Message to America from Mark Levin

[Vambram]

Last week, the Supreme Court did something that is so appalling, I was nearly speechless. In Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, informally known as the USAID funding case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with the three radicals to uphold an order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali demanding President Trump unfreeze $2 billion in USAID funding.

All these judges have to do is uphold the principles of the Constitution – that’s it. But only four of our justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – seem to understand that. As we’ve talked about many, many times on my show, district judges preside over a district. Their jurisdiction is therefore only in that district. They have no national judicial powers. And yet, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold Ali’s order aimed at the executive branch – a black and white overreach of power.

In his scathing multi-page dissent, Justice Samuel Alito (truly one of the smartest men I know) condemned the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant the Trump administration’s emergency stay to block the lower court’s order. He criticized District Judge Ali’s temporary restraining order and subsequent compliance order as “extraordinary” and “unprecedented,” accusing the lower court of overstepping by forcing the government to spend billions without exhausting appeals.

“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? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘no,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” he wrote.

I am stunned as well. The ruling, Alito wrote, means that the federal government must pay the $2 billion “not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered.”
You see, it’s all political. This isn’t about upholding the Constitution. What these five Supreme Court judges are saying is: The law isn’t the law. The law is as I say it is. It’s funny how progressives talk about modernism and futurism, but when you look at their actions, it becomes obvious that they are primitive in their thinking. They don’t believe in inalienable rights – the kind that no man or government can give or take away. They believe, again, that the law is based on what the ruling class thinks. That’s what autocracies and totalitarian regimes believe. I thought America was supposed to be different.

by Mark Levin

https://link.theblaze.com/view/52d019380f365bf272f071e4n7d8d.2eb/dfaed27a

 

[Fantine]

TBT, Musk has no authority to do anything he is doing.
That's why there are 121 suits pending against his actions. Much of this money has been already budgeted and allocated.
The Court should reverse all 121 of his unauthorized actions.
Only Congress holds the power of the purse.
That being said, if he gives me $100 million like he did Trump, I'd buy a Tesla, too, and give the $100 million to deserving charities.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Congress gave USAID the authority to award contracts, and it did. No takebacks.

And yet, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold Ali’s order aimed at the executive branch – a black and white overreach of power.

That's kinda how the whole checks and balances things works between the judiciary and executive branches.

 

[RDKirk]

Last week, the Supreme Court did something that is so appalling, I was nearly speechless. In Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, informally known as the USAID funding case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with the three radicals to uphold an order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali demanding President Trump unfreeze $2 billion in USAID funding.

All these judges have to do is uphold the principles of the Constitution – that’s it. But only four of our justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – seem to understand that. As we’ve talked about many, many times on my show, district judges preside over a district. Their jurisdiction is therefore only in that district. They have no national judicial powers. And yet, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold Ali’s order aimed at the executive branch – a black and white overreach of power.

In his scathing multi-page dissent, Justice Samuel Alito (truly one of the smartest men I know) condemned the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant the Trump administration’s emergency stay to block the lower court’s order. He criticized District Judge Ali’s temporary restraining order and subsequent compliance order as “extraordinary” and “unprecedented,” accusing the lower court of overstepping by forcing the government to spend billions without exhausting appeals.

“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? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘no,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” he wrote.

"Unprecedented?" It seems that happens all the time...in fact, for checks and balances to work, it must happen that way. All court action against the US by a non-government entity must start in a district court. What point am I missing here (that five Justices must have also missed)?

 

[Vambram]

"Unprecedented?" It seems that happens all the time...in fact, for checks and balances to work, it must happen that way. All court action against the US must start in a district court. What point am I missing here (that five Justices must have also missed)?

District Court judges should not have and do not have national court powers. This is something in which Justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch all agree.

 

[RDKirk]

District Court judges should not have and do not have national court powers. This is something in which Justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch all agree.

But the district judge and five other Justices did not agree.

