The French are calling @JDVance a Kremlin spokesman. I think the French are about to realise what happens when your leaders sell you out to a foreign country and then you start attacking that foreign country’s leaders.
It's a bi-lateral agreement but they do not say what France gets out of it
Seems like the US will take whatever France thought they might get
Ukraine Zelensky -
Sequel to the Producers
In the 1968 film The Producers, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom sell 25,000% of their next show, Springtime for Hitler, to raise money. Their plan is to produce a flop, pocket the profits, and run away.
It's important to understand that the EU globalists are in meltdown not because they care about Ukraine or its people, but because their economies are extremely fragile and loss of access to, and exploitation of, Ukrainian mineral resources will doom them to collapse. In particular, a lot of the financial aid sent to Ukraine was in the form of loans that will not be repaid once Ukraine loses the war. The British Central Bank is now teetering on the brink and continued default on loan payments from Ukraine will be the final straw that breaks the camel's back. Europe is faced with a huge sovereign debt load, an expensive and hostile immigrant invasion, a US demand for more defense spending, and a cabal of pretender stooges running their governments. And Trump wants a quick deal with Russia, which means the SHTF shortly thereafter.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It’s a myth that the U.S. has not engaged in acts that we label as terrorism when conducted by other countries against us. Didn’t Pence and Haley autograph cluster bombs outlawed by most of the world that were destined for Ukraine and Gaza?
Gotta ask, Cass, have you read J. Turley on this subject? He seems to have the right idea here. These lower court judges have no reason to act as they have. They are activists and buffoons doing the bidding of party politics.
For reasons of his own, Cassander has chosen to frame the issue differently than it has been presented. The actual question is whether the power of the judiciary extends to running the government--making decisions that infringe on the constitutional authority of the other equal branches of the government. His position posits that the judiciary is superior to the other branches of government--a novel suggestion unknown to the framers of the constitution. The further question is thus whether the executive--the actual governing agency under our constitution--is obliged to defer to the judiciary even when the judiciary acts beyond its constitutional authority. In the cases before us the judiciary may have some authority when there are laws that govern personnel matters concerning lower officials--this is a matter that hasn't been fully addressed in our history. However, there are other cases in which the judges have attempted to direct the president to retain agency heads whom he believes are not fit for the offices they held. Those officials, not mere employees, are extensions of the executive power. Judges who meddle in that do so without constitutional authority.
"In our constitutional system, **parties are bound to observe the orders of judges,** until they are vacated, by the judge himself, or by a higher court. This is not 'rule by judges', this is 'rule of law'."
"There has been much concern expressed here and elsewhere that some liberal judges, appointed by Democrats, are incorrectly deciding cases, and granting TROs or preliminary injunctions incorrectly, in violation of statutes or the Constitution, and in particular in violation of the constitutional principle of the Unitary Executive and/or in violation of the constitutional authority of the Executive."
"This may be so, but, in my judgment, it gives no right to violate a lawful order of a court."
This is straightforward judicial supremacy--everyone has to obey judges until the judges decide otherwise. There are no limits on the power of judges, including when they act outside the scope of their constitutional authority--no checks or balances or limits to their power, because they decide on those, also. Others may take oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, but those oaths simply come down to: I will obey the judges. The Constitution and laws are only what the judges say they are.
This is the most cynical of power plays ever advanced by the man made order against the divinely created order. All dressed up in black robes etc. using fancy language to baffle the masses and hide the raw exercise of power.
Fortunately, I think the majority of the Court understand this better.
Nope, you've got it all backwards. Checks and balances does not = freedom from oversight. Quite the opposite. The framers of the Constitution were much wiser than to put their trust in judges. It's precisely because the justices understand the potential checks and balances that even some who detest Trump and all his works will understand the limits to their power.
