With Abortion Order, Judge Takes Judicial Tyranny To A New Level
The article discusses a recent decision by District Judge Indira Talwani, who issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking a provision in a reconciliation bill that aimed to defund Planned Parenthood. The ruling allows the institution to receive Medicaid funding despite a congressional directive against it. The author criticizes the decision as a manifestation of judicial overreach, suggesting that Talwani lacks a coherent legal rationale for her ruling and is acting outside her authority.
The author argues that Talwani’s actions reflect a broader trend among predominantly democrat-appointed judges undermining the Trump management through what is described as “lawfare.” moreover, the article claims that talwani views her judicial power as superior to elected officials, thereby challenging the separation of powers within the government. The author expresses concern over judges who, in their interpretation of the law, assume roles traditionally held by the legislative and executive branches.
The article concludes with a call to recognize the implications of such judicial decisions on democracy and governance.
If you thought the judicial coup against the Trump administration couldn’t get any more egregious than it already is, think again.
On Monday, District Judge Indira Talwani took it upon herself to try and unilaterally block a provision from legislation passed by Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. Through the use of a temporary restraining order, or TRO, the Obama appointee (and Democrat donor) declared that the Trump administration cannot enforce a provision of the recently passed reconciliation bill that prevents Medicaid funding from going to entities run by the nation’s largest abortion provider.
“This Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect for fourteen days, unless vacated, modified or extended by the court,” Talwani wrote. “It is so ordered.”
As The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland observed, Talwani’s order isn’t a nationwide injunction, which the Supreme Court recently determined in its Trump v. CASA case “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” Rather, Cleveland wrote, it “allowed an organization, Planned Parenthood, to obtain relief on behalf of unnamed member organizations” — an issue which “SCOTUS did not address” in Trump v. CASA.
[RELATED: SCOTUS Ruling Against Universal Injunctions Didn’t Go Far Enough]
If you’re looking for a coherent legal rationale behind Monday’s decision, you won’t find it in Talwani’s edict. Nowhere in her two-page order does she bother to explain how the left-wing plaintiffs demonstrated “good cause” to justify the TRO, or what legal authority she possesses to unliterally force the executive to violate a provision of law passed by Congress and signed by the president.
Then again, that’s been the standard with most (predominantly Democrat-appointed) lower court judges greenlighting leftists’ lawfare against the administration. To them, their word and their word alone must be strictly adhered to — regardless of whether or not it is constitutionally sound.
Like many of her fellow rogue district judges, Talwani is acting like the Constitution doesn’t apply to her. She seemingly believes that it is within her power to not only interpret the law in cases before her court, but to also assume the responsibilities of the other two branches in dictating what funds are expensed and how.
In her world, it is lawyers in black robes — not the people and their elected representatives — who reign supreme.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
