Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump From Defunding Planned Parenthood
The abortion mill sued the Trump administration because the “big, beautiful bill” banned it from receiving Medicaid payments.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani placed a temporary restraining order on the provision of President Donald Trump’s bill that defunds Planned Parenthood.
It expires in 14 days.
The abortion mill sued the Trump administration because the “big, beautiful bill” banned it from receiving Medicaid payments.
The organization claimed Trump’s administration targeted it “in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds.”
Planned Parenthood said in its lawsuit that it knows Congress and Trump specifically went after it because the provision applies to nonprofit organizations that made $800,000 or more from Medicaid payments in 2023.
The consequences will be dire and grave if Planned Parenthood cannot receive Medicaid payments, according to the lawsuit.
Go whine to your celebrity supporters, Planned Parenthood. I’m pretty sure you could survive on their money.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Silly me, here I thought Congress controlled the purse strings and they could defund something if they wanted. I guess in addition to executive powers, district court judges control the public coffers.
Yeah, how exactly does the court have standing to block a funding decision voted upon by both houses of Congress and signed by the President?
Short answer? The court has no ability to compel the expenditure of taxpayer fund when none have been appropriated. Congress passed a bill and the President signed it into law.
The judge is usurping power reserved for Congress and the Executive branch. Frankly, the DoJ should tell the judge to:
1. pound sand
2. resign or be prosecuted for insurrection and sedition.
They can’t do it in retaliation for someone exercising their constitutional rights, just as they can’t do it out of racial animus or something like that. So that’s what PP is alleging.
The argument is flimsy, because it’s not “retaliation”, it’s a desire that federal money not subsidize such activity, which can only be ensured by cutting off all money. The claim that they do it only with outside money fails because money is fungible.
Simply tell the judge to go diddle herself.
If only Trump had the balls!
There are some real doubts if courts can compel the payment of funds from the Treasury absent an appropriation. I suspect the courts would create a “racial animus” magical exception like we’ve seen, e.g., in cases like Peña-Rodriguez concerning inquiry into jury deliberations. But Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) has pretty strong language that payments without an appropriation are impermissible as violative of the Appropriations Clause: “Money may be paid out only through an appropriation made by law; in other words, the payment of money from the Treasury must be authorized by a statute.” I don’t see how compelling continuing payments pursuant to prior practice without an authorization is permissible even if you assume that the appropriation was not renewed as retaliation for speech.
I think the remedy would have to be against responsible legislators. But their immunity precludes such a claim.
That is indeed a problem. But what would happen if Congress decides not to fund things that the USA is absolutely required to pay for, such as its contractual obligations, its debt (whose validity the constitution says “shall not be questioned”; thus Congress can’t repudiate it), judges’ and the president’s salaries (which the constitution says “shall not be diminished”), or the essential defense of the nation, without which it will surely be conquered? Suppose Congress says, in any of these cases, “We don’t care what the constitution says, we refuse to appropriate money for these purposes”?Judges can find that Congress is required to appropriate the money, but what if it doesn’t? I don’t know what the answer should be.
What if God and Superman got into a fight?
Since we are discussing esoteric theocraticals.
Congress decides not to fund things that the USA is absolutely required to pay for, such as its contractual obligations
Is that allowed under the Anti-Deficiency Act ?
By the time there is a contract, there must have been an appropriation.
There are existing statutory authorizations to pay out on various claims, like breach-of-contract and tort claims that within the scope of the FTCA. OPM v. Richmond covers some of the Congressional authorization of such claims, particularly the Tucker Act (“As the business of the federal legislature has grown, Congress has placed the individual adjudication of claims based on the Constitution, statutes, or contracts, or on specific authorizations of suit against the Government, with the Judiciary. See, e.g., the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1491.”).
If Congress had not authorized payment on many claims against the federal government, it’s an interesting question to which I don’t think we have an answer. If a claim is purely constitutional, and not related to an appropriation, then I could see some remedy existing for some of the claims you raise. I just have no idea what it is.
