Judge today sternly blocks funding freeze, contradicts press secretary Leavitt

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What you have is another liberal lower court judge (appointed by Barack Obama) trying to stop the Trump agenda to get Federal spending under control. This will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Every time this happens, you on the left start doing an end zone victory dance.

Even Thomas will rule against Trump on this one.

 

[Moonglow]

playing with Congressional funds is what got Donny-boi his first impeachment.

 

[Moonglow]

In Rhode Island like I stated

They have to put the building somewhere in the district.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Constitution does not give a federal judge at the state level authority to stop the president of the United States of America.

There are no "federal judge at the state level authority".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Constitution does not give a federal judge at the state level authority to stop the president of the United States of America.

Yeah, it does. especially if he finds that it is unconstitutional. It's an interesting document. You should take a class.

 

[AZrailwhale]

‘A federal judge in Rhode Island has formally blocked the Trump administration's spending freeze, saying in an order this afternoon that the funding freeze is likely a violation of the Constitution.
[…]
"The Court finds that the record now before it substantiates the likelihood of a successful claim that the Executive's actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States," he added in the 13-page decision in the lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general.
[…]
Even after the OMB rescinded the memo on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X, claiming, "This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.
[…]
"Based on the Press Secretary’s unequivocal statement and the continued actions of Executive agencies, the Court finds that the policies in the OMB Directive that the States challenge here are still in full force and effect and thus the issues presented in the States’ TRO motion are not moot," he said.

The judge warned that there was "more than monetary harm" at stake with the case.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy reminds us, 'Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers,'" he wrote.’

Trump administration funding freeze blocked by federal judge

A federal judge in Rhode Island has formally blocked the Trump administration's spending freeze, saying in it is likely a violation of the Constitution.

abcnews.go.com

Very good.

At least we have a semi-functional judiciary that will check Trump’s corruption and lawlessness.

You mean the democrats went judge shopping to the smallest state in the union to find a judge stupid enough to block a executive order.

 

[elektra]

Yeah, it does. especially if he finds that it is unconstitutional. It's an interesting document. You should take a class.

You should prove yourself before flapping your trap. The constitution does not give federal judges at the state level this power

 

[TemplarKormac]

‘A federal judge in Rhode Island has formally blocked the Trump administration's spending freeze, saying in an order this afternoon that the funding freeze is likely a violation of the Constitution.
[…]
"The Court finds that the record now before it substantiates the likelihood of a successful claim that the Executive's actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States," he added in the 13-page decision in the lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general.
[…]
Even after the OMB rescinded the memo on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X, claiming, "This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.
[…]
"Based on the Press Secretary’s unequivocal statement and the continued actions of Executive agencies, the Court finds that the policies in the OMB Directive that the States challenge here are still in full force and effect and thus the issues presented in the States’ TRO motion are not moot," he said.

The judge warned that there was "more than monetary harm" at stake with the case.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy reminds us, 'Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers,'" he wrote.’

Trump administration funding freeze blocked by federal judge

A federal judge in Rhode Island has formally blocked the Trump administration's spending freeze, saying in it is likely a violation of the Constitution.

abcnews.go.com

Very good.

At least we have a semi-functional judiciary that will check Trump’s corruption and lawlessness.

They don't have to comply. The Biden Administration sure didn't obey court orders.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You should prove yourself before flapping your trap. The constitution does not give federal judges at the state level this power

There is no such thing as a federal judge at a state level. You are an idiot if you think there are. Ther are multiple district courts in each state based on population.

I taught this as a high school teacher.

 

[Thunk]

Leftists are worried their livelihood is about to be cut off

Damn straight!

I have a solution to this dilemma...

The judge can agree to be held financially responsible for every penny of corruption that is later found with these payments.

If the judge agrees to that...in writing...the payments will be made!

 

[elektra]

There is no such thing as a federal judge at a state level. You are an idiot if you think there are. Ther are multiple district courts in each state based on population.

I taught this as a high school teacher.

You taught semantics, nice

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Leavitt needs to take a Constitution course.

That won't help with what ails her.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I dont see how the freeze violates the Constitution

"The judge emphasized that the executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally withhold funds that Congress has appropriated, as this would infringe upon the separation of powers.
abcnews.go.com
"

 

[Mac-7]

"The judge emphasized that the executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally withhold funds that Congress has appropriated, as this would infringe upon the separation of powers.
abcnews.go.com
"

That works both ways

The executive branch spends money congress appropriates

If congress can force spending that infringes on the executive branch

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Trump should ignore the judge like Biden did SCOTUS on student loan forgiveness

I would love to see him do that

 

[g5000]

I dont see how the freeze violates the Constitution

Separation of powers.

The money has already been allocated by Congress.

You know how when Trump runs up a deficit, you blame Congress because they have the power of the purse, and yet blame Obama for every penny of the debt run up on his watch?

Yeah.

Don't you remember Trump was impeached for holding hostage already allocated money to Ukraine?

Trump obviously has not learned his lesson.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You mean the democrats went judge shopping to the smallest state in the union to find a judge stupid enough to block a executive order.

Why do you all think an executive order is some magical remedy?

 

[g5000]

That works both ways

The executive branch spends money congress appropriates

If congress can force spending that infringes on the executive branch

You've heard of the veto power, right?

Did Trump ever veto any deficit spending?

Nope.

In fact, he submitted the largest budget in US history up to that point.

No one can force the president to spend unless they have a two-thirds majority.

 

[g5000]

Why do you all think an executive order is some magical remedy?

IT'S OKAY IF TRUMP DOES IT!

Get the T-shirt.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

That works both ways

The executive branch spends money congress appropriates

If congress can force spending that infringes on the executive branch

What are they allegedly forcing spending on?