Last night, I wrote to you about reporting that the Trump administration would stop defending the clearly illegal executive orders the president issued last March.
He senses disrespect, by inferior mortals, for King Donald, which cannot be tolerated (by HRH). King Donald never loses (just ask him) and never admits defeat.
Made enforcement decisions based on political alignment
It’s not a justice system anymore. It’s a protection racket for those in power and a weapon against those who oppose them. When the institution designed to enforce accountability becomes the mechanism for avoiding it…“farce”.
The DOJ didn’t “change course”—it abandoned its constitutional purpose entirely.
You know.... our allies see this same behavior pattern, and no doubt have analysts watching FOX 24/7 to get a jump on our next impulsive action, and yet, they must be scratching their heads and wondering where has the US that they knew and trusted gone?
None of them, with the exception of a few, have ever known real financial hardship in their lives, even if their parents did. They, most of them, never served in the armed forces. This is where America has gone. To too many elitist brats.
With Trump, it's always about vengeance no matter how long ago the "injury" took place. "In1973, Donald Trump and his slumlord father were sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination, in violation of the Fair Housing Act."
Certain disciplinary measures were put in place, but the Trumps were not required to admit guilt. (I.e. I don't admit guilt, but I promise never to do it again.")
Elie Mystal wrote, in POLITICS/September 24, 2025: "Trump's SLUMLORD ADMINISTRATION IS GUTTING the FAIR HOUSING ACT. "An explosive report from the New York Times reveals that Whistleblowers from the Department of HUD report that Trump's political appointees have made it 'nearly impossible for them to do their jobs of investigating violations of the FHA, and prosecuting racists."
"The Times reports that HUD has seen a 65 percent reduction in staff since Trump retook office. Lawyers have been cut from 22 to 6 . And charges of discrimination coming from HUD ..
..have ....tried to make this short, but I urge you to read both Elie Mystal's account and that from the NYT.
No need to make your reply real short - what's important is the information. I'm not sure I'll be able to read anything in the NYT but I'll try that and Elie Mystal. Thank you.
The narcissist in chief understands when his ego is disrespected or threatened ( in less coherent terms, though). His belief in his own greatness and invincibility is what holds him together. So, yeah, I believe he wakes up when the usually fawning media says his DOJ is retreating from defending his whims and he bullied Bondi into line, again. But you are right that in many other things he is easily led and manipulated by those he admires, like Putin and the Faux News talking heads.
Trump’s “priority list.” His tiny pea brain and revealing its thought making of little importance? Trump has a bouncing brain, reflecting little thought process and wandering. Draperies? Who the hell cares? Just look at that dreadful Oval Office! Trump’s masterpiece? Jeez. A joke from the Joker!
Except that insights one day are negated by reversal of decisions the next day. Democracy and rule of law dont control. Now govt by whimsy and DOD secy motivated by whisky. MABA. Make America Bonkers. If the govt has to comply with illegal orders it is not a dem govt. Its a MOB. Which aren't initials. Its a mob!
Part of the reason we don't actually enjoy true rule of law in the U.S. is terminology and psychology. Pundits teach people to think of our public servants as belonging to or being controlled by a particular person (e.g., "Trump's DOJ" or "the Roberts Court") rather than being controlled by our Constitution. That's Trump's message. It shouldn't be our message.
Trump's mentality and message is the opposite of the rule of law. Chief Justice John Marshall writing for SCOTUS emphasized that principle in Marbury v. Madison in 1803: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions" (ratified by the People) "contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of [any public servant], repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any presumption or pretense to the contrary is not the rule of law. It is rule by outlaws.
In all we say and do, we should strive to remind DOJ lawyers and SCOTUS justices of their duty to fulfill their oaths to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution and to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
OK, I read what you wrote again. I think I understand now. I’ll delete my lengthy question and hope that you haven’t delved into the work of answering it.
Chief Justice Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 emphasized the meaning of the language from our Constitution that I quoted about "the supreme Law of the Land" and the oaths (duty) of public servants "to support [our] Constitution."
"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the [existing] law [actually] is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. . . . [T]he court must determine which of [any] conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."
"[I]t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated [our Constitution], as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. [That is precisely why the Article VI and federal law] direct [all federal] judges to take an oath to support [our Constitution]. This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to [public servants’] conduct in their official character. . . . [The reason each] judge swear[s] to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States [is] that constitution forms [the supreme] rule for his government."
"[I]n declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank."
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by [our Constitution]."
"[T]he constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law. . . . The constitution is [necessarily the] superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means. . . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
The same principles and logic, above, establishing that any law that is “repugnant to the constitution is void” (even if it was made either with the President’s approval or with the approval of two-thirds of each house) necessarily confirms that any decision or opinion by any quantity or quality of judges that is “repugnant to the constitution is void.” No purported “precedent” or purported “doctrine” made by any quantity or quality of judges (much less any mere judge’s mere opinion) can lawfully contradict, override or overrule our Constitution. Any presumption or pretense to the contrary is not the rule of law. It is rule by outlaws. It is rule by outlaws who are enemies of the Constitution, violating their own oaths to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Thanks Jack, for taking the time to explain this. The legal language quoted will take a little bit to sink into my medical, not legal, brain. It’s not beyond me, though.
