✖

🎙️ Success Podcast

🎥 Motiversity Motivation

Mad Mad News

Live Above The Madness

THE NEWS

War erupts over local judges nullifying Trump decisions

Filed Under: THE NEWS, WND

A war is developing over local judges across the country, who are assigned to handle cases in their own districts, suddenly deciding they are able to make decisions reserved for the executive branch, in fact, President Donald Trump.

They do this through taking a local case, one often that has been presented to them by plaintiffs who know the judge’s political agenda and like it, and issuing injunctions that cover the entire nation, not just their district.

Now there’s a warning the Democrats may not like the results of the fight they are pursuing. It’s through a series of appeals by the administration of President Donald Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court, where there’s now a majority that is considered on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

One of those, Justice Samuel Alito, noted in an earlier case that it was frustrating for those local judges to be able to control the federal government and its actions.

“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” he challenged when the court allowed that order to stand.

Trump had suspended those payments through USAID because of the massive questions about the political and ideological agenda being pushed by the agency with tax dollars, programs that, in fact, often worked against the priorities of the United States.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt offered a very simple solution available to those judges.

Her comments came after a Clinton-aligned judge ordered the Trump administration to re-hire thousands of federal employees who had been dismissed under Trump’s cost- and fraud-cutting programs.

“A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch,” she said. “The president has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch – singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the president’s agenda.”

She turned to mockery: “If a federal district court judge would like executive powers, they can try and run for president themselves.”

The Washington Examiner reported the judges ruling against Trump’s agenda so far have been in “strategically chosen courts.”

And Trump has gone to the Supreme Court, challenging lower courts’ decisions on his birthright citizenship issue and other issues.

“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris explained, among the more than 100 lawsuits against Trump’s agenda already.

One of the latest flareups happened when a judge in California, William Alsup, picked by Bill Clinton, “issued a sweeping order requiring six federal agencies to reinstate immediately thousands of probationary employees fired by the administration last month.”

The report noted five years ago, Justice Neil Gorsuch warned nationwide injunctions create an “asymmetric” legal battlefield in which any policy can be halted by one judge, even if others would uphold it.

In fact, judges, such as Adam B. Abelson, have gone so far as to expand their authority to rule on all of Trump’s cleanup plans for the corrupt DEI practices across all agencies.

One case already before the court offers the chance for the Supreme Court to undermine the political activism by district judges.

The report explained, “The case centers on a Texas judge, Amos Mazzant, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who ruled that a federal law requiring businesses to disclose ownership information was unconstitutional. But Mazzant went further — he issued a nationwide injunction preventing the government from enforcing the law at all.”

The end result, ultimately, could be for “trial judges to issue more targeted orders that apply solely to the plaintiffs involved,” the report said.

“When a single judge can grant a nationwide preliminary injunction, it makes it easier for parties to identify the very few outlier judges who do rule more predictably,” an expert explained.

Gabbard Nixes Choice Of Israel Critic For Key Post After Pro-Israel Voices Object

Filed Under: THE NEWS, Zerohedge

Gabbard Nixes Choice Of Israel Critic For Key Post After Pro-Israel Voices Object

For anyone desperate to see the Trump administration’s hawkish and intensely pro-Israel element offset by bona fide America First voices in key intelligence positions, the selection of retired US Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis to oversee the production of the President’s Daily Brief seemed almost too good to be true. Alas, that has proven to be the case, as an eruption of objections and smears from Israel-supporters killed his job offer in a matter of hours. 

Retired US Army LTC Daniel Davis was poised to take a powerful intel post, but his criticism of US-Israel policy cost him the role (via The American Conservative)

Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, one of few Washington think tanks that are skeptical of foreign interventionism and militarism. He first rose to national attention in 2011 when, as an Army officer, he blew the whistle on the jarring difference between the real-life situation in Afghanistan and the fraudulently false characterizations being voiced by top military officials. 

Fast-foward to March 2025: Trump Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was poised to appoint Davis to serve as the Deputy Director for Mission Integration. One of his chief responsibilities would have been compiling the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), a highly-classified digest of intelligence assessments that’s written for the president and distributed to a small group of senior-most officials, such as the vice president, national security advisor, and the secretaries of Defense and State. The role does not require Senate confirmation.