I think one plausible answer is that courts can’t order the payment itself. I’m also skeptical of the court ordering
The last paragraph of my other reply was mistakenly included.
A Congress (nota bene, each Congress lasts two years) could defund Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. And a president could sign such a bill. But there would be such a hue and cry from voters that such Congress members would be voted out in the next election. And such a president would be labeled the worst of all time. No president would want such a label.
Our system relies upon self-interested congress members and president all wanting a good reputation.
In the cases you mention though Milhouse the Constitution says you have to pay the debt so it would take a constitutional amendment to not pay. I mean judges can overrule congress if the law they pass is unconstitutional. Now as far as how that would work I don’t know.
Unfortunately, I just read that section of the Bill PP is referencing. In no place does it mention them. Congress has the right to fund or not fund anything it wants as long as it goes through the process correctly and in this case it did. PP is filing a frivolous lawsuit on this one and that Judge should be impeached for going along with it.
In case your wondering, it’s Sec 71113
Not content to insert themselves into the Executive Branches Constitutional Authority now a District Court Judge is inserting herself into the Legislative Branches Constitutional Authority. These judges need to be removed immediately from the bench.
Here is the bill https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text
We can always count on Milhouse showing up and trying to legitimize the spurious leftist argument.
Let’s give him his due. For the first time in my memory Milhouse says he doesn’t know the answer to his hypothetical question.
Good luck proving that this is a “Bill of Attainder”.
The discrimination claim might hold up if this was codified by the Executive branch.
They’re not claiming it’s a bill of attainder, but they are claiming it’s targeted at them, and it’s pretty clear that they’re right about that. The criteria seem clearly to be drawn specifically so as to include them and only them. Congress doesn’t want to fund them specifically. The question is why.
They claim that the reason Congress doesn’t want to fund them is that it doesn’t like the things they’ve been saying. It’s punishing them for their protected speech, and thus the provision is unconstitutional.
The obvious response is that Congress couldn’t give a **** what they say. They can say all they like, on any topic they like. The reason Congress doesn’t want to fund them is that they kill babies! They’ve got the blood of innocents dripping from their hands!
Congress would really like to throw them in prison, but reasons both constitutional and political that’s not a practical option; at the very least, though, Congress doesn’t want to help them with their grisly work, and thus get some of that blood on its own hands too! Money is fungible, and every taxpayer dollar that finds its way into PP’s coffers helps fund another murder. Congress is entitled not to want that.
Ok I am no lawyer but if PP is not mentioned in the bill wouldn’t that mean they don’t have standing? I mean can any organization that wants to just sue and say hey we weren’t included in the budget?
They have standing because the exclusion was designed specifically to exclude them and no one else. Which it was. They’re only wrong about the reason.
Milhouse, you know that no one has the right to any government funding. Losing funding for retaliation is a canard. “Once funded always funded” is not a Constitutional concept.
It’s not a canard, it’s settled law. Grants cannot be terminated for the recipient’s speech. See the Brooklyn Museum case.
It looks like Planned Parenthood has a big beautiful bill in its butt. Ouch.
Trying to use the courts to overturn a statute is going to be tough.
Tough, but in other cases it would be doable. Not in this one, though.
New to me as well that a district court can compel Congress to appropriate funds. So in addition to completely trampling the unitary president provision (Article II, section 1), a federal court can trample the Appropriations Clause (Article I, section 9, clause 1).
Homer Simpson, in admiration, asked, “Donuts, is there anything they can’t do?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WO7fm4tTtM
HS will be in awe of district courts.
For an example showing that in certain cases the courts can compel Congress to appropriate funds, see S Dakota v Dole that I keep on citing in the sanctuary city posts. In that case S Dakota was demanding federal money that it claimed was unconstitutionally cut from it, and while the court found that the cut in question was constitutional, it explicitly held that there were circumstances in which it would not be, and in those circumstances Congress would have to appropriate the funds.
Sounds like dicta, not law, to me.
Can you (or anyone else) point to a case in which a court actually permanently enjoined Congress from refusing to continue to spend money?
