one of my colleagues clerked for willet when he was on SCOTX. Super cool. I've met him a few times. He's a really likable guy.Aggie Jurist said:
Yep. Ho and Willet need to be on SCOTUS.
LAWFARE: The D.C. federal bench has effectively usurped executive authority, despite the fact that a third of its judges weren’t even born in the United States, and not a single one had prior judicial experience before their appointment. This judicial farce must end. pic.twitter.com/qcqY3k6Xdv
— @amuse (@amuse) August 6, 2025
POLITICO: U.S. FEDERAL COURT FILING SYSTEM HIT BY WIDESPREAD CYBERATTACK#BREAKING
— First Squawk (@FirstSquawk) August 7, 2025
🛡️ Major breach raises national security and legal integrity concerns
— Politico reports cyberattack compromises sensitive judicial documents
— Extent of data accessed or altered remains unclear…
will25u said:POLITICO: U.S. FEDERAL COURT FILING SYSTEM HIT BY WIDESPREAD CYBERATTACK#BREAKING
— First Squawk (@FirstSquawk) August 7, 2025
🛡️ Major breach raises national security and legal integrity concerns
— Politico reports cyberattack compromises sensitive judicial documents
— Extent of data accessed or altered remains unclear…
will25u said:LAWFARE: The D.C. federal bench has effectively usurped executive authority, despite the fact that a third of its judges weren’t even born in the United States, and not a single one had prior judicial experience before their appointment. This judicial farce must end. pic.twitter.com/qcqY3k6Xdv
— @amuse (@amuse) August 6, 2025
What a smug witch she is. pic.twitter.com/cDMQZzAn81
— The Disrespected Trucker (@DisrespectedThe) August 6, 2025
The law professor, Kate Shaw, is a co-host of Strict Scrutiny which just had Norm Eisen on their show bragging about his lawfare. In other words, she was running cover for Norm’s lawfare using partisan hack judges during the congressional hearing.
— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) June 4, 2025
That’s Kate in yellow. https://t.co/7jANhoPqWO
DEVELOPING: Sources tell me ODNI and CIA are preparing affidavits for more than a DOZEN additional whistleblowers who will attest to intelligence abuses aimed at Trump, which could be presented as evidence to a federal grand jury once AG Bondi selects a district to hear the case
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 6, 2025
2/ Also, I'm sure @senwhitehouse didn't say anything to try to disparage Trump before the judiciary. pic.twitter.com/dBEAEzffQU
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 7, 2025
Quote:
The administration, of course, appealed that finding, and now, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed, granting the petition for writ of mandamus and vacating Judge Boasberg's April 16, 2025, order.
The court's per curiam opinion itself is brief, but there are concurring and dissenting opinions, so the entire decision is 110 pages long. Here's the crux of it, though:Quote:
Judge Katsas and Judge Rao conclude that the government has satisfied the stringent requirements for a writ of mandamus. The Court therefore grants the government's petition for mandamus and vacates the district court's probable-cause order. Judge Pillard dissents from the grant of mandamus and the vacatur.
And here's the crux of Katsas' reasoning in the concurrence:Quote:
The district court used the threat of criminal contempt to coerce the Executive Branch to comply with an order it had no authority to enforce. And it directed that coercion toward the Executive's exercise of its foreign affairs power. The significance of the district court's error, coupled with the potential for abuse in future cases, justifies our intervention at this stage of the proceedings. Considering the "totality of the circumstances," the writ is appropriate.
nortex97 said:
Update: Circuit tosses Boasberg contempt tantrum.Quote:
And here's the crux of Katsas' reasoning in the concurrence:Quote:
The district court used the threat of criminal contempt to coerce the Executive Branch to comply with an order it had no authority to enforce. And it directed that coercion toward the Executive's exercise of its foreign affairs power. The significance of the district court's error, coupled with the potential for abuse in future cases, justifies our intervention at this stage of the proceedings. Considering the "totality of the circumstances," the writ is appropriate.
Great win for America, heading into the weekend. Margot links/thread at the link.
To set the stage: ICE Agents need "reasonable suspicion" that a person is here illegally before they can stop the person for immigration-enforcement purposes. That is a low bar. Basically is it reasonable under the circumstances to suspect someone is an illegal alien? 2/
— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) August 8, 2025
Ample basis for the Supreme Court to intervene here.
— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) August 8, 2025
The team of @AGPamBondi @DAGToddBlanche @ChadMizelle47 Stanley Woodward and John Sauer sum it up below. /fin pic.twitter.com/1WOaywhhqp
Your thread is very popular today! #TopUnroll https://t.co/QJCyy8XkgA 🙏🏼@RevolverNewsUSA for 🥇unroll
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) August 8, 2025
Quote:
The courts are issuing nation-wide injunctions on things that they have no authority to rule on.
2/ of his colleagues held an anti-Trump bias and should have recused. Given Boasberg was hell bent on holding Trump Administration in contempt, I'd submit Boasberg was including himself in his statement acknowledging an anti-Trump bias by his "colleagues". https://t.co/UPWquH10tm
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 8, 2025
Even the DC Circuit has had enough with Judge Boasberg. Mandamus order issued against him preventing him from pursuing any further criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration and allowing the Trump administration to enforce federal immigration law. Mandamus is… https://t.co/hBJyxlpOr4
— John Reeves (@reeveslawstl) August 8, 2025
Im Gipper said:Quote:
The courts are issuing nation-wide injunctions on things that they have no authority to rule on.