What you’ve written hearkens back to a conversation we had several weeks back about some law, of which I don’t recall the particulars, that was passed but is unconstitutional. I wish I remembered what it was—it was Trump related. And maybe it wasn’t a recently passed law but a SCOTUS decision?
So, what we’ve got is a nation of people with a government (for and by the people) with a rule of governance outlined by the constitution. The president, going to war without congressional approval is unconstitutional. Given. And the point, as Heather Cox Richardson has explained in her Politics Chat last evening and covered in her conversation with Senator Kim on Monday, is that this congressional approval issue is not a turf war for power between branches, but an issue of representation for the public. (That’s where I got my wires crossed or confused, I think.) But, if my first sentence of this paragraph is true, then I’m back to understanding.
And the bit about SCOTUS, or likewise the president or congress, makes a decision, takes an action or enacts a law that is unconstitutional—they are breaking the penultimate law of the land and we do have recourse to remedy it, even if it will take some time to do so.
Right. I recall that earlier conversation (on The Contrarian on Jan. 5) re: "If We had a Functional Constitution, We Wouldn’t have an Illegal War."
I like to quote Justice Scalia sometimes, in part, because he often spoke the truth, and in part, because other people like to rely on Justice Scalia to pretend to justify egregiously unconstitutional executive powers. Regarding the rule of law, and separation of powers, Justice Scalia put it pretty well in 1988 in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson (echoing James Madison in 1788).
"That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power [ ] in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium [that the People by] the Constitution sought to establish—so that 'a gradual concentration of [ ] powers' [Federalist No. 51 (J. Madison)] can effectively be resisted."
"It is the proud boast of our democracy that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.' " That comes from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 regarding the separation of powers between legislative, executive and judicial departments. "The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison wrote that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Justice Scalia also highlighted that in Federalist No. 51 Madison emphasized the following crucial and dispositive truth about our Constitution and how the People chose to vest less power in the Executive and Judicial branches than in the Legislative branch: “it is not [even] possible to give to each department an equal power[. Moreover, i]n republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
I have prepared something that answers the question you asked, so I'll submit it for your consideration (because it's very well worth thinking about what the rule of law truly means under our Constitution).
"We the People" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" did in June 1788 "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The People acting as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. “establish[ed our] Constitution” (Preamble); established that all federal “Laws” must “be made in Pursuance” of “this Constitution” (Article VI); established “the supreme Law of the Land” (i.e., “this Constitution,” federal “Laws” and “Treaties”) (Article VI); established that all “Judges in every State shall be bound” by “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI); established that the President always in all official conduct must act only to “preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" (Article II); and established that “all executive and judicial Officers” and all legislators and (state and federal) always in all official conduct are “bound” to “support this Constitution” (Article VI).
The People commanded the President (in Article II) to provide information and make recommendations to Congress: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” If the President thinks, e.g., tariffs or acts of war are necessary and expedient, he must make the case to Congress. If he needs help, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
Article I expressly vested "All legislative Powers herein granted" in "Congress." “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws" (exercise "All legislative Powers herein granted") that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
Article II expressly “vested” in the “President” only “executive Power.” The People also expressly limited all executive power to the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and “faithfully [serve to] preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution.” That’s it. Nothing in our Constitution gave any president any power to do anything just because it's his own personal desire or wish.
People can fairly say and think that about the words "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. But they can't fairly say or think that about any words in our Constitution. The reason is that the words of our Constitution are the "paramount" law (as Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS emphasized in 1803 in Marbury) of "the supreme Law of the Land" (as our Constitution emphasizes).
What seems most disconcerting to me is the shoddy and unprofessional, not to mention possibly illegal, behavior of the DOJ in virtually everything they touch since tRump and Bondi took it over. As with almost everything else about the operation of our entire Federal Government and its agencies since Jan 2025, it all seems to be going to hell in a handbasket. In the GOP in particular, it is nearly impossible to find anyone deserving of respect in terms of character, integrity, honor, intelligence, valid experience, competence, honesty or basic decency. How the heck did we wind up with such a cadre of extreme misfits running our government?
Debi, Sad to say we vote them in with eyes wide open. And we keep doing it again and again even though they ruin the economy, transfer gobs of wealth to the upper few percent, threaten our social security and health care, start forever wars based on lies, and explode the deficit.
I absolutely DID NOT vote for any of the horses patooties in the current GOP administration and did all in my capabilities to educate others regarding the negative potentials they represented, so I take umbrage at your use of "we." How the heck we ended up with a flaming rectal orifice as president surrounded by incompetent idiot clowns as his administration is totally beyond my comprehension.
