Even if you adore [Trump\/Biden], for whatever reason, you are a big problem if you refuse to criticize clear violations of the constitution no matter who is in the White House.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump suffers another defeat in court, as expected and deserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shocking Abuse of Power<\/strong><\/p> On April 16, NBC News reported\u00a0Federal judge calls Trump\u2019s order targeting prominent law firm a \u2018shocking abuse of power\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In a blistering ruling, a federal judge blocked a new executive order from President Donald Trump punishing a prominent law firm that successfully sued Fox News for promoting false claims of election fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan, speaking from the bench in her Washington, D.C., courtroom Tuesday, said Trump\u2019s order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey was part of a \u201cpersonal vendetta.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power,\u201d AliKhan said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The legal battle over Susman Godfrey is part of an intensifying effort by Trump to target his critics and other perceived enemies with presidential memorandums and executive orders that leverage the power of the Justice Department and other federal agencies to punish his opponents, legal experts and former Justice Department officials said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the broad array of those targeted by Trump in recent weeks: multiple large law firms that challenged him or his administration in court, former aides who defied him during and after his first term, and people who vandalize Tesla dealerships. Trump also directed the Justice Department to drop all pending investigations related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump and his allies contend that then-President Joe Biden weaponized the Justice Department against him. They have repeatedly accused the Biden White House of pressing Justice Department prosecutors to be tough on Trump and of holding them back in the cases of Biden and his son Hunter Biden<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Weaponization Irony<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Without a doubt Biden illegally weaponized the Justice Department against Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So did New York State in it\u2019s preposterous tax case against Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I defended Trump numerous times over this weaponization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response I was accused of being \u201cExtreme Right\u201d. What a hoot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The weaponization backfired. It is one of the reasons Trump won.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Revenge<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s response is even worse. He is targeting law firms just for defending someone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cult foolishly cheers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Smacked Again<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I am pleased to report\u00a0Trump\u2019s Campaign Against Elite Law Firms Suffers Another Defeat in Court<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In a matter of weeks, President Trump\u2019s campaign against the legal industry racked up commitments from law firms to\u00a0provide some $1 billion in pro bono work<\/a>\u00a0for causes favored by the White House. In court, the effort has met a much different fate: One gut punch after another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The latest blow landed Friday, when a federal judge in Washington struck down Trump\u2019s executive order against the law firm Jenner & Block. The ruling from U.S. District Judge\u00a0John Bates\u00a0extended a string of defeats the administration has suffered against law firms that have challenged executive orders targeting their businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\u00a0his ruling, Bates said the White House had unconstitutionally retaliated against Jenner & Block based on the causes and clients it supports, along with its past association with Andrew Weissmann, a onetime partner. Weissmann had served on the team of\u00a0Robert Mueller, the special counsel who investigated Trump during his first term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Like other executive orders against law firms, Bates wrote, the\u00a0one targeting Jenner & Block<\/a>\u00a0\u201cmakes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bates, an appointee of former President\u00a0George W. Bush, said the executive orders violated law firms\u2019 First Amendment rights by retaliating against them for the views embodied in their work and by \u201cseeking to muzzle them going forward.\u201d The orders were \u201cdoubly violative of the Constitution,\u201d he wrote, by also seeking to sideline law firms and keep them from taking on the administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling by Bates ruling echoed a decision earlier this month from U.S. District Judge\u00a0Beryl Howell, who ordered a permanent block on an executive order against the law firm Perkins Coie. Howell, an appointee of former President\u00a0Barack Obama,\u00a0declared\u00a0the order unconstitutional and an \u201cunprecedented attack\u201d on foundational principles ensuring lawyers\u2019 independence, dealing a first decisive blow against Trump\u2019s campaign to punish law firms over their affiliations with his perceived political foes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Jenner & Block vs DOJ Ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Please consider\u00a0JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 25-916 (JDB) This case arises from one of a series of executive orders targeting law firms that, in one way or another, did not bow to the current presidential administration\u2019s political orthodoxy. Like the others in the series, this order\u2014which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block\u2014 makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work\u2014and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward\u2014violates the First Amendment\u2019s central command that government may not \u201cuse the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy.\u00a0This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn\u2019t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers.<\/strong>\u00a0It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Executive orders like this one have become something of a modus operandi for the President. Both before and after this order, the administration trained similar orders on other large law firms, including Covington & Burling; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (\u201cPaul Weiss\u201d); Perkins Coie; WilmerHale; and Susman Godfrey. The orders follow the same recipe: other than personalized touches in their first sections, they generally direct the same adverse actions towards each firm and decry the threat each firm poses to national security and the national interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Analysis I.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The executive order violates Jenner\u2019s First Amendment rights. The challenged executive order targets Jenner for what it has said and thereby attempts to dampen what it might yet say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is unconstitutional under any view of the First Amendment, but two additional features of this order magnify its offensiveness to the freedoms the First Amendment guarantees: its viewpoint discrimination and its targeting of lawyers in particular.