Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Obama-Appointed Judge Just Backstabbed Trump For Trying To Fire Bad Fed Workers

Published

on

Since President Trump has been in office we have seen an unprecedented amount of legislating from the bench in regards to laws and executive orders. Obama loaded up the court system with liberal appointees who are now taking on President Trump and executive orders directly whether it is constitutional or not. Many times, even if it is a federal judge who overturns an EO, an even higher court such as the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling. I am unsure of the constitutionality of judges nixing executive orders from a sitting president. It’s something we did not see often with Barack Obama.

Now, another federal judge has stepped up to the plate to strike down portions of executive orders by President Trump that were issued on May 25th. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the District of Columbia just backstabbed Trump for trying to fire federal workers who don’t do their jobs in favor of unions. He struck down key parts of three of Trump’s executive orders. The ruling was made on Saturday after a number of public-sector unions challenged some portions of the orders in court. This is seen as at least a temporary setback for Republican lawmakers who had sought, at the federal and state levels, to curb the power of labor unions representing government employees.

This is far from the only ruling and the only judge that has pulled something like this on Trump. Others have done so on immigration, national security, and the environment. Most of the time those rulings are eventually overruled and reversed. This is a form of legal warfare conducted from the bench to obstruct and stimy actions taken by President Trump to rectify problems in varying sectors of our government. It’s more political than legal in my viewpoint and should not be allowed.

Trending: Kavanaugh’s Wife Puts Reporters Camped Outside Their Home to Shame – Did It With BIG Smile

This particular judge wrote that in regards to specific sections of the executive orders, the administration overreached by attempting to diverge from what Congress had established as federal law. An executive order is a signed, written, and a published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government.

Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. To overturn this judge’s ruling, relief will have to be sought in a higher court. It’s a stall tactic. Obama liberally used executive orders to accomplish his desired political agendas this way. As far as I know, Congress should be the only one who can overturn an executive order but it seems to be murky law at best.

Trump was attempting to reduce the clout of federal employee unions in various ways. One order would restrict the amount of time during the workday that federal workers with full-time government jobs can also spend pursuing union activities. The orders also mandate a reduction to 30 days the amount of time an employee who isn’t meeting expectations gets to show improvement. That’s down from 60-to-120 days previously. This judge struck down those provisions and others having to do with the selection of workplace issues that agencies should consider open for negotiations with unions, such as the number of employees told to work on any given project.

Jackson was appointed by Obama. He left other parts of Trump’s executive orders intact. One of those had to do with instructions to agencies to refuse to bargain over efforts to limit their discretion in terminating an employee without first taking disciplinary action. “What remains of the Orders are those provisions that the Unions have not opted to challenge, and the few challenged provisions” that weren’t struck down, the judge wrote in the ruling. In other words, if unions were good with it, the provision stayed. That tells you all you need to know about this judge.

A coalition of labor unions challenged 20 different provisions in the directives, arguing that they violated the Constitution and the FSLMRS, a 1978 law securing collective bargaining rights for federal employees. This judge surmised that the president’s orders exceeded his authority as they effectively “eviscerate the right to bargain collectively as envisioned in the FSLMRS.”

From The Wall Street Journal:

“The move was welcomed by unions. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents hundreds of thousands of federal and District of Columbia employees, applauded the ruling Saturday.

“’Now that the judge has issued her decision, I urge all agencies that have attempted to enforce this illegal executive order to restore all previously negotiated contracts and to bargain in good faith with employee representatives on any future changes as required under the law,” AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. said in a statement.

“A Justice Department spokesman said, “We are reviewing the decision and considering our next steps.”

“Thomas A. Kochan, a professor of industrial relations at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, said he believes the executive orders so far haven’t caused material changes, adding that he hasn’t seen federal agencies adopting substantially different approaches.

“Mr. Kochan said the issue has been in his view “over-blown beyond its real impact.” He also said that in his view the administration’s decision to issue the executive orders “leads to animosity, but no lower costs.”

