The Trump administration is experiencing an unprecedented move by federal judges who are overstepping their constitutional limits and ordering Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against President Trump. The judicial activism is in support of ongoing Lawfare operations within the deepest ranks of the administrative state.
Remember, Lawfare in its purest form is not designed to win the final legal battle. Instead, it is a construct to use the law to create obstacles that will eventually fall under higher judicial review; but the larger intent is to impede the presidency, stall the inevitable, and maintain morale for the political activists and their media support systems. Lawfare is a political construct intended to manipulate public opinion.
In the Dellinger v Bessent case, where President Trump has fired Hampton Dellinger at Treasury, a three-judge District of Columbia, Circuit Court, have intervened and maintained a TRO against President Trump blocking him from removing Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, at the Treasury Dept. [CASE pdf HERE]
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C. issued a temporary restraining order on February 12, restoring Dellinger to his position pending a further, preliminary order. The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the administration’s appeal in a 2-1 decision on Saturday, saying it was premature, given that Jackson’s order was only temporary.
Judge Florence Pan and Judge J Michelle Childs, both activist robed women, ruled to maintain the TRO and deny injunctive appellate relief. Judge Gregory Katsas dissented from the Lawfare decision saying while TRO’s are not usually appealable, in this instance the TRO violates the Article II constitutional power of the President to conduct his official duties. [Dissent Outlined Below] Katsas would have granted the government’s stay. […]
— Read More: theconservativetreehouse.com