I understand the greater we - I just can't make any sense out of why any person competent to vote would prefer a mentally incompetent moron, pathological liar, convicted felon, convicted sexual offender, convicted tax cheat, inherently dishonest, crappy businessman with multiple failed business ventures and bankruptcies, verbal bullsh*t artist who doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself. I have relatives who voted for him and think he can walk on water - BUT I HONESTLY CAN NOT UNDERSTAND HOW ANY BREATHING CREATURE COULD WANT HIM IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING. He has always been a loser, except in his own mind, so why did so many believe his BS? Because he appealed to their baser instincts? Their racist tendencies? Their fascist tendencies? Their desire for white supremacy? Their misogyny - because they didn't want a WOMAN? HOW did so many Americans become so effectively BRAIN DEAD with regard to their own interests and future? I just want to understand how people were led to select him and his enablers, because it simply does not compute for me and never did.
I just came across the word TRUMPSTEIN the other day. I’m really pleased to see other people finding it and using it as well. Trump would hate this. Therefore, everyone knows the mission.
To answer your last question, how did we end up here, we have to thank the 77 million people who voted for Trump. And he came in with the intent of not repeating his mistake of the first term, when he had at least some advisors who knew what they were doing and had a shred of integrity.
I heard tRump and staff absolutely hated it when they saw someone use the term Trumpstein Files - so of course I try to use it at least a few times every day. We all have to do our small parts, right?
All these acts make Trump feel superior on all levels! Makes him feel like a Roy Cohen winner? A “natural” talent? This is the Trump rumble and PUSH-around! Because Trump can use these powers, he sure will show ‘em? But, who will stop him?
If he has won it could be because of the incompetence and corruption of the Republcan state legislature which gerrymandered Texas districts and then forgot to advise people in which precincts they could vote so many people went to the wrong districts to vote. A judge ordered the election officials to keep the poll booths open for another couple of hours but the crooked AG, Ken Paxton, went straight to the Texas supreme court to overturn that decision. Consequently, unknown numbers of Texans have been disenfranchised.
The voting for the Democratic and Republican primaries are completely separate, so a screw up in the Republican primary should not affect the Democratic total.
But they did change the polling places in Dallas County, Crockett’s home base, and people did have to be redirected to their new polling place in that district.
Here’s an example of another tactic to be watchful for in future elections. Not only were people ill informed about the change in their polling place, but we are left with uncertain outcomes, court orders overturned and mistrust in the outcome. Along with mistrust with the outlets that called the election when the election process was complicated with irregularities. And citizens ordinarily aligned, taking opposing sides. Perhaps Trump won this one?
20% of the vote still hasn't been counted and they are in a part of the state where Crockett has been doing well so far. Yes, the gap is a bit over 148,000, but it could get a whole lot closer. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. (I think Joyce's chickens would agree with that.)
We have to be encouraged by the close election in Texas between two candidates willing to stand up for democracy in its mission to represent us all. Crockett and Talarico are to be commended for lighting the fire (Crockett) and supplying the sustaining fuel (Talarico) to burn within us. The voter engagement inspired by both of these ethically grounded candidates is indicative of a strong representative government. I admire both Crockett and Talarico and hope both of them will remain willing to be leaders in our evolving democracy.
I watched Talarico's conversation with Colbert, and appreciated his integrity, which came through loud and clear. But Crockett is more of an activist, and more assertive, IMO. I love who she is, but I think the problem is that too many people don't want a Black female in office, despite the fact that she is so very qualified for that office.
I wonder if they don’t want a Black person—a Black woman—in office or they fear that others don’t want one. I keep on seeing comments about broader electability. That’s the sort of attitude or approach that turns a lot of voters away from the Democrats. And it’s a fallacy not only because it’s fraught with personal bias or projection, but because people are so siloed that none of us can actually know the answer. Aside from the very core problem of deciding one’s vote based on who you think others will vote for. Obama was unelectable and frankly, so was Kennedy, being Catholic.
At least, in this case, either candidate would have been a good choice as far representing their constituents and being extremely capable of doing the job.
I haven't seen Talarico's capability yet. That said, he is who I will be voting for, because he is obviously the better candidate for that senate seat than which ever republican wins the runoff.
I think that these days Minnesotans know about stuff in Texas, just as we Texans have been learning a lot about Minnesota. Both states have been in the news for unfortunate reasons.
A “nice” young man who has a life based on severe religious principles? Could be very challenging with our form of constitutional government and democracy?
Whatever the Supreme Court Justices' ideological predilections may be, it appears that they don't take kindly to Trump's habitual abuse of his office to engage in extortions to get what he wants.
I think it made a big impact on at least the 2 Conservative Justices who ruled against Trump's usurpation of Congress' right to set tariffs to not merely set individualll tariffs as he pleased for economic reasons but to threaten and extort foreign countries, and especially our allies, with raising their tariffs unless and until they bowed to his demands. It must have truly irked the Justices to see Trump threaten our 8 European allies with a 10% increase on tariffs that he would increase to 25% unless and until they agreed to have Denmark turn over Greenland to Trump.
This was pure extortion, and the same kind of extortion that Trump perpetrated against the law firms who caved in to his demands.