I notice that you refer to "[the] system ... which has governed the United States of America for well over 200 years." This is historically incorrect. Only when the man made order had become supreme in American culture and society could such outrageous claims be made:
Serving as chief justice of the Supreme Court, Adams’s former secretary of state John Marshall wrote the court’s unanimous (4-0) majority opinion, stating that while Marbury should receive his commission the court could not order it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in a case not specified under Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution. ***In short, Justice Marshall ruled the court could not apply a law that violates the Constitution.***
In the decision, Marshall states that his oath to uphold the Constitution binds his decision-making, just as it binds the other branches: “It is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument (the Constitution), as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!”
***Marshall does not say the judicial branch is the lone decider of what is constitutional. Marshall is claiming that the courts, like the other branches, cannot violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. Marshall simply followed his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This ruling is far from the preeminent judicial precedent many claim it to be.***
Things Changed in Cooper v. Aaron in 1958
In 1958, the Supreme Court rewrote the authority of the Supreme Court by providing an alternative interpretation of Marbury v. Madison. While the Cooper v. Aaron case focused on the implementation of Brown v. Board of Education, in an opinion authored by all nine justices
***the court claimed that Marbury v. Madison “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution,***
and that principle has ever since been respected by the Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”
***With this ruling, the courts claimed supremacy in defining the Constitution. Yet this court made a fundamentally false claim in its reasoning. The court misunderstood that when Article 6 of the Constitution states that the Constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land,” it is referring to the actual Constitution, not a court’s opinion on the Constitution. This becomes a crucial distinction when the country meets court opinions that rewrite or contradict the clear meaning of the Constitution.***
Trump is obeying the orders, for now, because it helps shapethe Zeitgeist by showing some of the Judiciary to be extreme, and usurping the President's Power. Trump wants the Judiciary to go full TDS with more and more outrageous decisions, and then use those actions appealed to SCOTUS to limit the power of the district courts.
Some of the Judges have been weakening their initial orders. My guess somebody had a talk with them, and they did not want to have their name with a SCOTUS decision that helped Trump.
The question is how will Robert's thread this needle, so the court appears apolitical and avoids controversy, as seems to be Robert's goal. First one has already reached Roberts, and there are more to follow...
Ray: “Roberts”, is the great uncertainty for me as well, there’s still a bitter taste in my mouth from what he did to the country on Obamacare. Couple that performance with your correct analysis of how much Roberts abhors being connected with any decision that could be construed as “political”, and it makes me very uncomfortable, Mark’s feelings that Roberts believes in federalism not withstanding. I still remember Robert’s incredibly naive opinion that there are no, “Obama judges, no Clinton judges, no Bush
judges, just “Judges” period.
Often wondered how he could believe something so obviously untrue.
Spot on. Robert's attempts at putting blind folds on these judges just isn't going to work. Democrats choose judges who will adhere to their ideological leanings, not rule of law. You see this in their lawfare activity and their rulings in the lower courts. They are obstructionists.
Which is why Trump is deliberately making judges do really stupid stuff, that forces Roberts hand. I’m sure Trump and his advisers gamed this out - brilliant.
Right. I agree that that's what's going on--for now. However, I believe the dynamics I describe in the post are in play. Roberts will be under pressure to defuse this ASAP to prevent a confrontation in which the judiciary is almost certain to lose. IOW, he'll be under pressure to back the judiciary out of the position they've assumed over the years. I believe that's what he will want to do because, behind all his maneuvering, he's a believer in federalism and limited and well defined roles for each branch.
Tell that to A. Jackson and A. Lincoln. Plus, not all district court orders are ordinarily appealable. TROs, for example--which is exactly why Dem judges are entertaining these when they know they shouldn't be.
The President has a duty to uphold the Constitution just as much as the SCOTUS does--the Constitution provides for a republican form of government with 3 equal branches, not for a republic under judicial supremacy.
I understand the point here, but the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to assert that it may strike down a law because it violates the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, in 1803 with Marbury vs Madison, SCOTUS asserted that it had the right to strike down laws that it determined violated the Constitution. That was a huge, and in my opinion, unjustified power grab.