And as I said, it is usually the situation that a case at the Supreme Court level began in district court. The cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and takes cases directly is when two governments are involved: A state suing a state or a suit between a state and the US government. When individuals sue the US government, it goes to a district court first. In fact, many times that the Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction, they refer it to a district court anyway just to do the groundwork.

 

[Bradskii]

District Court judges should not have and do not have national court powers.

They do.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/understanding-federal-courts.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwidu6TZqoiMAxUJSmwGHQ6xHkcQzsoNegQIKBAa&usg=AOvVaw06Zz-JhaZLvAGnXRkTGafJ

It's a pdf, so I can't cut 'n' paste, but it will tell you just what Google AI does:

'The Constitution and federal laws grant district courts jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including those involving the federal government.'

I won't say that Levin lied, but gee, if he didn't then he is woefully uninformed. So please bear that in mind the next time you read anything he's written.

 

[Vambram]

They do.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/understanding-federal-courts.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwidu6TZqoiMAxUJSmwGHQ6xHkcQzsoNegQIKBAa&usg=AOvVaw06Zz-JhaZLvAGnXRkTGafJ

It's a pdf, so I can't cut 'n' paste, but it will tell you just what Google AI does:

'The Constitution and federal laws grant district courts jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including those involving the federal government.'

I won't say that Levin lied, but gee, if he didn't then he is woefully uninformed. So please bear that in mind the next time you read anything he's written.

Mark Levin is not woefully uninformed. He is a constitutional conservative. Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. Levin is also the Editor-in-Chief of Conservative Review, a contributing editor for National Review Online. He has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet – including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC. He is FAR more informed about the US Constitution than anyone on these forums. Please bear all of that in mind.

 

[iluvatar5150]

They do.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/understanding-federal-courts.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwidu6TZqoiMAxUJSmwGHQ6xHkcQzsoNegQIKBAa&usg=AOvVaw06Zz-JhaZLvAGnXRkTGafJ

It's a pdf, so I can't cut 'n' paste, but it will tell you just what Google AI does:

'The Constitution and federal laws grant district courts jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including those involving the federal government.'

I won't say that Levin lied, but gee, if he didn't then he is woefully uninformed. So please bear that in mind the next time you read anything he's written.

oh my gosh, another right wing talking head spreading nonsense. who’d have seen that coming?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Mark Levin is not woefully uninformed. He is a constitutional conservative. Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. Levin is also the Editor-in-Chief of Conservative Review, a contributing editor for National Review Online. He has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet – including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC. He is FAR more informed about the US Constitution than anyone on these forums. Please bear all of that in mind.

And he makes a lot of money spreading dishonest propaganda to an ignorant lay audience.

 

[Vambram]

But the district judge and five other Justices did not agree.

And as I said, it is usually the situation that a case at the Supreme Court level began in district court. The cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and takes cases directly is when two governments are involved: A state suing a state or a suit between a state and the US government. When individuals sue the US government, it goes to a district court first. In fact, many times that the Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction, they refer it to a district court anyway just to do the groundwork.

Three of those five justices are progressive liberal judges who appear to whole heartedly endorse juridical activism.

 

[Vambram]

And he makes a lot of money spreading dishonest propaganda to an ignorant lay audience.

There is absolutely NOTHING at all dishonest about what he says. He does not spread propaganda.

 

[Vambram]

oh my gosh, another right wing talking head spreading nonsense. who’d have seen that coming?

Oh my, you disagree with an intellectual conservative, who'd have seen that coming?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As we’ve talked about many, many times on my show, district judges preside over a district. Their jurisdiction is therefore only in that district. They have no national judicial powers.

I wonder if he's ever talked about this when Republicans have sued the federal government in the 5th District? Or is that okay for...reasons?

 

[Bradskii]

Mark Levin is not woefully uninformed. He is a constitutional conservative. Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. Levin is also the Editor-in-Chief of Conservative Review, a contributing editor for National Review Online. He has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet – including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC. He is FAR more informed about the US Constitution than anyone on these forums. Please bear all of that in mind.