“Public-sector labor unions were dealt a major blow this June when the Supreme Court barred contracts that would require government workers across the country to pay union dues in a 5-4 decision.”

This judge found that the executive orders violate the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act (FSLMRS) in a voluminous, 122-page decision. The decision can be appealed through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and it should be immediately. Take it up the legal food chain and overturn this ridiculously biased ruling.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

After Major Upset In Texas Election, The 2018 Wave Is Confirmed

Published

on

So much for the so-called “Blue Wave” in the November midterms!

So it seems like the scheme the left had of planting illegal immigrants in dark red strongholds all over America in the hopes of turning the whole nation into a far left socialist cesspool, like Cuba or Venezuela, is starting to show signs of failure.

100 Percent FedUp reported that earlier this week Democrats all over the nation, along with their complicit mainstream media and Hollywood celebrities, got what can be considered a knock out blow when Pete Flores, who is a Hispanic Republican and newcomer to the world of politics, won handily in a district that has been solidly blue for 139 years.

That’s right, a Hispanic Republican took over a district that has voted Democrat for the past 139 years. Texas voters elected Flores to the Texas State Senate and in turn, flipped the district red. An event which has cemented the Republicans supermajority in the chamber ahead of the November elections.

Peter Flores thanks his supporters after his victory over Pete Gallego in a special election to succeed former state Senator Carlos Uresti, on Sept. 18, 2018. Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune

Here is more via the Texas Tribune:

“Republican Pete Flores’ upset victory in a Democratic-friendly Texas Senate district Tuesday night has spurred GOP jubilation and Democratic soul-searching with less than two months until the November elections.

“All this talk about a ‘blue wave’? Well, the tide is out,” Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick proclaimed at Flores’ election night party in San Antonio.

“Flores beat Democrat Pete Gallego, a former U.S. representative, by 6 percentage points in the special election runoff for Senate District 19, where state Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, resigned earlier this year after 11 felony convictions. The win made Flores the first Hispanic Republican in the Texas Senate and grew the GOP majority there to 21 members, a key addition as the caucus heads toward November looking to retain its supermajority.

“Democrats moved quickly Tuesday night to blame Gov. Greg Abbott for scheduling the special election at a time when turnout was expected to be low and would favor his party. But they were nonetheless demoralized Wednesday, trying to figure out how they let a valuable seat flip in a district where Uresti repeatedly won re-election by double digits and that Hillary Clinton carried by 12 in 2016.

“Gallego’s campaign said that at the end of the day, it was not able to motivate its voters as much as Flores did.

“Our investment was in the grassroots and trying to increase the number of Democratic voters in the densest precincts where people hadn’t turned out and trying to cut through the clutter of all the other campaigns going on targeting November … and it proved to be a lot more difficult to get people tuned in to the fact that an incredibly important race was happening today,” Gallego strategist Christian Archer said.

“The relative enthusiasm for Flores was evident in the district’s biggest Republican counties — places like Medina County, where he routed Gallego with 80 percent of the vote. Flores’ margins in the red counties were more than enough to offset Gallego’s advantage in vote-rich Bexar County, which gave Gallego a modest 54 percent of the vote.

“Flores’ campaign said it benefited from a number of factors throughout the race, starting with the deep Democratic divide that unfolded as Gallego battled state Rep. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, ahead of the eight-way July 31 special election. Gutierrez, who won Bexar County then, never endorsed Gallego in the runoff, and on Wednesday, the two sides had different accounts of how much of an effort, if any, Gallego made to court Gutierrez.

“But Flores also had to prove himself within his own party and emerge as the consensus candidate on July 31, when two other, lesser-known Republicans were on the ballot. Flores pulled that off with just days to spare, earning late endorsements from a who’s who of top Texas Republicans, starting with U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and then Patrick, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, and Abbott.

“We knew that if we could get in the runoff, we’d have additional help because the stakes would be clear … and the value of winning would be obvious,” said Matt Mackowiak, Flores’ consultant.”