Maybe I’m missing that part of Dole, but where does it clearly address how the remedy would work? What if the Court concluded the condition wasn’t severable from the appropriation? And, even if I’m wrong about the remedy issue being unclear, isn’t it different since Dole at least involves a Congressional appropriation, albeit a potentially unconstitutionally compulsive one, versus here where there is none?
These are good questions. I don’t know the answer. But there are certainly cases where the constitution requires money to be spent. Congress must appropriate the money. So what happens if it refuses?
I would hope that part of what would happen is the entire congress that voted to not pay the debt, fund the government, or fund the military would get tossed out at the next opportunity. Of course they might also refuse to fund the elections, LOL.
You and your pesky Constitution.
In other words, this so-called “judge” has the power to compel the taxpayers to pay for something, whether they want to do so, or not.
There are things the constitution requires taxpayers to pay for, whether they want to or not. Judges’ salaries, for instance. And the president’s salary.
The program inquisition is not in the Constitution. The judge is exceeding his authority. That can’t be fixed until we get a Congress that takes the ratified Constitution and its role seriously.
Everything I learned in Eighth Grade Civics class in Middle School was a lie.
A) The US Congress doesn’t have the authority to create and fund our federal budget–a single judge does.
B) The President of the US doesn’t have the authority to run the Federal Government–a single judge does.
C) We don’t vote for the people who make budgets and implement our government–those people wear black robes and are appointed for life.
I was totally lied to by Mr. Garfield back in the day. Who new?
The Imperial Judiciary strikes back.
“Luke, (Trump), I am your father.”
Flat-out violation of the separation of powers. Why Congress and the POTUS teamed up to defund PP is a political question, a reply to which is beyond the authority of the courts. Nobody can suffer a legal harm any time the Congress and the POTUS exercise their respective authority under the Constitution. The only correct response to an unpopular act is found at the polls, not the courts. If the Constitution authorizes an act, it is, perforce, legal.
What if Congress defunds some program out of racial animus, and a plaintiff can prove that was the motive?
Where did you come up with that theory Milhouse? It would not surprise me if they argue in bad faith like that, but where did you come up with it?
He pulled it from his asshole.
Now you’re talking Chief.
What do you mean by “that theory”? That Congress is not free to legislate out of racial animus? I think that is pretty well established. If it does, the courts can overturn the statute. Likewise if it legislates out of a religious belief. And likewise if it legislates for any other unconstitutional purpose.
In this case, the article explicitly says that PP is alleging that Congress was motivated by the unconstitutional purpose of retaliating for its exercise of its constitutional rights. So on that basis it’s asking the court to overturn the legislation.
In principle this is not a frivolous argument. But in this case it is, and I can’t see it succeeding. It was enough to get a 14-day stay so the court could consider its argument, but once the court has done that I can’t see it going any further.
I can understand why racial animus might be an argument. But “religious belief”? There is no such thing as legislation which is free of “religious belief”.
Which Constitutional right does PP claim they will no longer be able to exercise because of Medicaid being cut off? This is not meant to be a snarky question.
The theory is that since Congress is not allowed to establish a religious principle as government policy, it is also not allowed to make legislation whose only purpose is to enforce that religious principle. When you examine this more closely it boils down to the idea that congressmen, in deciding how to vote on a bill, must ignore all of their deeply held convictions and vote only as an atheist might vote. Which as you say is ridiculous, but that’s the theory and as far as I know the courts seem to have endorsed it, at least at times.
It’s not that they won’t be able to exercise it, it’s that (according to its allegation) Congress cut off its funding to punish it for exercising its rights, specifically its freedom of speech. It’s well established that any government action designed to punish someone for exercising their rights is unconstitutional. So that’s what PP is alleging. But the allegation fails because Congress’s actual purpose is easy to discern.
In principle their ‘motive’ is not relevant in any way whatsoever, only the legal effect. If someone gave extra money to widows and orphans but their motive was ‘RACE!!!” Their motive is utterly irrelevant, only the actual content of the law is relevant”
Here would be the distinction, I think:
Judiciary could only overthrow legislation that unfunded something if someone’s rights were violated in doing so.*
It shouldn’t matter what their “motivation” is. It should only matter whether or not rights are violated. And, in almost no case (I can see maybe an edge case or two) do you have a right to the taxpayer’s funds. If they only funded certain people and not others on the basis of race, religion, sex, then that might be an issue (with the remedy being a discrimination-neutral funding). And, as others have mentioned, that will be the hurdle they should not be able to get over.
(* And, of course, in cases where it violates the duties and responsibilities in the Constitution.)
To Milhouse’s reply to gibbie about 3 above this.
To amplify your statement about being atheist in how a politician votes on legislation, I have been surprised that the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” has not as part of one of their lawsuits against a legislative body included that legislators must avow that they have no religious beliefs as part of the settlement.
No, I don’t think that would work in the end. But I would love to see a Obama or Biden appointed District Judge rule that way. Based on 18th Century English, an establishment of religion meant a State endorsed religion. It did not mean that a persons moral values based on their religious convictions could not inform them how to vote.
Replying to BillB52: The idea that “secular” equals “non-religious” is a fiction which atheists use to exempt themselves from having to make rational arguments for their policy positions.
Here is an article by a friend of mine discussing this concept in relation to public education:
https://blogs.cornell.edu/envirobaer/publications/why-a-functional-definition-of-religion-is-necessary-if-justice-is-to-be-achieved-in-public-education/
A question isn’t a theory.
It may not add anything of value to the immediate discussion, but it isn’t a theory.
Federally funded programs are not supposed to be racial in nature.
Nor are they supposed to have any other unconstitutional purpose. Which is what PP is alleging here. But there’s a long distance between alleging and proving. Alleging gets you a brief stay so your allegation can be considered; but once it has been considered you’d better have more than that or it will be thrown out.
What if Congress defunds a program that murders the unborn, where the murderers sell the body parts?
That is indeed what it has done, which is why this case will fail.
Hmmmm I don’t doubt you but I would love to see some precedent
So would I, and you’ll probably find them in PP’s brief. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial. But on its face Congress’s purpose seems completely valid. It doesn’t want to fund baby murder; that’s all.
If it were to cut off funding from the IDF because it didn’t want to fund the genocide that the left ludicrously alleges is going on in Gaza, that would surely be its right; the same should apply when it cuts off funding from a genuine genocide going on right here in America.
Thanks for stating just exactly what PP is determined to have us pay for.
There is also the fact that abortion is no longer legal in every state so why should federal money, money collected from every state, be used to help pay for it. Let the states that want it to be legal fund it with state money.
So, if it is not funded it is not funded.
But if it’s not funded for an illegitimate purpose then it has to be funded. That’s what PP is alleging here. But it won’t be able to establish it, because it isn’t true.
The purpose is utterly irrelevant
And the difficulty is that you can’t unfund something for an illegitimate purpose, unless you only partially unfund it (illegal/unconstitutional discrimination of some sort) or it’s demanded by the Constitution that you fund it. At least so far as Congress unfunding it goes.
I think the only precedent we have so far is one where the courts said the President couldn’t (under certain circumstances) refuse to send people money that Congress had appropriated for that purpose.
And that is what Congress has done here. It has appropriated money to be paid to providers of certain services, but it has drawn criteria for eligibility specifically so as to exclude one and only one provider.
There doesn’t seem to be any question that it’s done so; the only question is why. PP alleges that it’s for an unconstitutional purpose; but the true purpose is very obvious, and is valid, so the claim must fail.
Reading the text of the bill provides some context.
The bill provides for an appropriation for a Medicaid payments. The provision in question (Section 71113) goes to limit that allocation by excluding any payments to a “prohibited entity.” Among other items, a prohibited entity is a 501(c)(3) entity that provides abortion on demand, receives more than $800,000 in Medicaid and is primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health and related medical care.
If the PP claim succeeds, the court would be striking down an exclusion or limitation on payments, and would not otherwise require a separate apportion to be made. Thus, some of the hypothetical questions that may come up in other circumstances do not apply here. In other words, the funds have already been appropriated, the question is whether PP is eligible to receive any portion of those funds.
What would be helpful to know here is whether there are other organizations besides PP that fit this definition. If there are, it makes it almost impossible to see how PP could prevail on the merits. If they are the only organization that this applies to, then I can at least see the underlying argument that the carve is a form of retaliation for the exercise of free speech. Of course, there are still a number of problems with that argument that look rather difficult to overcome (including whether a limitation on the ability to receive appropriated funds is covered/limited by the First Amendment at all).
If you pay for your kids first year of college and they party more than they study, you are not obligated to fund a second year of college.
It would not matter in the slightest. As the SCOTUS has said over and over this term, the Courts do not have the power to order the government to spend money.
I didn’t realize immoral murderer was a race…
It isn’t, and no one has suggested it is.
Milhouse, I think that would be nonrenewable, whether it’s called a political question or premised on some other constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of the court. What would be the remedy? Forcing Congress to pass a law to fund a program? To extend standing this far really would give as an imperial judiciary.
Would cement an imperial judiciary.
But, yes.
I would have sounded a lot more convincing without the typos? “Renewable” what the #?!* was spellcheck thinking?
As long as Congress didn’t let a similar program continue then no problem. No one can force Congress to fund anything.
But it did. All other providers of the services PP wants funded are being funded; only PP is not. PP says that’s because it says things Congress doesn’t like. But the real reason is because it kills babies! That’s what Congress doesn’t like, and it shouldn’t!
And this was a ridiculous 60-page long order. Issued without, of course, the government having any actual opportunity to present any evidence or defense.
Does anybody actually believe that they filed this lawsuit, that the judge heard the arguments and THEN wrote a 60-page order… over a holiday weekend?
They’ve had this nonsense written for weeks, just waiting for the bill to pass and the lawsuit filed.
This is a joke, but not a funny one.
Of course they had it written in advance. The bill was published well in advance. If you knew a bill that would harm you was in the works, and grounds existed to challenge it once it passed, wouldn’t you prepare a brief against it?
They’re wrong on the underlying issue here, but you can’t fault them for having their suit prepared.
Continuing to defend the indefensible, as always.
How is pointing out common sense legal strategy defending the indefensible. He sure is not saying PP is in the right. I know if I knew I would be faced with a legal issue and shared my concerns with an attorney and that attorney waited till the last minute to come up with a response I’d wonder which one of us was the bigger fool.
Shut up, AF. You’re indefensible.
It is more the court being able to churn out a 60 page order that I find troubling. Lots of organizations filed suits in court on Friday and Saturday, yet only one get a 60 page order in 48 hours.
No question PP would have been writing their arguments for a while now. The underlying question is that the bill was signed on the 4th, and that the court issued a response in such detail in such a short period of time. The timeline at least supports that the suggestion that the judge was writing about this in advance of the filing.
Anyone have a link to the 60 page order? Was this a cut and paste job out of the complaint? Or a substantial work on its own?
Golly gee whiz can Planned Parenthood demonstrate a complete and total firewall between abortion related activities and the rest of their operations? Do they have separate staff, separate websites, separate facilities, separate utility accounts, separate parking lots and separate ….everything? Are the abortion services/activities a completely isolated, parallel entity? If so then they absolutely might have a case…but they didn’t set it up that way and that’s why they are suing b/c the bulk of their revenue is generated via abortion related activities. They can’t exist if the Feds cut out abortion providers from funding eligibility. So far as I am aware there’s no discrimination against Planned Parenthood specifically, instead it is making abortion providers in general ineligible for funding.
There is discrimination against Planned Parenthood specifically, because the criteria are carefully tailored to include them and only them.
That legitimately gets their foot in the door, but it does nothing to substantiate the suit’s merits.
Setting a threshold doesn’t automatically equate to targeting a ‘specific’ entity. See income tax rate tables…especially the originals. See de minimis tax reporting. Same for prior import value and application of tariff. Plus the $ threshold is not the only criteria nor is it written to limit application to Planned Parenthood exclusively.
