NEW: Federal Judge Makes Ruling Against Trump Admin That Might As Well Be a 'Soft Coup'

The insane overstepping of the lower federal courts in defense of Democrat priorities has reached a new level of impropriety. On Monday, a judge in Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration has violated a temporary restraining order and is now ordering the end of all spending freezes instituted by the White House.

All those crazy grants that were being given out by USAID to organizations promoting transgenderism and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in foreign countries? A left-wing judge just told American taxpayers they have to keep paying them and that the executive branch has no discretion in how federal bureaucracies operate. It's hard to see that as anything other than a soft coup.

Normally, a temporary restraining order can't be appealed, but due to the extreme circumstances involved, the above suggestion is to seek mandamus. In layman's terms, a lawsuit would be filed in the appellate court accusing this rogue judge of operating outside his authority. An order could then be issued for him to stop.

A judge is not supposed to expand a TRO outside of the scope of the original complaint. In this case, it appears that's exactly what happened.

More

NEW: Federal Judge Makes Ruling Against Trump Admin That Might As Well Be a 'Soft Coup'

redstate.com

 

[Baby Yoda]

Can't they just ignore these looney judges if they don't have the authority?

 

[Tall Timbers]

Can't they just ignore these looney judges if they don't have the authority?

I think they should be able to, but am not sure. It would seem to me that Executive powers would continue until the question, if there is actually a question, is decided by the Supreme Court. I think that based on the Executive Branch being separate and equal.

 

[mattfivefour]

I think they should be able to, but am not sure. It would seem to me that Executive powers would continue until the question, if there is actually a question, is decided by the Supreme Court. I think that based on the Executive Branch being separate and equal.

That makes sense to me.

 

[1LoverofGod]

Congressman Drafting Articles of Impeachment Against Lawless Anti-Trump Judge​

Over the weekend, an Obama-appointed judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive Treasury Department data. While the media frames this as a limited restriction on political appointees and special government employees, the reality appears far more sweeping.

Judge Paul Engelmayer’s ruling explicitly bars all political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from Treasury payment records and financial systems, restricting access to career civil servants (essentially the Deep State) within the Bureau of Fiscal Services. This unprecedented move effectively prevents the Treasury secretary from overseeing his own department’s financial data, raising serious concerns about executive authority and the administration’s ability to govern.

The Trump administration’s lawyers argued Sunday that the injunction violates the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch. They contend that a judge interfering with the president’s ability to manage his own staff and initiatives is a clear case of judicial overreach.

“I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer,” Crane said in a post on X. “Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy.”

“This is obviously judicial overreach,” Crane continued. “Judge Engelmayer is attempting to stop White House employees from accessing the very systems they oversee. Where in the constitution does it say a President and his team cannot root out obvious waste, fraud and abuse?”

Complete Article

Congressman Drafting Articles of Impeachment Against Lawless Anti-Trump Judge

pjmedia.com

 

[Everlasting Life]

It's interesting that "Constitutional crises' is being bandied around. Suddenly the Constitution is important!

Well let's talk about the Constituion! Article 2 states that the President, in his executive powers may appoint people, with the consent of the Senate, to serve in governing capacities.

Here's the info and historical applications dating back to George Washington:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-4/ALDE_00013095/

Here's info and further info on appointments vs officers and how both are used by a president along with how creations of governing groups (such as a spending accountibility group or let's say like when the IRS was formed and approved as a governing body ) can be later voted in by congress as a permanent governing body in U.S. govornment:

Officer and Non-Officer Appointments

www.law.cornell.edu

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Supreme Court case law concerning which individuals in the federal government constitute “Officers of the United States” —and thus must be appointed pursuant to the requirements of the Appointments Clause—has been relatively sparse over the course of the Nation’s history,1 with many of the key Supreme Court decisions occurring in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.2

In one of the earliest cases addressing the issue, Chief Justice John Marshall, riding circuit in the 1823 case of United States v. Maurice, defined an officer as one entrusted with a duty that is “a continuing one, which is defined by rules prescribed by the government, and not by contract, which an individual is appointed by government to perform.” 3

A similar principle was espoused in an opinion issued by Attorney General Hugh Legare in 1843, wherein he contrasted the appointment of “permanent” customs inspectors who qualify as officers of the United States, with the appointment by customs collectors of “occasional inspectors” who do not.4

