Trump Should Ignore A Supreme Court That Won’t Defend The Constitution; If The Supreme Court Is Going To Ignore The Constitution, Trump Should Ignore The Supreme Court

Trump Should Ignore A Supreme Court That Won’t Defend The Constitution:

The Supreme Court’s ruling is not just a setback for President Trump’s agenda, it threatens the constitutional balance of power.

On March 5 in a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a lower-court order compelling the Trump administration to disburse nearly $2 billion in foreign subsidies through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department. This ruling forces the executive branch to pay out taxpayer funds against its policy priorities. It is not just a setback for President Trump’s “America First” agenda, it’s a glaring example of judicial overreach that threatens the constitutional balance of power.

The Supreme Court’s majority has effectively handed a single district judge the unchecked authority to dictate executive action, a move that undermines the separation of powers doctrine at the heart of our government. President Trump should consider ignoring this order, as it represents an unconstitutional encroachment on his rightful authority.

Let’s start with the district court judges who set this debacle in motion. Presiding over a challenge to Trump’s 90-day foreign aid pause, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued an order that exemplifies judicial hubris. On Feb. 13, he temporarily blocked the administration’s funding freeze, claiming it violated federal law.

When the administration didn’t comply fast enough, Ali doubled down on Feb. 25, mandating immediate payment of $2 billion for work completed before his initial ruling — all with a deadline of less than 36 hours. This wasn’t adjudication; it was a power grab. A single judge, with no apparent regard for the complexity of federal disbursements or the executive’s prerogative, assumed the role of both legislator and treasurer.

Such actions are not isolated. Across the country, district judges have issued nationwide injunctions to halt Trump’s policies, from birthright citizenship reforms to federal workforce cuts, often with little justification beyond their private policy preferences. These judges aren’t applying law; they’re rewriting it.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in dissent, saw through this charade. His words cut to the core of the issue: “Does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.” —>READ MORE HERE

If The Supreme Court Is Going To Ignore The Constitution, Trump Should Ignore The Supreme Court:

Lower courts don’t have authority to usurp the executive branch through restraining orders and injunctions, no matter what the SCOTUS says.

he Supreme Court’s shocking decision on Wednesday to allow a D.C. district court judge to order the Trump administration to disburse $2 billion in federal grant money is a major blow to the separation of powers undergirding our constitutional system of government.

But the thing about separation of powers is that they stand or fall together. All three branches of our government — legislative, executive, and judicial — have to respect the Constitution’s clear separation of powers. If one of them doesn’t, there’s no reason that the others should.

Put another way, if the Supreme Court can simply disregard the Executive branch’s constitutional authority and allow it to be usurped by an inferior federal court, which is what happened, then there’s no reason the Executive branch under Trump should pay any attention to what the Supreme Court says in this case, because it’s trying to assert an authority it simply doesn’t have.

So here’s what happened. As part of an administration-wide effort to crack down on fraudulent and wasteful federal spending, President Trump ordered a review of all federal grants, and also ordered that payments on all grants should be paused while the review is ongoing. Some of those grant recipients sued, and in a 5-4 decision handed down Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied a request by the Trump administration to vacate a recent ruling by D.C. District Court Judge Amir Ali (a Biden appointee) that ordered the State Department and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to disburse about $2 billion in federal grants to nongovernmental groups for “work already completed.”

In mid-February, Ali had issued a temporary restraining order that prohibited the Trump administration from pausing the disbursement of funds, arguing that the respondents were likely to succeed in showing the government violated the Administrative Procedures Act. After issuing this restraining order, Ali apparently grew frustrated by the slow pace of the disbursement of funds and on Feb. 25 issued a second order requiring the government to pay out about $2 billion in grant funds within 36 hours.

The Trump administration responded by filing an application to the SCOTUS asking it to vacate Ali’s order and issue a stay on his ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administrative stay and referred the administration’s petition to the full court for review.

The high court’s decision came down Wednesday, 5-4, with Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s Democrat appointees to deny the Trump administration’s request. The majority didn’t give a reason for this denial, which is too bad, because the ruling should trigger a constitutional crisis.

In a blistering dissent, Associate Justice Samuel Alito slammed the majority for giving a green light to the lower court’s judicial overreach. “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.” —>READ MORE HERE

Source

Jesus Christ is King