Glenn Diesen @Glenn_Diesen doesn't really understand it
what is really happening and what is most important is the battle between US and EU
everyone knows Russia has won the war and there is little to nothing US can do about that
The Ukraine Russia war is so yesterday -
I've mentioned this a few times for a year now
Russia will take what they want the US will take the seconds and the EU the scraps
The Greatest Battle will be After the War
and it already started it's between the US and EU
The US wants the Ukraine Resources, the EU wants them too
they both need them desperately desperately
and Ukraine has promised and sold them already to many
And this is the battle the US desperately needs those raw materials
lithium etc... and the US needs and must keep EU Subservient
The Greatest Battle will be After the War
and it already started
Yes, absolutely: remember the Concorde?
Of course attacking Russia hurts the EU (Germany - Russia energy), so it’s a 2 birds 1 stone approach.
Philip Pilkington @philippilk

The French are calling @JDVance a Kremlin spokesman. I think the French are about to realise what happens when your leaders sell you out to a foreign country and then you start attacking that foreign country’s leaders.
The French had apparently made a few agreements, here is one reported:
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240312-french-parliament-to-vote-on-macron-s-ukraine-strategy-after-controversial-ground-troop-comments
It's a bi-lateral agreement but they do not say what France gets out of it
Seems like the US will take whatever France thought they might get
Ukraine Zelensky -
Sequel to the Producers
In the 1968 film The Producers, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom sell 25,000% of their next show, Springtime for Hitler, to raise money. Their plan is to produce a flop, pocket the profits, and run away.
Mon Dieu, what next?
Halcyon days with a légume in the White House! Putin must be grinning from ear to ear…
'Snow Mexicans' favorite food is poutine tacos btw!
Snow Mexicans! LOLOLOL!!
It's important to understand that the EU globalists are in meltdown not because they care about Ukraine or its people, but because their economies are extremely fragile and loss of access to, and exploitation of, Ukrainian mineral resources will doom them to collapse. In particular, a lot of the financial aid sent to Ukraine was in the form of loans that will not be repaid once Ukraine loses the war. The British Central Bank is now teetering on the brink and continued default on loan payments from Ukraine will be the final straw that breaks the camel's back. Europe is faced with a huge sovereign debt load, an expensive and hostile immigrant invasion, a US demand for more defense spending, and a cabal of pretender stooges running their governments. And Trump wants a quick deal with Russia, which means the SHTF shortly thereafter.
“The Left’s basic position—in effect, that the Civil Service somehow constitutes a Fourth Branch of government.”
The technocratic wet dream, a decades long in planning 5th column global superstructure is being dismantled before our very eyes, amazing.
The judicial branch is the weakest of the three. It is way past time for the other two branches to make that fact crystal clear.
Round and round the world is spinning
For Trump and the Russians, the EU is becoming what the US coastal elites called middle America: flyover country.
Secret terror blueprints for US NSC to ‘help Ukraine resist’ exposed
https://thegrayzone.com/2025/02/15/secret-nsc-plans-ukraine-resist/
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It’s a myth that the U.S. has not engaged in acts that we label as terrorism when conducted by other countries against us. Didn’t Pence and Haley autograph cluster bombs outlawed by most of the world that were destined for Ukraine and Gaza?
I can't quite get past that golden pager gift plaque from Netanyahu to Trump, Israel's greatest ally. So, how much did we help with that operation.
Gotta ask, Cass, have you read J. Turley on this subject? He seems to have the right idea here. These lower court judges have no reason to act as they have. They are activists and buffoons doing the bidding of party politics.