Don't see how they could make such a blanket ruling because SCOTUS said there are times when the "nationwide" (aka universal) injunction is appropriate.
Which cases were you thinking of?
Im Gipper said:
Been a rough summer for Bozoberg!
FINALLY -- an Opinion re the original TRO issued by Boasberg that quotes his comment on the record to the parties while reading his Order from the bench where he said that he would "issue a minute order memorializing this so you don't have to race to write it all down."
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 8, 2025
I was…
will25u said:2/ of his colleagues held an anti-Trump bias and should have recused. Given Boasberg was hell bent on holding Trump Administration in contempt, I'd submit Boasberg was including himself in his statement acknowledging an anti-Trump bias by his "colleagues". https://t.co/UPWquH10tm
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 8, 2025Even the DC Circuit has had enough with Judge Boasberg. Mandamus order issued against him preventing him from pursuing any further criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration and allowing the Trump administration to enforce federal immigration law. Mandamus is… https://t.co/hBJyxlpOr4
— John Reeves (@reeveslawstl) August 8, 2025
Quote:
Even the DC Circuit has had enough with Judge Boasberg. Mandamus order issued against him preventing him from pursuing any further criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration and allowing the Trump administration to enforce federal immigration law. Mandamus is almost impossible to get in federal court, and the fact that this was granted here shows just how crazy things have gotten in the district court.
Quote:
Mandamus is almost impossible to get in federal court, and the fact that this was granted here shows just how crazy things have gotten in the district court.
will25u said:POLITICO: U.S. FEDERAL COURT FILING SYSTEM HIT BY WIDESPREAD CYBERATTACK#BREAKING
— First Squawk (@FirstSquawk) August 7, 2025
🛡️ Major breach raises national security and legal integrity concerns
— Politico reports cyberattack compromises sensitive judicial documents
— Extent of data accessed or altered remains unclear…
nortex97 said:
MSNBC's Chris Hayes' wife, Kate Shaw, who is a UPenn professor was one of the 'experts' called on to testify about nationwide injunctions a couple months ago.What a smug witch she is. pic.twitter.com/cDMQZzAn81
— The Disrespected Trucker (@DisrespectedThe) August 6, 2025
She co-hosts a podcast bragging about their lawfare schemes against Trump, and had Norm Eisen on as well to chuckle it up.The law professor, Kate Shaw, is a co-host of Strict Scrutiny which just had Norm Eisen on their show bragging about his lawfare. In other words, she was running cover for Norm’s lawfare using partisan hack judges during the congressional hearing.
— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) June 4, 2025
That’s Kate in yellow. https://t.co/7jANhoPqWO
Separately;DEVELOPING: Sources tell me ODNI and CIA are preparing affidavits for more than a DOZEN additional whistleblowers who will attest to intelligence abuses aimed at Trump, which could be presented as evidence to a federal grand jury once AG Bondi selects a district to hear the case
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 6, 2025
nortex97 said:
Update: Circuit tosses Boasberg contempt tantrum.Quote:
The administration, of course, appealed that finding, and now, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed, granting the petition for writ of mandamus and vacating Judge Boasberg's April 16, 2025, order.
The court's per curiam opinion itself is brief, but there are concurring and dissenting opinions, so the entire decision is 110 pages long. Here's the crux of it, though:Quote:
Judge Katsas and Judge Rao conclude that the government has satisfied the stringent requirements for a writ of mandamus. The Court therefore grants the government's petition for mandamus and vacates the district court's probable-cause order. Judge Pillard dissents from the grant of mandamus and the vacatur.
And here's the crux of Katsas' reasoning in the concurrence:Quote:
The district court used the threat of criminal contempt to coerce the Executive Branch to comply with an order it had no authority to enforce. And it directed that coercion toward the Executive's exercise of its foreign affairs power. The significance of the district court's error, coupled with the potential for abuse in future cases, justifies our intervention at this stage of the proceedings. Considering the "totality of the circumstances," the writ is appropriate.
Great win for America, heading into the weekend. Margot links/thread at the link.
Order here: https://t.co/01jt0YSLZJ
— Zachary B. Pohlman (@zach_pohlman) August 11, 2025
JUST IN: Judge Friedrich, a Trump appointee on the bench in DC, rules that the administration is illegally withholding funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, in violation of Congress' direct appropriation. https://t.co/Kf07VgmWly pic.twitter.com/vtVtz8Ebnx
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 11, 2025
Im Gipper said:JUST IN: Judge Friedrich, a Trump appointee on the bench in DC, rules that the administration is illegally withholding funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, in violation of Congress' direct appropriation. https://t.co/Kf07VgmWly pic.twitter.com/vtVtz8Ebnx
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 11, 2025
Im Gipper said:
What's the basis to withhold congressionally mandated funds?
aggiehawg said:Im Gipper said:
What's the basis to withhold congressionally mandated funds?
They passed legislation improperly and POTUS didn't sign it? I understand the House is supposed to originate appropriation bills but how does that type of legislative direction alone? That inartfully worded?