He learned from the finest mafia bosses in NYC and now he is one. If that theory holds true, he will be taken down, one way or another by his own people.
While they may not officially qualify as an organized crime family, not having gone throiugh the rituals of pledging loyalty to the goddfather, wacking out a loan shark victim who didn't pay up,etc ertc, they are trying to emulate them and so far they are succeeding.
Why would any court, much less a Federal Appeals court, permit the kind of off again - on again motions by DOJ? I assume judges are busy people who can, and should, find better things to do than tolerate the pettiness which is the hallmark of today's DOJ.
James, I'm not a lawyer but have legal training as a legal assistant. The answer to your question lies in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here's a link.
These uniformly applied rules gives order to litigation chaos. Judges and litigants are required to follow them.
I haven't read the motion to withdraw motion but it likely was filed pursuant to Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions, FRCP Rule 41United States Code Annotated
A lot of people are calling this regime "Nazi." I disagree. The Nazi's were organized in how they proceeded. This regime is bumble footed. Fascist, yes. Nazi--they'll never get there.
I had the same thought Joyce had - Bondi got a call from Trump in the middle of the night, probably right after he posted something about the war in Iran. Bondi said "DOJ is understaffed, we're going to lose this appeal" and Trump said "I don't care, we have to stop these law firms from suing the government." Bondi's error was making a decision without consulting the client, which is Trump, not the government or the people of the United States. Hardly the first time she has failed to perform her duties properly. Probably won't be the last time either.
This affair is sounding like material for a Monty Python skit. John Cleese would have a rip roaring good time with this material. Rich S, Octogenarian and Contrarian
Unless tomorrow there’s a motion to withdraw the motion to withdraw the motion to withdraw, well, sure! We’re into Jabberwocky, friends; I know I’m ready to gyre and gimbel in the wabe. (How are your borogroves, by the way? Still mimsy?) lol
I think what Joyce said was that in spite of the ridiculous imaginations of the DOJ, there’s nothing particular about the situation that would cause them to interfere with the case going forward. I have to read it again what she said because that’s just what I think she said
Trump tells DoJ … but who’s telling Trump? If it isn’t drapery or crypto or donations, he doesn’t care … nor even understand.
The nefarious Stephen Miller has his ear (on speed-dial, just to mix metaphors...)
And, given two opposing decisions, Miller's default mode will be to choose the crueler or more racist outcome
Hmm, something in Shakespeare about a “stopp’d ear”?
Good old Richard II
He senses disrespect, by inferior mortals, for King Donald, which cannot be tolerated (by HRH). King Donald never loses (just ask him) and never admits defeat.
And quaffs copious Diet Cokes … AND extols drapery.
Department of (in)Justice
Or department of crap, shite, and lies …there is zero justice in that country, get it, zero.
It’s all a farce
DOJ dropped cases against Trump allies
Prosecuted political opponents
Fired career prosecutors for independence
Turned investigations into loyalty tests
Made enforcement decisions based on political alignment
It’s not a justice system anymore. It’s a protection racket for those in power and a weapon against those who oppose them. When the institution designed to enforce accountability becomes the mechanism for avoiding it…“farce”.
The DOJ didn’t “change course”—it abandoned its constitutional purpose entirely.
What more can you expect from a Farcist regime?
Perfect comment, very funny
Simple. It's the criminals in charge.
And a stale one by now.
Trump's actual policy makers have regular seats on one or another FOX TV shows. It's hard to know which way the wind will be blowing tomorrow.
You know.... our allies see this same behavior pattern, and no doubt have analysts watching FOX 24/7 to get a jump on our next impulsive action, and yet, they must be scratching their heads and wondering where has the US that they knew and trusted gone?
None of them, with the exception of a few, have ever known real financial hardship in their lives, even if their parents did. They, most of them, never served in the armed forces. This is where America has gone. To too many elitist brats.
she has been lost in we have too much
Don’t think Trump knows either—rule by tantrum … or whim.
Guided by FOX
And vice versa … a vicious circle of sycophancy and sacrilege
Ah, but trump does understand vengeance, power and hate. And the about face of the DOJ to my mind is about vengeance.
With Trump, it's always about vengeance no matter how long ago the "injury" took place. "In1973, Donald Trump and his slumlord father were sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination, in violation of the Fair Housing Act."
Certain disciplinary measures were put in place, but the Trumps were not required to admit guilt. (I.e. I don't admit guilt, but I promise never to do it again.")
Elie Mystal wrote, in POLITICS/September 24, 2025: "Trump's SLUMLORD ADMINISTRATION IS GUTTING the FAIR HOUSING ACT. "An explosive report from the New York Times reveals that Whistleblowers from the Department of HUD report that Trump's political appointees have made it 'nearly impossible for them to do their jobs of investigating violations of the FHA, and prosecuting racists."
"The Times reports that HUD has seen a 65 percent reduction in staff since Trump retook office. Lawyers have been cut from 22 to 6 . And charges of discrimination coming from HUD ..
..have ....tried to make this short, but I urge you to read both Elie Mystal's account and that from the NYT.
