MAGA (5 Viewers)

[The_Doc_Man]

Only if the agencies are forced to long-term retain the ones who were let go, and there will be some serious legalities to hop through before it is all over.

 

[Mike Krailo]

A judge just ordered 6 agencies to re-hire the 10's of thousands of fired probationary workers because they were illegally fired.

It's time to get rid of the agencies all together. Then there isn't anymore loopholes for the activist judges. You didn't get fired the agency doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Steve R.]

It's time to get rid of the agencies all together. Then there isn't anymore loopholes for the activist judges. You didn't get fired the agency doesn't exist anymore.

As an add-on. These judges should not have the ability to counter the president (the Executive Branch) on the national level. The are exceeding their jurisdictional authority. One person commented that there used to be a system where it took three district judges to intervene in case involving the Executive Branch that covered the national level.

February 18th, 2025

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, it has become evident that federal trial courts are engaged in a non-violent insurrection against the elected President and the executive branch, as these judges issue rulings on decisions made by the Trump administration.

www.marklevinshow.com

 

[moke123]

One person commented that there used to be a system where it took three district judges to intervene in case involving the Executive Branch that covered the national level.

I believe that was only for certain types of cases involving state law, not federal.

These judges should not have the ability to counter the president (the Executive Branch) on the national level.

They are part of the co-equal branch of government. The supreme court just happens to be the last word, if they even choose to hear it.

You didn't get fired the agency doesn't exist anymore.

Yes, that would work. It's just that you need to do it legally.

 

[Steve R.]

I believe that was only for certain types of cases involving state law, not federal.

If you believe that, please provide some evidence. I would find your statement quit quizzical as why would three distinct federal district judges acting as "one" court be acting on a state law?

They are part of the co-equal branch of government. The supreme court just happens to be the last word, if they even choose to hear it.

The court system is a co-equal branch, but the jurisdiction of a federal district court is limited to a specific geographic area. It is not nationwide. They do not (as one district court) have the authority to prevent the Executive Branch from executing its authority on a nationwide basis. Again, please provide evidence documenting your assertion.

 

[Steve R.]

Grok summary to the question: "Please summarize Mark Levin's belief that a federal district court cannot obstruct the president of the US."

Mark Levin has argued that a federal district court cannot obstruct the President of the United States, primarily based on his interpretation of the constitutional separation of powers. He contends that the president, as the head of the executive branch, holds a unique position under Article II of the Constitution, which grants the president broad authority to execute the laws and manage the executive functions of government. Levin asserts that this authority inherently includes the ability to make decisions free from interference by the judicial branch, particularly lower federal courts like district courts, unless such actions explicitly violate a clear constitutional or statutory boundary.
Levin’s belief hinges on the idea that the president cannot be criminally obstructed in the performance of his constitutional duties, as this would undermine the executive branch’s ability to function independently and effectively. He has specifically argued, for instance, in the context of investigations like the Mueller probe into Donald Trump, that accusing a sitting president of obstruction of justice (e.g., through actions like firing an FBI director or directing investigations) is legally untenable. He bases this on Department of Justice precedent, which holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted or face criminal proceedings while in office, as it would impair the executive branch and disrupt the balance of power among the three branches of government.
In Levin’s view, a federal district court attempting to rule against the president in a way that impedes his constitutional duties—such as by issuing injunctions or findings of criminality—oversteps its jurisdiction and encroaches on executive power. He sees this as a violation of separation of powers, arguing that only Congress, through impeachment, has the authority to check a president’s actions in such a manner, not the judiciary. For example, in discussions around Trump’s actions, Levin has dismissed judicial rulings suggesting obstruction as politically motivated overreach, insisting that the president’s constitutional role supersedes the judiciary’s ability to label executive actions as obstructive.
This perspective reflects Levin’s broader originalist stance, emphasizing a strict reading of the Constitution where the judiciary’s role is limited to interpreting laws, not constraining the president’s inherent powers unless explicitly authorized by law or the Constitution itself. He has expressed frustration with what he perceives as activist judges who, in his opinion, misuse their authority to challenge the executive, thereby obstructing the president’s ability to govern—an action he believes they lack the constitutional power to undertake. (emphasis added)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

but the jurisdiction of a federal district court is limited to a specific geographic area

If you follow some of the ongoing 2nd Amendment (gun control) cases, there have been situations where a district court has made a ruling that had national scope, having to do with definitional precedents, such as - what is a short-barreled rifle? You'd be surprised to find that SBRs aren't currently considered as firearms covered by the 2nd Amendment even though it was a federal district court (7th, I believe) that made that ruling that shouldn't affect other jurisdictions - but somehow does because of conflicting precedents. After a while it gets too complex for me to follow, but there are some REAL doozies to be had on 2nd Amendment cases in the last three or four years. I'm still waiting for someone to bring suit against ATF over some of their definitions that were made by (Progressive Liberal) Executive fiat.