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And none of the order\u2019s sections can be salvaged by the Executive Branch\u2019s discretion in guarding the nation\u2019s secrets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Put simply, this blunderbuss of an order does not engage in the sort of \u201clegitimate consideration of speech,\u201d Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 668 (2012), that might sometimes be necessary to keep classified information in safe hands.\u00a0Rather than ensuring that national secrets remain with those who will keep them, Section 2\u2019s process \u201cseek[s] to leverage\u201d the Executive\u2019s control over security clearances as a way to change speech<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The President has displayed a great deal of animosity towards Jenner.\u00a0Further adverse actions would not be shocking\u2014and could very well offend the Constitution as plainly as Executive Order 14246 does<\/em>. And the defendants\u2019 own conduct during this litigation does not ease the concern: even in complying with the TRO, the defendants persisted in disparaging Jenner, implied that federal agencies may \u201cdecide with whom to work\u201d notwithstanding the First Amendment, and \u201creserve[d] the right to take all necessary and legal actions\u201d against Jenner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jenner raises many more claims of unconstitutionality. These present interesting, difficult, and potentially meritorious questions about the scope of presidential power and more. What has been said here of the First Amendment (and in passing of the Fifth and Sixth), however, is sufficient to declare Executive Order 14246 unlawful and enjoin its operation, eliminating the need to explore those other questions. So the Court need not break new ground:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Executive Order 14246 violates settled First Amendment law and its operation must be enjoined in full. Jenner\u2019s motion for summary judgment is granted; the defendants\u2019 motion is denied. A separate order will issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n JOHN D. BATES Typical Clown Response<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The typical clown response from the cult is to attack the judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this case, Judge Bates was appointed by President George W, Bush in 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Will that stop anyone? Probably not. The cult will scream about \u201cactivist judges\u201d when the problem is an activist Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Settled out of Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, the Paul Weiss law firm foolishly settled out of court without a fight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yesterday, we learned\u00a04 partners leave Paul Weiss after firm cut deal with Trump<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Four partners at Paul Weiss \u2014 including the high-profile Democratic attorney Karen Dunn \u2014 are departing the law firm, a spokesperson told CBS News, after Paul Weiss drew attention for striking a deal with President Trump to avoid targeting by the federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Earlier this year, Mr. Trump targeted Paul Weiss with an executive order that sharply limited how the firm could interact with the government, seeking to revoke staff members\u2019 security clearances and cut off any federal contracts. The move was part of a wider gambit to punish the president\u2019s foes in the legal community, which he claims have \u201cplayed an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The president\u2019s executive order criticized Paul Weiss for employing Mark Pomerantz, who previously worked on the team of Manhattan prosecutors that investigated Mr. Trump. It also took aim at the firm \u2014 and Rhee \u2014 for taking on a pro bono case involving the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, and criticized Paul Weiss\u2019 diversity, equity and inclusion policies<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But that order was later rescinded by Mr. Trump, who said Paul Weiss had agreed to a litany of compromises, like auditing its hiring practices and dedicating $40 million to pro bono legal services on causes that both the firm and the Trump administration agree upon.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Got That?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump took aim at Paul Weiss just for representing someone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Illegal and unconstitutional extortion is what we have here. Trump collected a cool $40 million for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice is on sale and the price is $40 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unthinking Cultists Cheer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The morons in the Trump cult cheered. There is no better word than moron.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Trump can do this so can the next Democrat president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yes, Biden weaponized the justice department against Trump. But that is no excuse to weaponize the justice department against entire classes of people and organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When I speak of \u201cthe cult\u201d please keep in mind there are two of them, a \u201cLeft cult\u201d and a \u201cRight cult\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I spoke against Democrats\u2019 attempt to pack the courts and I speak against Trump\u2019s even more belligerent attempts to do the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n More Idiocy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Those looking for more legal idiocy should consider\u00a0Trump Threatens to Suspend Habeas Corpus on Grounds the US is Being Invaded<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump orders the courts to do the \u201cright thing\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US is not being invaded. And the courts have already ruled against Trump\u2019s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s threat is a blanket interpretation that everyone here illegally is an enemy invader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No one should be cheering this.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n How about\u00a0Movies Are Now a National Security Threat, 100 Percent Tariffs Announced<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hooray for Hollywood!<\/p>\n\n\n\n And if you think I always side against Trump. You are mistaken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, please consider\u00a0Judge Dugan Illegally Shields a Migrant, Send Her to Jail<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If the facts hold as presented, Judge Dugan isn\u2019t fit to be a judge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On May 5, I commented\u00a035 House Democrats Join Republicans to Kill Biden\u2019s Preposterous EV Targets<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The end of California\u2019s grip on US EV policy is nearly over!<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n![](\"https:\/\/www.activistpost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/AP-AffiliateAd-850x500-BrainSupreme-1.jpg\"\/)
<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n