No need to make your reply real short - what's important is the information. I'm not sure I'll be able to read anything in the NYT but I'll try that and Elie Mystal. Thank you.
I'm ready for courts to apply a little civil coercive contempt.
For a few House Republicans to mirror Tillis and Cleghorn Kennedy vis a vis ICE/Homeland Security.
The narcissist in chief understands when his ego is disrespected or threatened ( in less coherent terms, though). His belief in his own greatness and invincibility is what holds him together. So, yeah, I believe he wakes up when the usually fawning media says his DOJ is retreating from defending his whims and he bullied Bondi into line, again. But you are right that in many other things he is easily led and manipulated by those he admires, like Putin and the Faux News talking heads.
Agreed!
That is exactly it. Nothing more.
Yes! Saving money on drapes.
Trump’s “priority list.” His tiny pea brain and revealing its thought making of little importance? Trump has a bouncing brain, reflecting little thought process and wandering. Draperies? Who the hell cares? Just look at that dreadful Oval Office! Trump’s masterpiece? Jeez. A joke from the Joker!
America will not survive unless trump is gone
Yes … and it will then take generations to recover
You are a truth machine. Your insights are invaluable to putting it all in legal perspective. Thank you for your fine work.
Except that insights one day are negated by reversal of decisions the next day. Democracy and rule of law dont control. Now govt by whimsy and DOD secy motivated by whisky. MABA. Make America Bonkers. If the govt has to comply with illegal orders it is not a dem govt. Its a MOB. Which aren't initials. Its a mob!
Why shouldn’t the judge refuse the latest motion and simply accept the motion to withdraw and end the case?
Yes please!
Part of the reason we don't actually enjoy true rule of law in the U.S. is terminology and psychology. Pundits teach people to think of our public servants as belonging to or being controlled by a particular person (e.g., "Trump's DOJ" or "the Roberts Court") rather than being controlled by our Constitution. That's Trump's message. It shouldn't be our message.
Trump's mentality and message is the opposite of the rule of law. Chief Justice John Marshall writing for SCOTUS emphasized that principle in Marbury v. Madison in 1803: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions" (ratified by the People) "contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of [any public servant], repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any presumption or pretense to the contrary is not the rule of law. It is rule by outlaws.
In all we say and do, we should strive to remind DOJ lawyers and SCOTUS justices of their duty to fulfill their oaths to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution and to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
OK, I read what you wrote again. I think I understand now. I’ll delete my lengthy question and hope that you haven’t delved into the work of answering it.
Chief Justice Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 emphasized the meaning of the language from our Constitution that I quoted about "the supreme Law of the Land" and the oaths (duty) of public servants "to support [our] Constitution."
"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the [existing] law [actually] is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. . . . [T]he court must determine which of [any] conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."
"[I]t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated [our Constitution], as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. [That is precisely why the Article VI and federal law] direct [all federal] judges to take an oath to support [our Constitution]. This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to [public servants’] conduct in their official character. . . . [The reason each] judge swear[s] to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States [is] that constitution forms [the supreme] rule for his government."
"[I]n declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank."
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by [our Constitution]."
"[T]he constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law. . . . The constitution is [necessarily the] superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means. . . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
The same principles and logic, above, establishing that any law that is “repugnant to the constitution is void” (even if it was made either with the President’s approval or with the approval of two-thirds of each house) necessarily confirms that any decision or opinion by any quantity or quality of judges that is “repugnant to the constitution is void.” No purported “precedent” or purported “doctrine” made by any quantity or quality of judges (much less any mere judge’s mere opinion) can lawfully contradict, override or overrule our Constitution. Any presumption or pretense to the contrary is not the rule of law. It is rule by outlaws. It is rule by outlaws who are enemies of the Constitution, violating their own oaths to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Thanks Jack, for taking the time to explain this. The legal language quoted will take a little bit to sink into my medical, not legal, brain. It’s not beyond me, though.
What you’ve written hearkens back to a conversation we had several weeks back about some law, of which I don’t recall the particulars, that was passed but is unconstitutional. I wish I remembered what it was—it was Trump related. And maybe it wasn’t a recently passed law but a SCOTUS decision?
So, what we’ve got is a nation of people with a government (for and by the people) with a rule of governance outlined by the constitution. The president, going to war without congressional approval is unconstitutional. Given. And the point, as Heather Cox Richardson has explained in her Politics Chat last evening and covered in her conversation with Senator Kim on Monday, is that this congressional approval issue is not a turf war for power between branches, but an issue of representation for the public. (That’s where I got my wires crossed or confused, I think.) But, if my first sentence of this paragraph is true, then I’m back to understanding.
And the bit about SCOTUS, or likewise the president or congress, makes a decision, takes an action or enacts a law that is unconstitutional—they are breaking the penultimate law of the land and we do have recourse to remedy it, even if it will take some time to do so.
I appreciate your time and mind (and patience.)
Right. I recall that earlier conversation (on The Contrarian on Jan. 5) re: "If We had a Functional Constitution, We Wouldn’t have an Illegal War."