Then if he is that well informed then he's not telling you the truth. I just quoted from a government website that explains what district courts are responsible for. And that includes cases against the government. It couldn't be clearer.

And do you realise that the money that was ordered to be released was for work that had already done. The government hadn't even asked that the Temporary Restraining Order be released. They just didn't want to pay for work that had already been completed. From here: Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment - SCOTUSblog

'...the government has not even asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO...'

And...

'Alito’s dissent acknowledged Ali’s “frustration with the Government,” and that the aid groups had broached “serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work.”

Too right they had 'broached serious concerns'. They are doing work that is often saving lives. And having done that, by employing contractors and other third parties to supply what was needed, they were responsible for paying these people. You can't casually sign an executive order and declare that these payments must not now be made. Notwithstanding that it's Congress that gets to decide on what the money will be spent.

Simple separation of power. Maybe Trump wasn't up to speed on what that entailed. But the countless court cases now being heard will surely prompt someone to explain it to him in terms even he'll be able to grasp.

 

[JSRG]

Last week, the Supreme Court did something that is so appalling, I was nearly speechless. In Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, informally known as the USAID funding case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with the three radicals to uphold an order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali demanding President Trump unfreeze $2 billion in USAID funding.

Except one should stop and note what the order itself says:

On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order. On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26. Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied. Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.

So it notes that the application to the Supreme Court didn't challenge the Government's obligation to follow the order anyway. So is Levine basically arguing and complaining that the Supreme Court didn't grant relief that wasn't asked for?

As Andrew McCarthy (hardly a liberal!) noted:

Judge Ali Retreats on Foreign Aid, but Constitutional Fight Looms | National Review

The big argument is only just beginning.

www.nationalreview.com

Since that ["that" meaning whether the government had to comply] was the main issue, and it was not really being disputed, everything else was just details. That’s the practical reality that the majority justices grasped — including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose shrewdness was lost on many conservative critics outraged that the pair voted with the three progressive justices, while the four dissenting conservative justices vented their spleen at Ali’s audaciousness.

As I said, I agree in principle with Justice Alito’s dissent. But if you were angry at the temerity of a district judge’s ordering the president how to dispense foreign aid, your real problem was with the Trump administration. Far from objecting to Ali’s TRO, it agreed to comply. Ergo, the majority justices figured, all that remained to be worked out were (1) the amount actually due and owing to the NGOs for work already completed, and (2) a reasonable pace at which the government could pay up.

 

[Vambram]

The government websites are parroting the judicial activists judges who believe that district courts should hold sway over national decisions and that district courts have as much authority as the entire Executive branch of the Federal government.

 

[Bradskii]

There is absolutely NOTHING at all dishonest about what he says. He does not spread propaganda.

He literally lied to you about what the courts can do. You've been given the proof. Is he in possession of some 'alternative facts' that the rest of us aren't?

 

[Vambram]

He literally lied to you about what the courts can do. You've been given the proof. Is he in possession of some 'alternative facts' that the rest of us aren't?

He did not lie. He is agreeing with FOUR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

 

[Bradskii]

So it notes that the application to the Supreme Court didn't challenge the Government's obligation to follow the order anyway. So is Levine basically arguing and complaining that the Supreme Court didn't grant relief that wasn't asked for?

Ex-actly. Levin is just shouting at clouds. He's writing nonsense that he knows the vast majority of his readers won't bother checking.

As I said, I agree in principle with Justice Alito’s dissent. But if you were angry at the temerity of a district judge’s ordering the president how to dispense foreign aid, your real problem was with the Trump administration. Far from objecting to Ali’s TRO, it agreed to comply.

It did indeed. Well, at least it didn't appeal it. And far from it being suggested that Ali was 'ordering the president how to dispense foreign aid', he most certainly wasn't. How it is to be dispensed has nothing to do with the judiciary. That had already been decided by the legislative.