https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/07/07/obama-judge-blocks-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-in-obbb-n4941523

Despite the Constitution saying that Congress has the power of the purse this judge grants an injunction against Congress saying they can't defund planned parenthood but offers no legal reasoning why.


The blatant unconstitutionality of this decision and lack of reasoning has reached new highs (lows).

How fast can the Supreme Court tell this person they are a moron?

Desperate times call for desperate measures in the Democrat world!

This won't stand

How come one individual judge gets to make such a decision?

There are 18 other district judges in MA. Shouldn't they get a say?

Yeah, she has no jurisdiction to do that.

It will get overturned.

annie88 said:

---

Yeah, she has no jurisdiction to do that.

It will get overturned.

---

Should be ignored.

BigRobSA said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Yeah, she has no jurisdiction to do that.

It will get overturned.

---

Should be ignored.

---

Personally, I wouldn't support ignoring a court ruling, even one as stupid as this. Go the legal route, it'll be slapped down quick.

Can SCOTUS sanction lower judges for overstepping their authority?

Quote:

---

As of December 2019, there have been 66 federal judges or Supreme Court Justices investigated for impeachment.

---

Credit: Wikipedia

Time to start removing activist judges when they overstep their authority.

They are not 'elected' so cries of 'what about the democracy' shouldn't be relevant.

But, there's a comma!

Why can't you understand that!?!?!

Can't congress defund the judge?

TA-OP said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Yeah, she has no jurisdiction to do that.

It will get overturned.

---

Should be ignored.

---

Personally, I wouldn't support ignoring a court ruling, even one as stupid as this. Go the legal route, it'll be slapped down quick.

---

Now that SCOTUS has ruled that district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions, any district judges that do should be ignored. They are ignoring a supreme court ruling.

Baal demands it.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

How come one individual judge gets to make such a decision?

There are 18 other district judges in MA. Shouldn't they get a say?

---

Because it's not a vote?

MagnumLoad said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Yeah, she has no jurisdiction to do that.

It will get overturned.

---

Should be ignored.

---

Personally, I wouldn't support ignoring a court ruling, even one as stupid as this. Go the legal route, it'll be slapped down quick.

---

Now that SCOTUS has ruled that district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions, any district judges that do should be ignored. They are ignoring a supreme court ruling.

---

This is not a "nationwide injunction" that SCOTUS just shot down.

But it's a terrible ruling nonetheless!

I don't understand why judges that make these ridiculous rulings aren't impeached. Laziness on the part of Congress.

country said:

---

I don't understand why judges that make these ridiculous rulings aren't impeached. Laziness on the part of Congress.

---

Because it would be an exercise in futility.

There aren't enough votes in the Senate to remove the judges from office, even if the House impeaches.

Just buying time so they can launder and siphon the money off where they need it.

samurai_science said:

---

This won't stand

---

It's not enough that "this won't stand". That judge need to be impeached, disbarred and imprisoned.

The judge said "for good cause shown"

Can a con lawyer in here explain what in the Sam Hill that could possibly be?

Another decision from a marxist judge.

Captain Pablo said:

---

The judge said "for good cause shown"

Can a con lawyer in here explain what in the Sam Hill that could possibly be?

---

I wouldn't think so it sounds like it was just made up

country said:

---

I don't understand why judges that make these ridiculous rulings aren't impeached. Laziness on the part of Congress.

---

Let me break this down. First there will not be enough votes to convict in the Senate. Every member of Congress, and all their staff, know this.

Then you would have to take the articles through committee, shutting that committee down with wild antics, then to the house floor. Then the House would have to appoint managers and staff and prepare a trial in the Senate. Then the Senate is basically shut down during that trial for a week or more. This would divert a ton of resources, sap a ton of time and lead to huge grandstanding and fundraising, mostly on the Democrat side.

And then it will fail. Predictably. So you can wag your finger at Congress for being lazy. But the whole thing would be an unnecessary circus to accomplish nothing.

There is an excellent argument that the judge is not acting on good behavior but that's another giant can of worms.

Is impeachment the right call on paper? Yeah, 100%. Would it work? Not a ghost of a chance.

The Sun said:

---

Can SCOTUS sanction lower judges for overstepping their authority?

---

Sanction?

The judge should be hung for sedition.

So her enforcement order applies to who? Will she hold every GOP member of congress in contempt unless they restore funding to Planned Parenthood? What if Congress says " gee, we would like to comply but we just don't have the money, can you help us with the funding?".

BigRobSA said:

---

But, there's a comma!

Why can't you understand that!?!?!

---

Boy George said it best...

Comma, Comma, Comma...





And other stuff.

aezmvp said:

---

Then you would have to take the articles through committee, shutting that committee down with wild antics, then to the house floor. Then the House would have to appoint managers and staff and prepare a trial in the Senate. Then the Senate is basically shut down during that trial for a week or more. This would divert a ton of resources, sap a ton of time and lead to huge grandstanding and fundraising, mostly on the Democrat side.

And then it will fail. Predictably. So you can wag your finger at Congress for being lazy. But the whole thing would be an unnecessary circus to accomplish nothing.

---

Precisely why I thought impeaching President Trump was dumb. But, y'all can continue to call me a radical leftist if that makes you feel better.

Our constitution does not demand that men be angels… but it does require a significant moral through line. When a president (and senators) enthrones activists as justices, the recourse (congressional removal) from the same body is highly unlikely.

The best defense being a good offense: keeping the presidency out of Dem hands remains key to minimizing further contortions of the judiciary.

The main reason it was "dumb" is that Trump didn't do anything wrong and his impeachments were purely partisan and nothing more than efforts to prevent him from governing as he was lawfully elected to do. The impeachments were leftists thwarting the will of the American people.

In this instance, impeaching a judge who is subverting the Constitution is justified. This judge does not believe in the rule of law.

What did I miss? I thought the USSC just ruled judges can't do this.

we have three branches of government. each is necessary. checks and balances. even if i disagree with a judicial ruling, i keep this in mind

Leftists don't care what the law, Constitution, or the Supreme Court have to say.

This is 100% outside the role of the judiciary. The judge is acting illegally.