I like to quote Justice Scalia sometimes, in part, because he often spoke the truth, and in part, because other people like to rely on Justice Scalia to pretend to justify egregiously unconstitutional executive powers. Regarding the rule of law, and separation of powers, Justice Scalia put it pretty well in 1988 in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson (echoing James Madison in 1788).
"That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power [ ] in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium [that the People by] the Constitution sought to establish—so that 'a gradual concentration of [ ] powers' [Federalist No. 51 (J. Madison)] can effectively be resisted."
"It is the proud boast of our democracy that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.' " That comes from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 regarding the separation of powers between legislative, executive and judicial departments. "The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison wrote that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Justice Scalia also highlighted that in Federalist No. 51 Madison emphasized the following crucial and dispositive truth about our Constitution and how the People chose to vest less power in the Executive and Judicial branches than in the Legislative branch: “it is not [even] possible to give to each department an equal power[. Moreover, i]n republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
I have prepared something that answers the question you asked, so I'll submit it for your consideration (because it's very well worth thinking about what the rule of law truly means under our Constitution).
"We the People" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" did in June 1788 "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The People acting as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. “establish[ed our] Constitution” (Preamble); established that all federal “Laws” must “be made in Pursuance” of “this Constitution” (Article VI); established “the supreme Law of the Land” (i.e., “this Constitution,” federal “Laws” and “Treaties”) (Article VI); established that all “Judges in every State shall be bound” by “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI); established that the President always in all official conduct must act only to “preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" (Article II); and established that “all executive and judicial Officers” and all legislators and (state and federal) always in all official conduct are “bound” to “support this Constitution” (Article VI).
The People commanded the President (in Article II) to provide information and make recommendations to Congress: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” If the President thinks, e.g., tariffs or acts of war are necessary and expedient, he must make the case to Congress. If he needs help, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
Article I expressly vested "All legislative Powers herein granted" in "Congress." “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws" (exercise "All legislative Powers herein granted") that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
Article II expressly “vested” in the “President” only “executive Power.” The People also expressly limited all executive power to the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and “faithfully [serve to] preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution.” That’s it. Nothing in our Constitution gave any president any power to do anything just because it's his own personal desire or wish.
Jack, I appreciate your legal scholarship.
People say that we the people means what they want. Really means aristocracy power brokers.
Many people say many things that aren't true about many things.
Our Constitution's first words ("We the People") are much more than an a mere allusion to "aristocracy power brokers."
That was the intent m. It was a hope.
People can fairly say and think that about the words "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. But they can't fairly say or think that about any words in our Constitution. The reason is that the words of our Constitution are the "paramount" law (as Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS emphasized in 1803 in Marbury) of "the supreme Law of the Land" (as our Constitution emphasizes).
What seems most disconcerting to me is the shoddy and unprofessional, not to mention possibly illegal, behavior of the DOJ in virtually everything they touch since tRump and Bondi took it over. As with almost everything else about the operation of our entire Federal Government and its agencies since Jan 2025, it all seems to be going to hell in a handbasket. In the GOP in particular, it is nearly impossible to find anyone deserving of respect in terms of character, integrity, honor, intelligence, valid experience, competence, honesty or basic decency. How the heck did we wind up with such a cadre of extreme misfits running our government?
AND where are the Trumpstein files?
Debi, Sad to say we vote them in with eyes wide open. And we keep doing it again and again even though they ruin the economy, transfer gobs of wealth to the upper few percent, threaten our social security and health care, start forever wars based on lies, and explode the deficit.
I absolutely DID NOT vote for any of the horses patooties in the current GOP administration and did all in my capabilities to educate others regarding the negative potentials they represented, so I take umbrage at your use of "we." How the heck we ended up with a flaming rectal orifice as president surrounded by incompetent idiot clowns as his administration is totally beyond my comprehension.
The greater “we,” as in we the people of tge United States…. Yes, we did, despite how you and I voted.
I understand the greater we - I just can't make any sense out of why any person competent to vote would prefer a mentally incompetent moron, pathological liar, convicted felon, convicted sexual offender, convicted tax cheat, inherently dishonest, crappy businessman with multiple failed business ventures and bankruptcies, verbal bullsh*t artist who doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself. I have relatives who voted for him and think he can walk on water - BUT I HONESTLY CAN NOT UNDERSTAND HOW ANY BREATHING CREATURE COULD WANT HIM IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING. He has always been a loser, except in his own mind, so why did so many believe his BS? Because he appealed to their baser instincts? Their racist tendencies? Their fascist tendencies? Their desire for white supremacy? Their misogyny - because they didn't want a WOMAN? HOW did so many Americans become so effectively BRAIN DEAD with regard to their own interests and future? I just want to understand how people were led to select him and his enablers, because it simply does not compute for me and never did.
AND where are the Trumpstein Files ????????
I'm with you in your outrage. And your "flaming rectal orifice" is a very elegant description of our president. Thank you for making me smile.
