The Rule of Law vs Lawfare
The Cambridge Dictionary defines lawfare as: "the use of legal action to cause problems for an opponent."
LAWFARE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
I would add to that the legal action need not be based on the law. After using extreme lawfare against a Presidential candidate, with the expressed desire to "get him," it seems that one of the foremost practitioners of lawfare finds herself in trouble with the rule of law. The rule of law is a recent phrase we hear from many people who not long ago endorsed lawfare during the 2024 Presidential election. New York Attorney General Letitia James is accused of falsifying records to get home loans for a property in Virginia that she claimed was her “principal residence” in 2023, while still serving as a New York state prosecutor, according to Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte's criminal referral sent to the Justice Department.
After crying that the charge amounted to "retaliation" and "revenge" by the Trump administration, Letitia James indirectly hired one of the best defense lawyers money can buy: Abbe Lowell, who recently defended the pardoned Hunter Biden. It appears that she is not paying him with her own money. Lowell was reportedly retained by the New York AG’s office and not personally by James. I guess her defense costs will be on the taxpayers of New York. Abbe Lowell reportedly “charges a rate of $855 per hour.
The Attorney General will review the criminal complaint. Will the DOJ act? James is well lawyered up and that may indicate more than we know yet. This represents one of those cases in which those who once blatantly used lawfare now will face the rule of law. This should be very educational for our readers.
In other news:
A major wildfire in New Jersey which destroyed 15 thousand acres of forest was deliberately started by a teenager who is now charged with aggravated arson.
President Trump issued a rebuke of Vladimir Putin after a deadly Russian attack on Ukraine’s capital.
Another district judge limited the Trump administration’s ability to withhold federal funds from public schools who refuse to sign onto federal policy.
Trump plans to direct the Justice Department to investigate ActBlue , the fund-raising platform that helps to elect democrat candidates.
Israel developed new AI tools in its war with Gaza. The technologies have helped target Hamas leaders.
India said it would suspend its participation in a water-sharing agreement with Pakistan, a punitive measure that could devastate Pakistan's agriculture and economy.
The man who opened fire on an Illinois Fourth of July parade in 2022 was given seven life sentences.
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
Good morning and welcome to the news.
All eyes are on our Attorney General
She has a lot on her plate. She may need more prosecutors.
lawfare?
Take care of your own damn house for a change.
Democrats are always guilty of what they blame Republicans for.
Remember when Democrats were screaming that Trump was going to issue preemptive pardons for himself and his family in 2020? Never happened; but Brandon sure as hell did it for his family, the Jan 6th committee, Fauci, and others just before he left office in 2024.
Also please tell bobble head boy Schiff that the power of the Presidential pardon is written directly into the Constitution; and there is no damn way Congress (aka Democrats) can restrict it w/o a Constitutional referendum. Funny how Schiff had no problem allow Brandon to do it; but wants to make damn well sure Trump can't.
I fully expect Trump to break Brandon's record of pardons and commuted sentences before he leaves office. He might even try for Brandon's record for one year as well as overall total.
Also didn't hear Democrats/leftists bitching when Brandon pardon these wonderful criminal Democrats.
But Trump. The battle cry of those ignoring Democrats doing far worse.
The Democrats and the left fail to realize that they are the ones that se this precedent.
Really, the fact that Hunter needed pardoned doesn't say much for Lowell's success.
No surprise there.
The question is whether AG Bondi will be following a lawfare precedent or simply applying the rule of law.
Really, the fact that Hunter needed pardoned doesn't say much for Lowell's success.
Clearly Lowell's easiest case. One could argue that he never got to earn his money.
No surprise there.
Agreed.
Bill Clinton appointed District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has issued a national injunction to block President Trump's order to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Obama appointed Judge Landya McCafferty issued a national injunction to block President Trump's order to end DEI in K-12 schools.
The SCOTUS will begin hearing oral arguments on May 15 as to whether district judges have the authority to issue national injunctions.
(Reuters) - Federal judges in Maryland, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C., on Thursday blocked Republican President Donald Trump's administration from following through on threats to cut off funding to public schools that engage in diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
The trio of rulings - two by judges whom Trump appointed during his first term in office - came in lawsuits by teachers unions and civil rights groups that sued to prevent the U.S. Department of Education from cutting funding to K-12 schools and universities that did not cease what it called "discriminatory" DEI initiatives.
US Judges Block Trump's Ability to Withhold School Funds Over DEI
======================================================================================
Federal judges rule on federal laws .
No John, those laws are left for the highest court.
As I pointed out the SCOTUS is going to finally address this issue and btw the majority of the high court has been telling district judges for years to knock it off with the nationwide injunctions.
"The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the Trump administration’s challenge to judges issuing nationwide injunctions, setting a date for a case that could have a major impact on the president’s ability to carry out his agenda as well as on the entire country.
This comes after three federal judges issued separate nationwide injunctions blocking an executive order by President Donald Trump ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
The court will hear oral arguments for the case at 10 a.m. on May 15, which is about two weeks after the court normally stops hearing oral arguments ahead of its recess, which begins in July."
Supreme Court poised to make major decision that could set limits on the power of district judges
[ deleted ]
[ ✘ ] FACT SHEET: Exposing GOP Injunction Hypocrisy: Five Times Republicans Praised Nationwide Injunctions — Congressional Integrity Project
Donald Trump’s MAGA minions only want to limit national injunctions now that judges across the country are putting a stop to the lawlessness of his executive branch. Under Presidents Biden and Obama, Republicans praised right-wing judges who issued nationwide injunctions halting parts of the former presidents’ agendas.
Here are just five examples of Republican injunction hypocrisy over the past decade:
1. FDA Approval of Mifepristone. In April 2023, a GOP-appointed Texas district judge issued a nationwide injunction pausing FDA approval of the prescription medication mifepristone, a safe, effective way to induce abortion. Senator Josh Hawley, who introduced NORRA in the Senate in the first place, had a deep connection to the case – his spouse was the lead attorney behind the 2023 lawsuit, and Hawley himself voted to confirm the district judge to his court seat.
2. The Biden Administration’s Student Debt Relief Plan. In November 2022, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide injunction halting the Biden administration’s student loan debt relief program from taking effect, with two Bush appointees and a Trump appointee ordering that “The injunction will remain in effect until further order of this court or the Supreme Court of the United States.” The request for a nationwide injunction was spearheaded by six Republican-led states with Republican attorneys general. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt called the injunction a “big win for our office and Americans across the country.”
3. Biden Administration EPA Rules on the Social Cost of Carbon. In February 2022, a Louisiana federal judge issued a nationwide injunction barring the Biden administration from enforcing a rule requiring all federal agencies to account for the real-world costs of climate change, the social cost of carbon, before making executive actions. Republicans praised the injunction, including sitting Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), who released a statement saying, “Even in the face of a global energy crisis, historic inflation, and skyrocketing gasoline prices, the Biden administration continues to crush U.S. energy production.”
4. The Obama Administration’s Civil Rights Protections For Transgender Students Using School Bathrooms. In August 2016, a Texas district judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking an executive directive from the Obama administration requiring schools to allow transgender students to use restroom and locker facilities that align with their gender identity. Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, alongside 12 other Republican Attorneys General representing Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Maine, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah, Georgia, Mississippi and Kentucky, led the case, and celebrated the nationwide injunction: “We are pleased that the court ruled against the Obama administration’s latest illegal federal overreach.”
5. The Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program. In February 2015, a Texas district judge issued a nationwide injunction against the Obama administration’s DACA and DAPA programs, blocking the federal government from granting immigrants brought to the U.S. as children legal status, protection, and work permits. Republicans in Congress celebrated the ruling at the time, including the then-chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration.
Republicans can praise it when it goes their way. That is partisan politics. That certainly doesn't mean it is lawful.
Will you accept the decision of the SCOTUS?
For THEIR DISTRICTS.
Your "argument" is that federal district court judges cannot rule on national issues. The fact is that it has happened often, in many cases at the behest of Republican and conservative groups.
It has because congress created the district court system and never specifically added language defining limits.
The SCOTUS has been warning them!
Thus, I am asking you: WILL YOU ACCEPT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES?
Vic, your objection is based on the fact that the rulings are going against Trump, when they were going against Biden a few years ago you were fine with it.
You are out of gas.
No John, I could have easily pointed to the vast majority which have gone against Trump. Instead, I confirmed your claim that they happen from time to time. The point is that it has finally been taken up by the SCOTUS.
You are out of gas.
Then why are you the one afraid to answer the question.
And your acceptance of it is because Democrats/leftists have judge shopped and abused it to the point of it literally breaking the judicial system and rendering the rule of law null and void.
Activist judges should not be able to exceed their power.
It isn't right when conservative judges do it; and it damn well isn't right with the ridiculous filings Democrats/leftists are doing now.
Time for activist judges at the district levels on both sides to be put back into their proper places.
Yet again, maximalist partisanship from Democrats have stressed our Constitution as every progressive judge fancies themselves a king and issues nationwide injunctions at the drop of a hat. Our entire system is based on people acting in good faith and not simply abusing their power to the greatest extent possible to achieve partisan ends.
It ruins communities of all types when people abuse their power, no matter how small, because of their partisan preferences. When that cancerous mindset sets in among people with significant, nationwide authority it destabilizes the country.
We ended up with radicals as judges because Harry Reid changed the rules so that democrats could pull them across the finish line.
I am just glad that the SCOTUS is finally taking it up.
“…when that cancerous mindset sets in among people with significant, nationwide authority, it destabilizes the country.”
Alito and Thomas come to mind…
Because anything you don't agree with is just radical?
I can't improve on the dictionary. Judges make rulings based on the law. Radicals make rulings based on political aims or the desire for a certain result. Did you note what the Supreme Court said about judge Boasberg? He took a case brought to him by the ACLU which was outside of his jurisdiction. The COURT ruled that he had no right to do so. Believe it or not the ACLU ran to him again. The second time Boesberg wisely refused to take it.
Supreme Court slapdown of Judge Boasberg sends message to federal judges on overreach | Just The News
From the link:
So not only did the clown judge's TRO get overturned it was pointed out that he had no jurisdiction in the matter.
Because he was wrong on the decision and he had no right to make it.
Perhaps you should re-read your link... While the Boasbergs halt to deportations was overturned the 5 to 4 ruling majority agreed the plaintiffs have the right to due process including appeals.
So give them the same due process and appeals Obama and Biden gave.
That goes without saying. However, this is now a national emergency.
Just because they have a different opinion does not mean they're not acting in good faith.
Why is this a national emergency, and what difference would that make?
I guess when the left wing populists use some obscure law to create a made up emergency you'll support that?
Don't you live in Texas.
It has been a national emergency for the past 4 years when Biden broke the law and let 12 million in.
They've done plenty of that.
I do.
It's an issue, not an emergency. It certainly doesn't warrant cutting corners with the Constitution. Let's leave melodrama to the blue-haired protesters.
If you've lived in Texas for any time, you're not scared of illegals. Or guns. Or jalapenos. Or tequila.
We should be enforcing the law, yes. But we need to make sure we're not enforcing one law by breaking another.
How do we get due process to 12 million illegals?
I keep asking the same question, how long would it take?
If we work at it, it may take 40 years. Don't you think democrats will win presidential elections in that time period?
Won't they stop the whole process?
Maybe one of them will open the border again. How many on this site will then complain about "the rule of law" when that happens?
Deputize some judges.
Better yet, we can stop being xenophobic morons and change the immigration laws. That's the cool thing about living in a free country. We get to make the rules.
It doesn't matter. We don't violate people's rights because it's inconvenient to protect them. WTF? Have you dyed your hair blue or something?
And? We shouldn't let them violated people's rights, ether. This country survives by the rule of law or it doesn't survive.
Possibly. Or maybe Republicans will pull their heads out of their asses and change the immigration laws.
If you're willing to break or ignore the law to get what you want and you're going to try to justify it under some bullshit pretense of "protecting America" from other Americans who happen to have different views than you... just put on a pink vagina hat and go set fire to a Tesla.
How many did Raygun let in?
You just described those who entered as well as those who let them in.
Emergency measure: DEPORT
Well....if it's an emergency...why not just round them up and hang them? How about a firing squad?
No? So maybe there is such a thing as overreacting to a situation. Maybe it's not in our best interests to cure the headache with an entire bottle of aspirin. So maybe some due process might be in order?
Or maybe.... just maybe.... we could lock our complete morons from both extremes back into their respective closets where they belong and make some intelligent decisions.
We could start by considering whether or not it's a good idea to spend billions of dollars enforcing antiquated laws whose primary effect is to prevent us from collecting hundreds of billions in tax revenue. I suggest anybody who thinks that's a good plan is some combination of unpatriotic and really stupid. But our extremist morons can only think one dimensionally, so can't even process that we have alternative options besides the direct opposite of whatever their enemies do.
The law is the law and remains so until Congress decides otherwise and I think it's been made pretty clear by what happened to states like illinois, New York, Colorado etc. that illegal aliens cost much more to governments than any tax revenue they generate, not to mention the non governmental balance sheets cost to citizens in increased housing costs, increased scarcity of medical resources, increased crime etc..
Yes. But if we're talking about "emergency measures", one of the measures available to a democracy is change the law. It's a solution, BTW that requires a fraction of the time and expense needed to enforce the existing statute.
The whole point is that they wouldn't be illegal. They also probably wouldn't settle in places like NY or Illinois. Those places can't keep the people they have, much less attract new ones. So rather than looking at the history of illegal aliens in poorly run places, why don't we look at the history of legal aliens in places like Texas?
I'm a math major. I'm all about the numbers. BTW, the data suggests that illegals easily pull their own weight economically (in Texas).
There is an established economic phenomenon called "immigration surplus", where immigration is shown not only to be an economic boost for the immigrants themselves, but adds 20-40bps of GDP growth to native populations. The Texas economy would be the 8th largest in the world on it's own. That's larger than Italy, Brazil, Russia, or Mexico, and it's not because we have more oil.
When you do the actual math on this, you realize that a lot of it just isn't actually true. Immigrants (legal or otherwise) commit FAR less crime than people born here. Part of our housing issues are directly related to the fact we need an additional 500k construction workers to fill existing jobs. We have people eagerly seeking those jobs, looking to grow our economy, improving our own bank accounts as well as theirs.... and we're spending tens of billions of dollars to keep them away.
Sure. I favor a massive rewrite of immigration and asylum laws, but until those laws are changed, they remain the law.
The whole point is that they wouldn't be illegal.
I'm not sure the illegal/legal change makes any difference, they supposedly already are paying taxes, and if they were suddenly legalized, they'd be eligible for even more benefits.
why don't we look at the history of legal aliens in places like Texas?
More people generate more economic activity, that' a given. But they also generate costs, particularly once they can start receiving benefits. One of the cardinal rules of economics is you can't have free immigration and a welfare state. The welfare state becomes unsustainable and as we see migrants will flock to those states that hand out free stuff if given the opportunity.
. Immigrants (legal or otherwise) commit FAR less crime than people born here
While that depends on the study you are looking at it, the comparative number is irrelevant to my point. Illegal immigrants absolutely commit crimes and add to the crime level in the areas they reside.
We have people eagerly seeking those jobs, looking to grow our economy, improving our own bank accounts as well as theirs.... and we're spending tens of billions of dollars to keep them away.
The lack of illegal aliens is far down the list of our housing issues. and if we add more, we have to build more houses just to house them and maintain the status quo. Illegal aliens are not monoliths and if they were all perfect people with great work ethics who make massive contributions to society, the societies they are leaving would probably not be in such bad shape, nor would they be so happy to see them leave.
Which is exactly how our system is supposed to work.
Pakistan. The country that harbored bin Laden and terrorists allowing them to launch attacks from their land.
I wonder how long it will take Democrats to stand up for Pakistan and pathetically try to make it Trump's fault.
The question of the limits of district judges is still open, at least until May 15.
I'll leave others to think about it for now.
Back in a few ...