 

[moke123]

If you believe that, please provide some evidence.

​

28 U.S. Code § 2284 - Three-judge court; when required; composition; procedure

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Thales750]

Judging by this conversation, many of you believe that dismantling the Federal Government will make us Great again.

So, a nation run by wealthy overlords will make us great?

 

[Steve R.]

So, a nation run by wealthy overlords will make us great?

Wrong question! The progressive left has been implementing Luddite policies that have been undercutting economic/technological progress. They were also implementing Jacobin policies which were disrupting our political system. The progressive left was wrecking our legal system by censuring free speech and putting political opponents in jail. Under the progressive left, the country was increasingly paralyzed.

PS: One of the greatest wealthy overlords is George Soros who is out to destroy Western civilization. So your question is misplaced on that front too!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Actually, dismantling the government might make us better based on this issue...

I am a believer in Thomas Jefferson's idea, "The government that governs least governs best." After the Chevron Deference decision about forty years ago, it became possible for executive-branch offices to make their own rules any time there was a gap or ambiguity, and government nit-pickers were very good about finding those little openings to drive in a wedge. Rules and regulations proliferated, adding regulatory compliance costs to everything. Gun rights, the definition of wetlands, the presence of government inspectors on a boat crew paid for by the boat owners, undermining separation of genders by blurring lines... all of these were started by executive fiat.

Congress was rolling over and playing dead A LOT. Executive branch agencies were running roughshod on issues that SHOULD have been managed by Congress based on separation of powers and based on non-delegation of constitutionally-mandated duties. If Congress were to actually do it's job, it would be slowed down by the myriad nit-picking requests - which would mean it would do less governing in a given period. If we can stop Congress from trying to NOT do its job (and letting someone else do it) then maybe we can unburden U.S. citizens and small businesses, forcing Congress to focus on the big-ticket items a little better.

 

[Steve R.]

If you follow some of the ongoing 2nd Amendment (gun control) cases, there have been situations where a district court has made a ruling that had national scope, having to do with definitional precedents, such as - what is a short-barreled rifle? You'd be surprised to find that SBRs aren't currently considered as firearms covered by the 2nd Amendment even though it was a federal district court (7th, I believe) that made that ruling that shouldn't affect other jurisdictions - but somehow does because of conflicting precedents. After a while it gets too complex for me to follow, but there are some REAL doozies to be had on 2nd Amendment cases in the last three or four years. I'm still waiting for someone to bring suit against ATF over some of their definitions that were made by (Progressive Liberal) Executive fiat.

The issue that you seem to be raising seems to be limited to "definitional precedents", which is not the same as prohibiting the implementation of an Executive Order that is national in scope. I asked GROK for a description of the extent of legal jurisdiction for US District Courts. The GROK response (see the Nationwide Injunctions section):

In the United States, federal district courts are trial-level courts with jurisdiction over specific geographic areas, typically within a single state or a portion of a state. Their decisions are binding only within their respective districts and do not inherently have national scope. However, there are nuances to this principle that can lead to broader impacts:

1. Direct Authority: A federal district court’s ruling applies only to the case before it and is enforceable within its jurisdiction. For example, if a district court issues an injunction, that order is typically limited to the parties involved and the geographic area of the court’s authority.
2. Precedent: District court decisions do not set binding legal precedent beyond the specific case. Higher courts, like the U.S. Courts of Appeals or the Supreme Court, establish precedents that can apply nationally. However, a district court ruling can influence other courts if it’s persuasive, especially on novel issues where higher court guidance is lacking.
3. Nationwide Injunctions: In rare cases, a federal district court may issue a "nationwide injunction," halting a federal policy or law from being enforced anywhere in the country. For instance, district courts have issued such injunctions against executive orders or federal regulations (e.g., immigration policies). While these rulings technically apply only to the case at hand, they can effectively pause a policy nationwide if the federal government is a party and complies pending appeals. This practice is controversial and has been debated, with critics arguing it oversteps a district court’s intended scope.
4. Appeals and Broader Impact: If a district court decision is appealed and reaches a circuit court or the Supreme Court, the higher court’s ruling can then have national scope. For example, a district court ruling in one state might be upheld or struck down by the Supreme Court, setting a precedent that binds all federal courts.

So, to answer directly: A federal district court cannot unilaterally make a decision that is automatically binding nationwide in the same way a Supreme Court ruling would be. However, through mechanisms like nationwide injunctions or by triggering higher court rulings, its decisions can sometimes have national implications. These situations often depend on the case’s context, the remedy sought, and subsequent legal proceedings.