This provision would apply to any entity which:
1. Is a 501C3
2. Is engaged in family planning/abortion services
3. Performs abortions outside the exceptions allowed by the Hyde Amendment (rape, incest, life of Mother)
4. Received over $800K in Medicare
All Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider needs to do is set up a separate entity with parallel services to create a complete financial and physical firewall between the entity providing abortion services and the remaining services. Then only the abortion services entity is impacted. Of course PP doesn’t really offer much or generate much revenue other than through abortion services.
The magic word is “fungible”. It was the first word I thought of when reading the post. Milhouse beat me to it (above).
Yep. Which is why PP needs a totally separate entity for their abortion services. Do that and they preserve eligibility for their remaining services.
Except they HAVE no other services, to speak of, certainly none that are profitable enough to maintain the organization.
Planned Pogrom *IS* Big Abortion. I find it interesting that this loud and proud sacred “right” to murder the unborn must still be protected by a hedge of euphemism and lies, because it can’t actually endure the full light of day.
Well, yeah. I explicitly stated this above.
That’s the rub for PP. They and their surrogates have argued for decades that PP provides all sorts of ‘critical’ health information and delivery of health care apart from abortion. They lied. We know they lied and this suit indirectly acknowledges the lies.
They do have other services, which is what they’re demanding be funded. Congress has said we’re paying for the following services, so long as they’re provided by anyone but PP. PP says that’s because you don’t like what we’re saying, and the constitution doesn’t let you do that. Congress says no, it’s not because of that, it’s because you’re freaking murdering babies!
They claim that only 3% of their services and 10-20% of revenue comes from abortions. But you go look at the states that no longer allow abortions and I would bet PP revenue dropped more than 10-20% in that state.
Obamarama appointment. Indian ancestry but born in this country. At some point we’ll have enough points to discern the pattern than not doubt exists. Anyone here not get tired of this BS? There are well over 250 of such cases.
Not receiving free money from the government is not “punishment.”
Actually it is, and the precedents are solid. See, for instance, the Brooklyn Museum’s successful suit against Rudy Giuliani’s attempt to cut off city funding because he didn’t like an exhibit.
Any government action taken for an unconstitutional purpose is unconstitutional. Including denying funding that didn’t have to be awarded in the first place.
I don’t think you’re making an adequate distinction (on the federal level) between the absolute authority of Congress to cut off any funding anywhere and 1) the idea that they must fund a very few certain things, and 2) that any funding cuts must not illegally or unconstitutionally discriminate. It’s well-established precedent that a bill narrowly limiting its effect to a category is not a bill of attainder (I might disagree, but it’s where the courts have, so far, drawn the line) and is only discriminatory if one of its criteria is clearly illegally discriminatory. (So far, I think, they’ve failed to allow “disparate impact” to have much power there.)
As far as I know, the courts have held that if a category is so narrowly drawn that only one person fits it, and this was clearly done deliberately, then it is a bill of attainder.
Here they’re not alleging bill of attainder, but they are alleging that the exclusion was clearly tailored specifically to them. Which it was, the question is why.
It’s tailored so that nobody can use that dodge. No future org ization van use the same structure either. Just because they happen to be the not one doing that now doesn’t mean the law doesn’t have general applicability.
In the early 70s a newly married couple at work remarked that the local Planned Parenthood had an “entrance in rear” sign up on the door. Who knows what they did then, which I think was before abortion.
If the “entrance was in the rear,” they wouldn’t have to worry about abortions.
Wow. Who knew you needed to be a federal district court judge. So, the judge knows Trump targeted Planned Parenthood to punish them for engaging in lawful activity. And she knows this because she can read Trump’s mind. That’s just brilliant. We should hire more telepaths for federal district court judges. They could just read people’s mind. We could dispense with all this cumbersome “due process” BS.