For reasons of his own, Cassander has chosen to frame the issue differently than it has been presented. The actual question is whether the power of the judiciary extends to running the government--making decisions that infringe on the constitutional authority of the other equal branches of the government. His position posits that the judiciary is superior to the other branches of government--a novel suggestion unknown to the framers of the constitution. The further question is thus whether the executive--the actual governing agency under our constitution--is obliged to defer to the judiciary even when the judiciary acts beyond its constitutional authority. In the cases before us the judiciary may have some authority when there are laws that govern personnel matters concerning lower officials--this is a matter that hasn't been fully addressed in our history. However, there are other cases in which the judges have attempted to direct the president to retain agency heads whom he believes are not fit for the offices they held. Those officials, not mere employees, are extensions of the executive power. Judges who meddle in that do so without constitutional authority.
"In our constitutional system, **parties are bound to observe the orders of judges,** until they are vacated, by the judge himself, or by a higher court. This is not 'rule by judges', this is 'rule of law'."
"There has been much concern expressed here and elsewhere that some liberal judges, appointed by Democrats, are incorrectly deciding cases, and granting TROs or preliminary injunctions incorrectly, in violation of statutes or the Constitution, and in particular in violation of the constitutional principle of the Unitary Executive and/or in violation of the constitutional authority of the Executive."
"This may be so, but, in my judgment, it gives no right to violate a lawful order of a court."
This is straightforward judicial supremacy--everyone has to obey judges until the judges decide otherwise. There are no limits on the power of judges, including when they act outside the scope of their constitutional authority--no checks or balances or limits to their power, because they decide on those, also. Others may take oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, but those oaths simply come down to: I will obey the judges. The Constitution and laws are only what the judges say they are.
This is the most cynical of power plays ever advanced by the man made order against the divinely created order. All dressed up in black robes etc. using fancy language to baffle the masses and hide the raw exercise of power.
Fortunately, I think the majority of the Court understand this better.
Nope, you've got it all backwards. Checks and balances does not = freedom from oversight. Quite the opposite. The framers of the Constitution were much wiser than to put their trust in judges. It's precisely because the justices understand the potential checks and balances that even some who detest Trump and all his works will understand the limits to their power.
I notice that you refer to "[the] system ... which has governed the United States of America for well over 200 years." This is historically incorrect. Only when the man made order had become supreme in American culture and society could such outrageous claims be made:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/16/no-marbury-v-madison-not-say-supreme-court-gets-final-say-constitutionality/
Serving as chief justice of the Supreme Court, Adams’s former secretary of state John Marshall wrote the court’s unanimous (4-0) majority opinion, stating that while Marbury should receive his commission the court could not order it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in a case not specified under Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution. ***In short, Justice Marshall ruled the court could not apply a law that violates the Constitution.***
In the decision, Marshall states that his oath to uphold the Constitution binds his decision-making, just as it binds the other branches: “It is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument (the Constitution), as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!”
***Marshall does not say the judicial branch is the lone decider of what is constitutional. Marshall is claiming that the courts, like the other branches, cannot violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. Marshall simply followed his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This ruling is far from the preeminent judicial precedent many claim it to be.***
Things Changed in Cooper v. Aaron in 1958
In 1958, the Supreme Court rewrote the authority of the Supreme Court by providing an alternative interpretation of Marbury v. Madison. While the Cooper v. Aaron case focused on the implementation of Brown v. Board of Education, in an opinion authored by all nine justices
***the court claimed that Marbury v. Madison “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution,***
and that principle has ever since been respected by the Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”
***With this ruling, the courts claimed supremacy in defining the Constitution. Yet this court made a fundamentally false claim in its reasoning. The court misunderstood that when Article 6 of the Constitution states that the Constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land,” it is referring to the actual Constitution, not a court’s opinion on the Constitution. This becomes a crucial distinction when the country meets court opinions that rewrite or contradict the clear meaning of the Constitution.***
Trump is obeying the orders, for now, because it helps shapethe Zeitgeist by showing some of the Judiciary to be extreme, and usurping the President's Power. Trump wants the Judiciary to go full TDS with more and more outrageous decisions, and then use those actions appealed to SCOTUS to limit the power of the district courts.