Why are you surprised. The country had 4vyrs to see he was vindictive cruel criminal and intent on destroying the country. 4 years!
and two years left with this mob mentality
I just came across the word TRUMPSTEIN the other day. I’m really pleased to see other people finding it and using it as well. Trump would hate this. Therefore, everyone knows the mission.
To answer your last question, how did we end up here, we have to thank the 77 million people who voted for Trump. And he came in with the intent of not repeating his mistake of the first term, when he had at least some advisors who knew what they were doing and had a shred of integrity.
I heard tRump and staff absolutely hated it when they saw someone use the term Trumpstein Files - so of course I try to use it at least a few times every day. We all have to do our small parts, right?
You completely get the assignment! :+))
It was easy to elect idiots because no one was paying attention.
Trump voters did not notice or learn anything the first term? Shame on them!
and because idiots were voting
Clearly, Trump thinks that a Lawsuit works like a negotiation. If you yell your position loud enough, maybe the other side might just give up.
And it's been working for him. Witness the spineless law firm collapses in abject terror.
and media companies ditto.
You left out the esteem universities and colleges! What happened there?
Spineless? Scared to lose huge funding? Vulgar pay-outs?
He has power to destroy and likes destroying.
He DELIGHTS in destroying. I always picture him throwing his head back and laughing with glee.
All these acts make Trump feel superior on all levels! Makes him feel like a Roy Cohen winner? A “natural” talent? This is the Trump rumble and PUSH-around! Because Trump can use these powers, he sure will show ‘em? But, who will stop him?
his power is real and it comes from the devil
Certainly that is how he pursued business for 40 years. Especially when he got over leveraged. Which was usually.
The DOJ’s antics are straight out of a Monty Python skit. The whole regime is, except none of this is remotely amusing.
“Your wife likes photography, does she, judge? {wink wink, nudge nudge} Say no more, say no more…. What’s it like? Serving the people, I mean.”
James Tallarico just won in Texas. We're on our way to another Democratic senator!
If he has won it could be because of the incompetence and corruption of the Republcan state legislature which gerrymandered Texas districts and then forgot to advise people in which precincts they could vote so many people went to the wrong districts to vote. A judge ordered the election officials to keep the poll booths open for another couple of hours but the crooked AG, Ken Paxton, went straight to the Texas supreme court to overturn that decision. Consequently, unknown numbers of Texans have been disenfranchised.
The voting for the Democratic and Republican primaries are completely separate, so a screw up in the Republican primary should not affect the Democratic total.
Right. And US Senate is a statewide election. No districts to gerrymander.
But they did change the polling places in Dallas County, Crockett’s home base, and people did have to be redirected to their new polling place in that district.
Right. Who did that? Anyway, I thought the judge was right to extend the voting period.
I had understood it was the Democratic primary voting that got scrambled and was supposed to stay open longer.
Would a court accept an appeal from Paxton when he was a party in the Republican primary? two different roles, but still..
Which was always the plan….
Here’s an example of another tactic to be watchful for in future elections. Not only were people ill informed about the change in their polling place, but we are left with uncertain outcomes, court orders overturned and mistrust in the outcome. Along with mistrust with the outlets that called the election when the election process was complicated with irregularities. And citizens ordinarily aligned, taking opposing sides. Perhaps Trump won this one?
20% of the vote still hasn't been counted and they are in a part of the state where Crockett has been doing well so far. Yes, the gap is a bit over 148,000, but it could get a whole lot closer. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. (I think Joyce's chickens would agree with that.)
I wish these two fine people were not running against each other.
Exactly! And I am saddened by Crockett's loss because I think she would have been the better choice, given that she is obviously such a go-getter.
yes, but he is more electable statewide
I know we have to pay attention to "electable", but I am still saddened by Crockett's loss.
she is important in the house and has a good future
G Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers credited Talarico with the win, and I am relying on his expertise.
We have to be encouraged by the close election in Texas between two candidates willing to stand up for democracy in its mission to represent us all. Crockett and Talarico are to be commended for lighting the fire (Crockett) and supplying the sustaining fuel (Talarico) to burn within us. The voter engagement inspired by both of these ethically grounded candidates is indicative of a strong representative government. I admire both Crockett and Talarico and hope both of them will remain willing to be leaders in our evolving democracy.
Wait…WHAT?? He won over Jasmine Crockett?
I watched Talarico's conversation with Colbert, and appreciated his integrity, which came through loud and clear. But Crockett is more of an activist, and more assertive, IMO. I love who she is, but I think the problem is that too many people don't want a Black female in office, despite the fact that she is so very qualified for that office.
I wonder if they don’t want a Black person—a Black woman—in office or they fear that others don’t want one. I keep on seeing comments about broader electability. That’s the sort of attitude or approach that turns a lot of voters away from the Democrats. And it’s a fallacy not only because it’s fraught with personal bias or projection, but because people are so siloed that none of us can actually know the answer. Aside from the very core problem of deciding one’s vote based on who you think others will vote for. Obama was unelectable and frankly, so was Kennedy, being Catholic.
At least, in this case, either candidate would have been a good choice as far representing their constituents and being extremely capable of doing the job.