I mean, it’s obvious that Trump and congress – remember it’s congress that defunded Planned Parenthood, not Trump – didn’t defund Planned Parenthood because they were using federal funds to fund abortions. No, no, no. They did it because they were targeting PP.
It’s good to know we can dispense with checking facts and letting congress decide how to spend money. Let’s just let judges decide how to spend taxpayer’s money.
No, the judge doesn’t claim to know that at all. All she knows is that PP has plausibly alleged it. That is all. There’s a vast gulf between a plausible allegation and an established fact. All a plausible allegation gets you is a court’s attention; you’d better have more than that if you want the court to actually do anything.
Trump did not defund Planned Parenthood, Cingress did
Same thing. PP’s complaint is that the defunding was unconstitutional, regardless of who did it. The court has thus far said only that the allegation is plausible, nothing more.
It’s not in any way whatsoever plausible.
There is, of course, another lesson to be learned from the use of the tactic of having politically allied/subordinate Federal District Judges thwart the will of the people expressed by the vote of the people, under the Constitution. The lesson is that the party that is using that tactic now cannot be trusted to appoint unbiased judges who will follow the Constitution. It therefore becomes a matter of great import to see that they are never voted into power again so that they can set up further uses of that tactic.
Subotai Bahadur
The crux of the matter.
This judge was confirmed in the Senate 94-0.
Which is another part of the problem. The RINOs and their friends don’t really pay attention to these nominees’ records. Or they just don’t care.
It’s part of Progressivsm (and way too many Republicans are Progressive, just slower and with lower taxes) to trust the “experts” and lawyers are “experts” in the law, so you just wave your hand and pass them through. There’s that whole “congeniality” thing, too.
(“Congeniality” isn’t the right word, but it’s close. Whenever they don’t want to even shake the apple cart a little because it just isn’t done, you know.)
The BBB should have defunded several district courts including Massachusetts, DC and California.
It can’t. The constitution says judges’ salaries cannot be reduced, let alone cut off entirely.
….so long as judges maintain ‘good behavior’. Despite the modern theory that a federal Judge may only be removed via impeachment process the Constitution doesn’t directly state any such thing. The ‘decider’ of what conduct runs afoul of ‘good behavior’ is Congress b/c it is a political question, IMO.
Then there’s the practical effect of Congress choosing to exercise its power to end the inferior Courts entirely. A judge without a court is like a Merchant Captain without a ship under their command….they will still be referred to by their title but have no power over a vessel.
Well then, since Congress created the positions, let them abolish them.
It would still have to pay the judges.
The salaries of the judges aren’t the only funding of the courts.
The judge has a 60 page order written over a holiday weekend. What if it could be proven that PP or a sympathetic lawyer had contact with the judge prior to the BBB being passed? What are the ramifications for that judge? Chief Justice Roberts has a district court problem. He is the head of the judiciary. Hold these judges accountable. I appreciate Milhouse’s observations. Cogent points from a law perspective. The fact remains that there is obvious collusion to achieve an outcome outside of the legislative constructs.
Excellent observation.
The timing of the order and the apparent length suggest (or at least support that argument) that there may have been prior contact. That would be a breach of attorney ethical rules, and apparent judicial misconduct.
These “what if” questions are raised only because we no longer have a country in which only people with a stake are allowed to vote and only well-known men of accomplishment choose to serve in office for a limited time.
Counters has to start impeaching these judges that are out of control. They don’t even listen to the Supreme Court.
“Counters”? Your auto-cucumber really went out there a ways.
If they DID to it to punish them IT DOESNT MATTER. They have the power to decide what to spend money on.
And they could only show it was “to punish them” if they can, ultimately prove it was a bill of attainder. And that is a really high bar to get over.
This reminds me of a joke I heard in law school 35 years ago:
Q: What’s the difference between a federal district court judge and God?
A: God doesn’t think He’s a federal district court judge.
Normally abortion isn’t my issue because the majority of its “clients” are leftists or their voters, and we certainly need fewer of them. But, God almighty! Once Milhouse chimed in this became the most lost in legal minutiae, head up rump discussion I’ve seen!
