TdA removal case is an expression of Executive power under Article II to deal with national security threats within our borders, involving citizens of quasi-hostile foreign countries who have been identified based on their dangerousness, not their nationality. The district judge has rushed in to assert that their individual rights — to the extent alien enemies sent to unlawfully enter the United States by a hostile foreign government have any rights — are elevated above the power of the Executive Branch to deal with the threat they pose.
The Executive’s default position is “We’ve identified them as alien enemies who pose a threat to the peace and safety of U.S. citizens and must be removed.”
Read More @ AmericanThinker.com