Some of the Judges have been weakening their initial orders. My guess somebody had a talk with them, and they did not want to have their name with a SCOTUS decision that helped Trump.
The question is how will Robert's thread this needle, so the court appears apolitical and avoids controversy, as seems to be Robert's goal. First one has already reached Roberts, and there are more to follow...
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/02/trump-seeks-emergency-scotus-stay-of-district-court-tro-preventing-termination-of-senior-employee/
Ray: “Roberts”, is the great uncertainty for me as well, there’s still a bitter taste in my mouth from what he did to the country on Obamacare. Couple that performance with your correct analysis of how much Roberts abhors being connected with any decision that could be construed as “political”, and it makes me very uncomfortable, Mark’s feelings that Roberts believes in federalism not withstanding. I still remember Robert’s incredibly naive opinion that there are no, “Obama judges, no Clinton judges, no Bush
judges, just “Judges” period.
Often wondered how he could believe something so obviously untrue.
Spot on. Robert's attempts at putting blind folds on these judges just isn't going to work. Democrats choose judges who will adhere to their ideological leanings, not rule of law. You see this in their lawfare activity and their rulings in the lower courts. They are obstructionists.
Agree on Obamacare
Which is why Trump is deliberately making judges do really stupid stuff, that forces Roberts hand. I’m sure Trump and his advisers gamed this out - brilliant.
Please don’t issue a TRO Judge Br'er Fox …
Right. I agree that that's what's going on--for now. However, I believe the dynamics I describe in the post are in play. Roberts will be under pressure to defuse this ASAP to prevent a confrontation in which the judiciary is almost certain to lose. IOW, he'll be under pressure to back the judiciary out of the position they've assumed over the years. I believe that's what he will want to do because, behind all his maneuvering, he's a believer in federalism and limited and well defined roles for each branch.
We hope, but with Robert's it's a crap shoot IMHO.
Not necessarily. I'm writing on that now.
Yup, I read it, thanks.
Tell that to A. Jackson and A. Lincoln. Plus, not all district court orders are ordinarily appealable. TROs, for example--which is exactly why Dem judges are entertaining these when they know they shouldn't be.
https://x.com/wajacobson/status/1891133118238654593
The President has a duty to uphold the Constitution just as much as the SCOTUS does--the Constitution provides for a republican form of government with 3 equal branches, not for a republic under judicial supremacy.
Hmmm. Seems like your not only belaboring something or other, but you're changing your ... something or other.
"The day POTUS decides to ignore or defy a Supreme Court decision applicable to it, there goes the 'rule of law' in this country ..."
What you're describing is not Rule of Law--it's Rule of Judges. What I'm describing is Checks and Balances, as opposed to Judicial Supremacy.
"A POTUS who ignores a SCOTUS ruling, and ignores Marbury, is asking for a world of hurt."
So it's no longer 'there goes rule of law' but only that the POTUS--no longer 'we'--is in a world of hurt.
"TROs are, by definition, temporary and expire after a very short period of time."
But their improper employment on this scale can bring government as voted for by the citizens to a standstill. But you call that the 'rule of law'?
Rule of law? No, rule of judges--and it's pretty ugly:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/racist-judge-jack-mcconnell-who-halted-president-trumps/
Judge Jack McConnell, who believes he was recently elected US president, halted President Trump’s current spending freeze.
But Judge McConnell is not some innocent bystander.
Judge McConnell’s organization has received $117.6 million in government funding in total (ending in 2023).
Yes, this judge had a vested interest in his legal decision making. That's also corruption.
I understand the point here, but the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to assert that it may strike down a law because it violates the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, in 1803 with Marbury vs Madison, SCOTUS asserted that it had the right to strike down laws that it determined violated the Constitution. That was a huge, and in my opinion, unjustified power grab.
How about "student loan forgiveness"?