The ghouls running the Planned Parenthood abattoirs have zero way of proving that Congress is “discriminating” against them specifically—except speculation to that effect arising out of the sad fact that baby killing is their business; their only business! By now everyone should understand (from whistleblowers) that any PP pretense it provides other services is nothing more than shady accounting practices.
At one time our leaders understood that it was illegitimate to spend tax dollars on things that lacked widespread popular acceptance. Baby killing is one example, although, at the time the framers developed this principle no ordinary American was depraved or stupid enough to consider baby killing some sort of unalienable “right”—baby killing being incompatible with Natural Rights that emanate from the Creator. On this principle alone, Congress is more than justified to cut off PP funding. And no court can impute any other motive to Congress because doing so is pure speculation.
Leftists have no “right” to demand that Congress appropriate funds for their eugenics.
PP’s case depends on proving that the legislature was “punishing” its free speech. That’s a long shot. Fourteen days is not a long time, and under the “sliding scale” test, the TRO was inevitable. Odds are this one fails.
Long shot, for sure! Baby killing is NOT free speech.
Of course it isn’t. PP is alleging that it was excluded from eligibility for funding, not because it kills babies but because it says things Congress doesn’t like. This is obviously not the case.
It’s like Congress saying “We’re paying for medical services provided by anyone except Dr Mengele”, and he goes, “it’s because I say ‘Heil Hitler’, isn’t it? What else could you have against me but that?”
I am not going to get into the weeds here except to make three points. (1) Recent cases have shown that a TRO that orders the government not to stop giving out money can be treated as a preliminary injunction that can be appealed, so there may be some action on this case before the two weeks elapse. (2) Post-Dobbs, there is an argument that the federal gov’t lacks the constitutional power to ban abortions, but there is no credible argument that the federal government must fund abortions if it funds other healthcare procedures. The gov’t has the right to decide that it does not want to fund this procedure. I.e., stopping the funding of abortion is a permissible gov’t action. (3) The happenstance that PP is the principal provider of abortions does not change carrying out #2 into a bill of attainder, retaliation or a Fifth Amendment unequal treatment matter.
Your number 3 is nonsense. First, it is not happenstance that PP is almost exclusively an abortion provider. That’s their choice and reason for existence. Second, there is no right to abortion when you understand the concept of Natural Rights embodied in our Founding documents—no matter what leftist navel gazers in black robes might have said in SCOTUS decisions (especially ones that rely on the Constitution’s white space rather than its words and the history behind them). Finally, as you point out, there is zero obligation that Congress funds any abortions with taxpayer dollars.
“we offer other services”
who gives a f!!!??
then you are getting paid from those who use your services and your donors can pay for what the clients cant/wont pay for
why do we continue to allow lefty to control the country!!?!!?!!!!!!!
The point is that Congress has provided for other people who provide those services to be paid for them, but has excluded PP. The ABC clinic and the PP clinic provide identical services, but if you go to ABC the government will pay for it, and if you go to PP it won’t. That’s the fact. The question is why. PP says it’s because of its speech; that’s obviously not true.
if Im paying fro my neighbors healthcare
THEN I DEMAND THE POLICE BACK ME UP when I tell the neighbor what to eat etc
A different approach. Read SCOTUS’ Trump v. Casa case. That was basically a separation of powers decision (6-3) between the judiciary and the executive decided in favor ot the executive. This case is a separation of powers issue between the judiciary and the legislative branch. It is always risky to predict SCOTUS decisions, but there is little reason to believe they will find that the judiciary can order Congress to appropriate of spend money. District courts are established under the Judiciary Act and district courts have only those powers that flow from that statute. SCOTUS made clear in Casa that the judiciary must respect the separate powers of each branch. Funding is a policy issue, one of priorities and Congress has the power to favor or disfavor certain priorities. The judiciary has no role in that or to question the motives of Congress as to how or why Congress (535 members) had certain motives. Finally, a Bill of Attainder was a legislative declaration a person was a criminal. Congress did not criminalize planned parenthood, it just stopped funding them.