Flores is a retired game warden. He went on to defeat U.S. Representative Pete Gallego for the Senate District 19 seat after receiving support from some of the state’s most prominent politicians. Some of which were Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, and both U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.

According to the Texas Secretary of State’s website, Flores won with a whopping 53 percent of the vote to Gallego’s 47 percent with 44,487 total ballots cast. Flores and Gallego both competed in Tuesday’s runoff after emerging from an eight-candidate field in first and second place in July’s special election to replace former Senator Carlos Uresti.

The longtime Democrat lawmaker was forced to resign his seat in June after being convicted of 11 felony charges.

Continue Reading

Democrats Just Set Washington Swamp On Fire With Supreme Court Confession

Published

on

At the very last moment on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for his appointment to the Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) produced a letter from an alleged victim who was claiming that she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ardently denied this and the whole story is just full of holes and unfounded accusations meant to stall his nomination.

Professor Christina Blasey Ford and the Democrats have caused a national outcry over their machinations here concerning an alleged incident that occurred 36 years ago while Kavanaugh and Ford were in high school. It is more than highly suspicious that this woman would show up now and with no attendant evidence or witnesses who are willing to confirm her accusation.

In fact, at least one witness is saying that this never even happened. The man identified as the witness in an alleged sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the 1980s is claiming he has “no memory” of the incident.

“I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved,” Mark Judge, a former high school friend, and classmate of Kavanaugh said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. “The only reason I’m involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault.”

“I have no memory of the alleged incident,” Judge said in a statement. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

Ford can’t seem to remember any specifics of the incident either. She can’t recall the exact year, where it happened or even who exactly was present at the time. She also doesn’t know how she got there or how she got home and she doesn’t know who threw the party. Sounds less than credible to me.

It will also not surprise you that Ford is a Democrat who has marched against President Trump. She is also opposed to Kavanaugh on political grounds.

Sixty-five women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school are now speaking up for his character. They have written a letter supporting Kavanaugh to the Senate Judiciary Committee defending his character. The letter stated that Judge Kavanaugh has always “treated women with respect.”

From the Patriot Journal:

“But many on the Left do not care about these facts and have already decided that Kavanaugh is guilty.

“They are now demanding that Kavanaugh’s nomination be denied, despite the fact that in America we have a right to due process and the presumption of innocence.

“Interestingly, not all on the Left seem convinced that Ford’s story is accurate, and one prominent Democrat just outright admitted that she doesn’t know if Ford is telling the truth.

“There you have it. If Senator Feinstein really thought this claim of Ford’s were true, she would have released Ford’s letter when she received it months ago.

“Instead Feinstein sat on this information and released it at the 11th hour in a desperate attempt to stop Kavanaugh from being nominated.

“Feinstein also stated that Ford “did not want to go public” with her accusation, further casting doubt on Ford’s credibility.

“For his part, Kavanaugh is stating he has never even met his accuser.”

Feinstein can’t have it both ways here. On the one hand, she accuses Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, while stating that she can’t vouch for everything Ford is saying as truthful. Obviously, Feinstein knows it isn’t or would not be confessing her doubt here. Her statement did set the Washington swamp on fire though.

This is very reminiscent of the Clarence Thomas mess when he had to go through his hearings to become a Supreme Court Justice. Anita Hill accused Justice Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearing back in 1991. She claimed it happened years before that though… not decades like Ford is stretching for here. This is sheer desperation and obstructionism on the Democrats’ part.

Thomas was painted as some kind of monster back then with lies and contradictions. But it didn’t stick and Thomas is now arguably the strongest constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court.

I expect Kavanaugh will be confirmed before the midterm elections. Grassley has offered a public or private hearing to Ford. At first, she refused, then she insisted on an FBI investigation and now she is demanding more witnesses. The ones I have heard are not doing her any favors but who knows who could be dredged up and convinced into saying whatever here.

Let’s hope that Ford follows Hill into disgraced obscurity. Kavanaugh does not deserve this unwarranted attack and the Democrats should be deeply ashamed over this.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend