Judicial coup expands.
I missed the part of the Constitution that allows federal judges to override the president and now apparently congressional legislation because of their ‘feelings’.
Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, previously declared that all the illegal aliens could remain here because “it is not in the public interest to manufacture a circumstance in which hundreds of thousands of individuals will, over the course of several months, become unlawfully present in the country.”
Talwani has now topped herself.
A federal judge on Monday granted Planned Parenthood’s request to temporarily halt Medicaid funding cuts to the group’s health centers under a provision of Republicans’ new tax and spending package.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s ruling marks the first known instance of a federal judge limiting enforcement of any part of the “big, beautiful” bill, which President Trump signed into law Friday.
It came just hours after Planned Parenthood sued over a provision that imposes a one-year ban on state Medicaid payments to health care nonprofits that also offer abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023.
The judge issued the decision before the government responded, providing no explanation beyond a brief note that Planned Parenthood had shown “good cause” for her to immediately intervene.
--->READ MORE HERE
 |
| Nathan Howard/Reuters |
The resistance of district judges to the Trump administration has sometimes been justified, sometimes excessive, and sometimes downright lawless and dangerous. Tonight’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Kennedy (the very caption of which reeks with irony in a Massachusetts courtroom) is the latter. Judge Indira Talwani, a 2013 Barack Obama appointee, ordered that the executive branch must defy a federal law — the “One Big Beautiful Bill” enacted by Congress on Thursday and signed on Friday — and “shall take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and timeframes to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its members; Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts; and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah.”
You got that right: A single federal judge is ordering that public monies be spent after the Congress of the United States specifically passed a law declining to spend them. You can’t argue with the judge’s reasoning, because there isn’t any; the case was only filed today, and the order is not accompanied by an opinion. It’s just a raw exercise of power.
The complaint alleges that the OBBB is a bill of attainder punishing Planned Parenthood, which is ridiculous; Congress has without legal controversy in the past decided whom and what to fund and defund. In the 1880s, it was common to debate bills (sometimes enacted, sometimes not, often vetoed by Grover Cleveland) to fund pensions for particular Union veterans. If Congress decides that a particular government contractor shall be used or not used, that is within its plenary and nearly absolute powers. The complaint also asserts that defunding is a violation of the equal protection clause and retaliation under the First Amendment. But the bar for attacking the motives of Congress is impossibly high. At bottom, this lawsuit is grounded in the notion that Planned Parenthood and the cause of abortion are immune from the usual forces of law, and of democracy (the Planned Parenthood brief cites a dozen cases with its own name in the caption but doesn’t even cite the leading Supreme Court case on legislative retaliation), but the Supreme Court just rejected that in a case involving states defunding the nation’s largest abortion provider from Medicaid. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment