D. Turner said:

---

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

---

We have strayed away from that separation of powers concept the last few decades, sadly. And it is the federal judiciary that has been the worst offender, in my view.

ts5641 said:

---

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

---

The architects of this, Eisen and Elias, don't care about that piece of paper. Just lawfare and power.

And our AG is a paper tiger.

We need a district judge to state the federal government can't arrest people for unregistered SBRs.

Burrus86 said:

---

Desperate times call for desperate measures in the Democrat world!

---

Grasping for straws... It is time for SCOTUS to start censuring judges.

ts5641 said:

---

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

---

SCOTUS holding in Casa does not apply here. This (terrible) TRO only applies to the parties in the case.

This is a time that is simply ignored. What is she going to do, hold congress in contempt?

It's just a play to buy time to keep the money coming. It should be ignored as it is appealed and the SC will now have to do something about it.

It is clear that congress has the power to cut off tax payer funding to any entity it so desires to do so. It is the key power of congress, funding!

doubledog said:

---

Burrus86 said:

---

Desperate times call for desperate measures in the Democrat world!

---

Grasping for straws... It is time for SCOTUS to start censuring judges.

---

They're backing Roberts into a corner (entirely predictably) where he's going to eventually have to confront the issue that district courts can't be entrusted with national reach. He's like a cat being held above a bathtub. He appears to hate the idea of curtailing the power his profession, one which he treats like some kind of elite nobility (despite all the evidence to the contrary).

But if Roberts doesn't intend to step down this year, he's going to become overwhelmed by the activism backing up into his living room. The longer he avoids this major plumbing issue, the worse it'll stink & no amount of mopping will ever be enough.

I guess usurping the power of POTUS wasn't enough. Now they have usurped the authority of the Congress as well.

exercising authority is not the same as usurping power. to usurp power one would have to overthrow one branch of government and replace it with another. just my 2 cts.

Quote:

---

This is a time that is simply ignored. What is she going to do, hold congress in contempt?

---

The ruling bars the executive from withholding those funds, not congress. Will still get overruled and reversed, as it should, but point of clarification here.

D. Turner said:

---

exercising authority is not the same as usurping power. to usurp power one would have to overthrow one branch of government and replace it with another. just my 2 cts.

---

Usurping is what this judge is doing. Congress passed this legislation.

The judge has no role whatsoever. This is attempting to stop the President and Congress, not providing a constitutional check.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

This is a time that is simply ignored. What is she going to do, hold congress in contempt?

---

The ruling bars the executive from withholding those funds, not congress. Will still get overruled and reversed, as it should, but point of clarification here.

---

OK, let the exec branch ignore it and she can hold the prez in contempt.

This nonsense has got to stop.

No one in the administration is going to ignore a ruling they know they will easily win on appeal.

So in the mean time are they going to continue to send funds to PP? I surely hope not!

OPAG said:

---

So in the mean time are they going to continue to send funds to PP? I surely hope not!

---

My guess is it won't happen. Under new appropriations it will take time for PP to apply for those grants, clear them, and then fund. That will take longer than the appeal in this case.

Im Gipper said:

---

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!

---

It effectively is though, since she is applying this "ruling" to a law passed by congress that is applicable to all states and territories.

D. Turner said:

---

exercising authority is not the same as usurping power. to usurp power one would have to overthrow one branch of government and replace it with another. just my 2 cts.

---

Exactly what authority does this judge have when it comes to congress deciding to fund or defund planned parenthood? Or any other entity for that matter? If legislation was passed to fund or defund - that seems pretty straightforward. I get taking that position if it is attempted without passing legislation...

Wait, so if Congress can't defund PP, and Trump can't do it via EO (likely also would get an injunction from a judge), then what remedy or entity is left to defund PP and why are they so untouchable? Why is this up to the judiciary to decide what entities receive gov't funding?

Whether it effectively is or not does not change why the Casa case does not apply.

This TRO is a steaming pile for a number of reasons, but it does not violate the recent Casa decision because it only applies to the parties in this lawsuit.

4stringAg said:

---

Wait, so if Congress can't defund PP, and Trump can't do it via EO (likely also would get an injunction from a judge), then what remedy or entity is left to defund PP

---

Judges are the new monarchy.

Quote:

---

Judicial Review:
Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, is a cornerstone document for understanding the concept of judicial review, which is the power of the courts to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality.

---

Quote:

---

Independent Judiciary:
Federalist No. 78 also emphasizes the importance of an independent judiciary, free from political influence, to protect individual rights and uphold the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Increased Citation:
There has been a noticeable increase in the frequency with which Supreme Court justices cite the Federalist Papers in their opinions over the past few decades.

---

dmart90 said:

---

D. Turner said:

---

exercising authority is not the same as usurping power. to usurp power one would have to overthrow one branch of government and replace it with another. just my 2 cts.

---

Exactly what authority does this judge have when it comes to congress deciding to fund or defund planned parenthood? Or any other entity for that matter? If legislation was passed to fund or defund - that seems pretty straightforward. I get taking that position if it is attempted without passing legislation...

---

Zero

He should be ignored, and impeached.

4stringAg said:

---

Wait, so if Congress can't defund PP, and Trump can't do it via EO (likely also would get an injunction from a judge), then what remedy or entity is left to defund PP and why are they so untouchable? Why is this up to the judiciary to decide what entities receive gov't funding?

---

Apparently, just the judicial branch

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

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.

---

You are correct. Problem is corrupt idiots like AOC, Pelosi, Schumer, Ilhan Omar. Hakeem Jeffries, etc. exist and don't believe in the Constitution.
No chance impeachment would work.

richardag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

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.

---

You are correct. Problem is corrupt idiots like AOC, Pelosi, Schumer, Ilhan Omar. Hakeem Jeffries, etc. exist and don't believe in the Constitution.
No chance impeachment would work.

---

Is it just not easier to say Democrats?

This is not judicial review. This is judicial obstruction of the law. This is political activism.

No legal reasoning?

She needs to be punished. Edit: i read the whole order. Man that is lazy. They have law clerks. She probably didn't want to state reasoning because she doesn't have any.

Edit 2:

Here is the Plaintiff's Brief

https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Planned-Parenthood_2025.07.07._PLAINTIFFS-EMERGENCY-MOTION-FOR-A-TEMPORARY-RESTRAINING-ORDER-AND-PRELIMINARY-INUNCTION.pdf

It's just a clump of dollars https://t.co/hkZlGOC1IR

— Bearistotle (@Bappsmcbear) July 4, 2025

After reading the brief, they may have an argument there. It will be hard for the gov't to argue this wasn't a bill of attainder and/or that it doesn't violate equal protection. Not sure I see the First Amendment argument though.

By law, you already can't use federal funds for abortion. They targeted clinics getting over $800k in medicaid funds which they claim is almost exclusively PP. Couple that with the statements made by Congressfolk when trying to pass the bill about targeting PP (dumb comments btw).

But all PP has to do is split their abortion services off from the other services (cancer screenings, STIs, etc...) My guess is they don't want to do that because backdoor fund abortions with the other services.

I know y'all don't agree but that is way I see it.

Have to say it...love you folks, but when it comes to legal posts/threads, I pretty much take everyone's posts with a grain of salt...except Mrs. aggiehawg.

GeorgiAg said:

---

After reading the brief, they may have an argument there. It will be hard for the gov't to argue this wasn't a bill of attainder and/or that it doesn't violate equal protection. Not sure I see the First Amendment argument though.

By law, you already can't use federal funds for abortion. They targeted clinics getting over $800k in medicaid funds which they claim is almost exclusively PP. Couple that with the statements made by Congressfolk when trying to pass the bill about targeting PP (dumb comments btw).

But all PP has to do is split their abortion services off from the other services (cancer screenings, STIs, etc...) My guess is they don't want to do that because backdoor fund abortions with the other services.

I know y'all don't agree but that is way I see it.

---

except for the whole congress makes the laws etc, etc, and controls funding. Judge has not standing here.

Congress can make laws, but the laws can't violate the constitution, specifically Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. I don't think it qualifies as a bill of attainder but that will be the argument I'm guessing.

Teslag said:

---

Congress can make laws, but the laws can't violate the constitution, specifically Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. I don't think it qualifies as a bill of attainder but that will be the argument I'm guessing.

---

yes I know im pretty sure GOP lawmakers know this and didn't craft a bill violating the constitution. hth

Cougar11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Congress can make laws, but the laws can't violate the constitution, specifically Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. I don't think it qualifies as a bill of attainder but that will be the argument I'm guessing.

---

yes I know im pretty sure GOP lawmakers know this and didn't craft a bill violating the constitution. hth

---

Why? Congress does it all the time. It happens, that's why we have judicial review. I still think this is kosher though and this decision will be overruled.