 

[moke123]

They do not (as one district court) have the authority to prevent the Executive Branch from executing its authority on a nationwide basis. Again, please provide evidence documenting your assertion.

Looks like you found it yourself.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The issue that you seem to be raising seems to be limited to "definitional precedents", which is not the same as prohibiting the implementation of an Executive Order that is national in scope.

There are 2nd-Amendment cases where that definitional precedent cascades. For instance, firearm suppressors were redefined in a way that if you HAD one, you weren't grandfathered in on owning it anyway - you became an instant felon. When the district court upheld the decision, its scope suddenly affected the nation. It is the cascaded effects of fiat decisions that suddenly becomes national in scope. One small example but there have been many others related to Dept. of Interior and Dept. of Education rules.

My concern in this case isn't that I'm a gun nut. It is because I remember history, and the WW II Holocaust was preceded by gun confiscation. The first thing you do when you want to install a dictatorship is to disempower the people who might oppose you violently.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Judging by this conversation, many of you believe that dismantling the Federal Government will make us Great again.

So, a nation run by wealthy overlords will make us great?

If streamlining the federal government, making it more efficient, and demanding that it pass audits is the same as dismantling it, then yeah. The government should fear its citizens, not the other way around.

 

[Pat Hartman]

There is ample evidence of the results of higher tax rates on the wealthiest.

You are correct. The people who can afford to move, move If you don't want to pay a million dollars for your starter home, you left California a decade ago. The rest left during COVID. Sadly, they wrecked Portland and Seattle and they are branching out to Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and the Dakotas as well as Arizona and New Mexico.

 

[Pat Hartman]

A judge just ordered 6 agencies to re-hire the 10's of thousands of fired probationary workers because they were illegally fired.

And you think this is right, because????? How does any local judge get to overrule a decision of the President of the United States of America? Is it only because you suffer from TDS that you think this is good?

If a low-level manager can fire probationary workers for any reason - that's why they are called probationary. Duh!!!! Then certainly the CEO can fire them if he determines that the department is overstaffed.

Saying that Musk is firing people is disingenuous and is deliberately intended to provide mis-information to the idiots among us. Musk's team is making recommendations and the President and Agency heads are making the final decision.

 

[Steve R.]

Looks like you found it yourself.

No. Grok recognized that "This practice is controversial and has been debated, with critics arguing it oversteps a district court’s intended scope." One can see that this practice has gone beyond rational. Look at how left wing political activists attempted to use the 14th Amendment to have Trump removed from the ballot. This insanity was eventually shot down the by the US Supreme Court. But even worse, this whole 14th Amendment went beyond even using a US federal district court, the left wing activists even attempted to use local (non-federal) prosecutors as a means to effect a national election.

Note that the Grok introduction states: "In the United States, federal district courts are trial-level courts with jurisdiction over specific geographic areas, typically within a single state or a portion of a state. Their decisions are binding only within their respective districts and do not inherently have national scope. ... " It is the leftist activist judges who are attempting to aggrandize their legal jurisdiction by (falsely) claiming that they can simply do this. We will probably have to wait until there is an appropriate case to restrict district courts to their original jurisdiction.

Legal expert 'baffled' by courts 'intruding significantly' on Trump's presidential authority

Jonathan Turley slammed a federal judge for blocking a buyout offer to federal workers, arguing President Trump's order is "perfectly within the wheelhouse of the president."

www.foxnews.com

Constitutional law attorney and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley was left bewildered after a federal judge extended a temporary restraining order Monday blocking the Trump administration's buyout offer to federal employees. Turley told "Fox & Friends," Tuesday, that the offer is "perfectly within the wheelhouse of the president."

 

[Pat Hartman]

Continuing my earlier thought moke, why were you not upset when the local courts didn't step in to protect members of the armed forces who were illegally fired for refusing to take an untested drug? Hasn't the government used service members illegally in the past to test out drugs like LSD? Just because you sign your life away to serve your country doesn't mean that you signed up to be a guinea pig for big pharma too.

Re: Oligarchs. Notice how the left changes the meaning of words when it suits their purpose. Oligarch has a negative connotation because it is used to refer to people who became rich because they were illegally given certain things by a corrupt government and that is how they gained their wealth. Why isn't George Soros called an Oligarch given the new meaning of the word? How about Bill Gates and all the other rich Democrat donors? The left and especially the media use the term only when referring to Trump supporters or in the old context of the Russian Oligarchs who became rich because assets of the USSR were distributed among supporters when the USSR collapsed..

 

[moke123]

And you think this is right, because????? How does any local judge get to overrule a decision of the President of the United States of America? Is it only because you suffer from TDS that you think this is good?

What do you suffer from that you have such a difficult time understanding the law?