I haven't seen Talarico's capability yet. That said, he is who I will be voting for, because he is obviously the better candidate for that senate seat than which ever republican wins the runoff.
Yeah. You would know better than I, being yonder up in Minnesota.
I think that these days Minnesotans know about stuff in Texas, just as we Texans have been learning a lot about Minnesota. Both states have been in the news for unfortunate reasons.
Yes and isn’t that the pits??
Yes. We can’t elect ass kickers like Crockett and AOC. Gotta settle for the nice baby faced seminarian.
How about we elect both? There are many government offices they can fill, starting this fall and ending...never.
thank you for the news!
A “nice” young man who has a life based on severe religious principles? Could be very challenging with our form of constitutional government and democracy?
I would like to see him senator in 2026 president in 2028
Talarico is not seasoned enough and far too religious for majority of voters in this nation.
Whatever the Supreme Court Justices' ideological predilections may be, it appears that they don't take kindly to Trump's habitual abuse of his office to engage in extortions to get what he wants.
I think it made a big impact on at least the 2 Conservative Justices who ruled against Trump's usurpation of Congress' right to set tariffs to not merely set individualll tariffs as he pleased for economic reasons but to threaten and extort foreign countries, and especially our allies, with raising their tariffs unless and until they bowed to his demands. It must have truly irked the Justices to see Trump threaten our 8 European allies with a 10% increase on tariffs that he would increase to 25% unless and until they agreed to have Denmark turn over Greenland to Trump.
This was pure extortion, and the same kind of extortion that Trump perpetrated against the law firms who caved in to his demands.
He learned from the finest mafia bosses in NYC and now he is one. If that theory holds true, he will be taken down, one way or another by his own people.
People knew his history for decades. They wanted a mob boss and not a brilliant experienced woman.
Agreed. They wanted a thug, and that's exactly what they got, though the November elections will reveal to what extent they regret it.
Are trumps the sixth family?
no, they are too stupid "the families" don't put their crimes on display.
so where is Jimmy Hoffa for example...
While they may not officially qualify as an organized crime family, not having gone throiugh the rituals of pledging loyalty to the goddfather, wacking out a loan shark victim who didn't pay up,etc ertc, they are trying to emulate them and so far they are succeeding.
Thank you, Joyce. I am so grateful for your clear explanations of what is confusingly before us who are not attorneys.
Thank you Joyce 💕for keeping things
Very Important Things
Like how the Law is supposed
to be working
In front of us
You are brilliant❣️
Even when I have to read it 2-3 times
because the amount
of input we get over the days
Leads to sensory overload and pure cerebral impairment
Thank You 🙏🏽🌻🩵☮️💙🗳️💙
Why would any court, much less a Federal Appeals court, permit the kind of off again - on again motions by DOJ? I assume judges are busy people who can, and should, find better things to do than tolerate the pettiness which is the hallmark of today's DOJ.
James, I'm not a lawyer but have legal training as a legal assistant. The answer to your question lies in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here's a link.
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure
There is also the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Here's a link:
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-criminal-procedure
These uniformly applied rules gives order to litigation chaos. Judges and litigants are required to follow them.
I haven't read the motion to withdraw motion but it likely was filed pursuant to Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions, FRCP Rule 41United States Code Annotated
https://content.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000600&cite=USFRCPR41&originatingDoc=I45b470bda54111e8a5b3e3d9e23d7429&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=PLDocumentLink&billingHash=A3B6EC662F6A6E76C1378A9F46BE1234134D06260602F8B34F1D36C685160453&ppcid=1e7c51f730de49abaa372c4dcc45df30&contextData=(sc.Default)
A lot of people are calling this regime "Nazi." I disagree. The Nazi's were organized in how they proceeded. This regime is bumble footed. Fascist, yes. Nazi--they'll never get there.
I had the same thought Joyce had - Bondi got a call from Trump in the middle of the night, probably right after he posted something about the war in Iran. Bondi said "DOJ is understaffed, we're going to lose this appeal" and Trump said "I don't care, we have to stop these law firms from suing the government." Bondi's error was making a decision without consulting the client, which is Trump, not the government or the people of the United States. Hardly the first time she has failed to perform her duties properly. Probably won't be the last time either.
Thank you for documenting legal history so clearly.
Joyce, that is good info. Thanks.
This affair is sounding like material for a Monty Python skit. John Cleese would have a rip roaring good time with this material. Rich S, Octogenarian and Contrarian
Can the court deny the motion to withdraw the motion to withdraw, thereby letting stand the withdrawal of the case?
Unless tomorrow there’s a motion to withdraw the motion to withdraw the motion to withdraw, well, sure! We’re into Jabberwocky, friends; I know I’m ready to gyre and gimbel in the wabe. (How are your borogroves, by the way? Still mimsy?) lol
I think what Joyce said was that in spite of the ridiculous imaginations of the DOJ, there’s nothing particular about the situation that would cause them to interfere with the case going forward. I have to read it again what she said because that’s just what I think she said