In addition to being a skeptic of the US proxy war in Ukraine and calling for the withdrawal of American forces from Syria, Davis has pointedly criticized US backing of the Israeli war in Gaza, and has argued that America’s confrontationalist approach to Iran only serves to incentivize the country to begin developing a nuclear weapon. Those latter sentiments are anathema to Israel and its backers inside the United States. 

On Wednesday, the knives came out, with Jewish Insider sounding an alarm about the imminent ascension of the “anti-Israel” Davis to the critical post. From the Jewish Insider article, here a partial list of Davis’s purported sins that made him intolerable to those who seek to perpetuate America’s status quo, Israel-catering policies: 

  • He’s criticized America’s backing of Israel’s war on Gaza. In a commentary on the ghastly civilian toll, Davis tweeted, “On a practical level, we give away enormous leverage and credibility globally to hold *anyone* accountable for acts of wanton violence, bc we not merely turn a blind eye to it, we cheer it on and supply the means to do more. On a moral level, this is a stain on our character as a nation, as a culture, that will not soon go away.” 
  • He’s quite reasonably asserted that Israel-Gaza hostilities didn’t commence with the Oct. 7 Hamas invasion of southern Israel. “This goes back *decades* of repression and the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip being effectively incarcerated, with limited or no freedoms, and no path to a future and a hope,” Davis said on X.
  • On free speech grounds, Davis criticized Sen. Ted Cruz for supporting policies that would cut off federal funds to universities that allow pointed criticism of Israel. “I’m sorry, Senator, but that is as unAmerican as anything has ever been done. You violate the very spirit of our constitution you claim to defend.”
  • He shared an article about the medical journal Lancet estimating that the death toll in Gaza was well above the count of casualties that had thus far been reported by Gaza’s health ministry. 
  • In the context of mixed signals about the pursuit of a ceasefire in Lebanon, Davis said Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “playing the US like a cheap fiddle…we are being used and it’s embarrassing.” 
  • He’s stated that Iran is merely a “marginal regional power,” and stridently opposes a US attack on the country’s nuclear facilities. “I don’t know who Trump has hired for his advisor, who’s giving him such absurd advice, but hitting the nuclear facilities of Iran is far more dangerous and difficult than what he believes,” wrote Davis. 
  • On his YouTube show, “Daniel Davis Deep Dive,” he hosted a guest who has rightly questioned Western claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its civilian population, and has hosted UK MP George Galloway and retired Col Douglas MacGregor who’ve been “accused of antisemitism” — a smear that’s routinely wielded against people who merely criticize the actions of the State of Israel and the nature of the US-Israel relationship.   

Jewish Insider‘s flimsy indictment was immediately amplified by an assortment of neocons, including radio host Mark Levin, who insinuated that Davis is antisemitic. The Israel-backing Anti-Defamation League followed suit, saying “it would be extremely dangerous” for Davis to be named Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Florida Sen. Rick Scott piled on, telling Jewish Insider he was “absolutely shocked by [Davis’] comments: “President Trump is the most pro-Israel president in our nation’s history, and I fully expect every member of the administration to enact his agenda and stand strong with our great ally, Israel.” 

Davis was already undergoing the background check required for the job. However, within hours of the Jewish Insider article, he was told he wouldn’t be coming on board. Citing a senior Trump administration official, the Times said Gabbard “reconsidered her choice given the criticism, and other officials confirmed the decision.” Neocons quickly took to social media to spike the football. Laura Loomer expressed relief, saying that Davis “would be a national security nightmare.” Levin credited Trump for barring Davis from the White House: 

On the other hand, writing at Responsible Statecraft, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos lamented the killing of Davis’ appointment: 

It is not surprising that the most strident voices in the War Party, particularly pro-Israel hawks trying desperately to manage the remembered history of the 9/11 wars, had it in for him. He is an anathema to everything they have stood for over the last two decades: he is against the U.S. trying to impose its interests and values on the world via foreign regime change, he believes the military is overextended and needlessly placed in harm’s way overseas, and he has criticized the military industrial complex for risking troop readiness and basic conventional warfighting capabilities by deferring to the war profiteers in the industry. He has also echoed George Washington’s warning about entangling alliances in his own warnings about unconditional aid to Israel and Ukraine.

As the old adage goes, “personnel is policy.” From the exclusion of the non-interventionist, America-first Daniel Davis to calling for Rep. Thomas Massie to be ousted from Congress, the Trump White House is plotting a course that diverges from the principles it supposedly espouses.    

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/14/2025 – 13:20