In 1878, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Germaine that federal civil surgeons were employees not subject to the constitutional requirements of the Appointments Clause, rather than officers, because their positions were “occasional and intermittent,” rather than “continuing and permanent.” 5

However, some of the Court’s early decisions addressing which individuals constitute officers tended not to examine closely the substantive differences between officers and non-officers, and instead simply relied on an individual’s method of appointment.6

In other words, according to some of these early cases, no matter the duties assigned to a position, if an individual was not appointed according to the strictures of the Appointments Clause, then by definition he or she could not constitute an officer; but if an individual was appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause, then he or she did qualify as an officer.7......

 

[mattfivefour]

It's interesting that "Constitutional crises' is being bandied around. Suddenly the Constitution is important!

Well let's talk about the Constituion! Article 2 states that the President, in his executive powers may appoint people, with the consent of the Senate, to serve in governing capacities.

Here's the info and historical applications dating back to George Washington:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-4/ALDE_00013095/

Here's info and further info on appointments vs officers and how both are used by a president along with how creations of governing groups (such as a spending accountibility group or let's say like when the IRS was formed and approved as a governing body ) can be later voted in by congress as a permanent governing body in U.S. govornment:

Officer and Non-Officer Appointments

www.law.cornell.edu

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Supreme Court case law concerning which individuals in the federal government constitute “Officers of the United States” —and thus must be appointed pursuant to the requirements of the Appointments Clause—has been relatively sparse over the course of the Nation’s history,1 with many of the key Supreme Court decisions occurring in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.2

In one of the earliest cases addressing the issue, Chief Justice John Marshall, riding circuit in the 1823 case of United States v. Maurice, defined an officer as one entrusted with a duty that is “a continuing one, which is defined by rules prescribed by the government, and not by contract, which an individual is appointed by government to perform.” 3

A similar principle was espoused in an opinion issued by Attorney General Hugh Legare in 1843, wherein he contrasted the appointment of “permanent” customs inspectors who qualify as officers of the United States, with the appointment by customs collectors of “occasional inspectors” who do not.4

In 1878, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Germaine that federal civil surgeons were employees not subject to the constitutional requirements of the Appointments Clause, rather than officers, because their positions were “occasional and intermittent,” rather than “continuing and permanent.” 5

However, some of the Court’s early decisions addressing which individuals constitute officers tended not to examine closely the substantive differences between officers and non-officers, and instead simply relied on an individual’s method of appointment.6

In other words, according to some of these early cases, no matter the duties assigned to a position, if an individual was not appointed according to the strictures of the Appointments Clause, then by definition he or she could not constitute an officer; but if an individual was appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause, then he or she did qualify as an officer.7......

Interesting. It seems these attempts by lower Court judges to control the actions of government is unconstitutional. In fact that is the purpose of the Supreme Court-- to judge whether the legislative and the executive branches of government are working in line with the Constitution.

 

[Everlasting Life]

It seems the Constitutuional legal framework has been established by executive order:

Establishing And Implementing The President's "Department Of Government Efficiency"

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

And now the Senate is working to establish into U.S. law:

GOP senator announces 'DOGE Acts' to back Musk, Ramaswamy government cost-cutting objectives

Blackburn announced she will be introducing the "DOGE Acts," following meetings with Musk and Ramaswamy on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

www.foxnews.com

Sen. Marsha Blackburn will roll out a package of legislation backing up Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) objectives, as Republican lawmakers launch legislative efforts to rally behind the cost-cutting efforts.

The Tennessee Republican announced her plans to unveil the "DOGE Acts" in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday. They would seek to move federal agencies out of Washington, D.C., freeze federal hiring and salaries for one year, and get federal workers back in the office.

The GOP senator will reportedly unveil a series of measures that will mirror more of the framework being pushed by the new agency to cut government spending, according to the senators' spokesperson.

"I will be introducing legislation that coincides with @DOGE’s plan to make the federal government more efficient," Blackburn said in a post on X.....

 

[Everlasting Life]

Interesting. It seems these attempts by lower Court judges to control the actions of government is unconstitutional. In fact that is the purpose of the Supreme Court-- to judge whether the legislative and the executive branches of government are working in line with the Constitution.

Yes, this is being charged by some as judicial overreach.