The Republican-dominated House needs to legislate ASAP to confirm the constitutional functions of the Supreme Court.

How the law needs to be worded is a puzzle that the specialists must solve. Fast, please!

Shawn Fleetwood writes at the Federalist:

Not a day seems to go by without some activist lower court judge issuing an overreaching injunction blocking part of President Trump’s agenda.

Throughout Wednesday and Thursday [April 23 & 24, 2025] alone, judges across multiple venues handed down decrees barring numerous executive actions taken by the president since returning to office. From DEI to election policy, these cases are but a few of the more than 170 lawsuits Democrats and left-wing political actors have filed to sabotage Trump and the 77 million Americans who voted for him.

Despite this clear effort to destroy American democracy via a judicial coup, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) seems to have no interest in stopping it. The nation’s highest court has had ample opportunities to halt these lower court judges’ destructive antics but has repeatedly declined to do so.

The first notable instance of this cowardice came to fruition in early March. In a 5-4 decision, a majority on the court declined a request from the Trump administration to shut down a ruling from a Biden-appointed district court judge. The judge had ordered the State Department and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to disburse roughly $2 billion in foreign grants to nongovernmental groups.

Comprised of Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the court’s Democrat appointees, the majority offered no rationale for the decision, a move that left Associate Justice Samuel Alito “stunned”.

Writing for the dissent, Alito underscored the overreaching nature of the lower court’s order and chastised the majority for its unwillingness to shut down such abusive behavior. He wrote, “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise.”

By declining to rein in the Biden-appointed judge’s outlandish behavior, the high court’s majority all but gave the green light to activist judges across the country to take similar actions on leftist-backed lawsuits filed in their respective jurisdictions. As previously noted, this has encouraged these judicial supremacists to issue blanket injunctions barring the Trump administration from implementing policies the American people voted for, thus effectively rendering the 2024 presidential election results moot.

SCOTUS’s inclination to tolerate judicial tyranny among the lower courts is perhaps unsurprising, however, given that a majority of the justices have indicated their own infatuation with overstepping the constitutional limits erected by America’s founding document.

In the dead of night on Easter weekend, without explanation, seven of the justices essentially usurped the executive branch’s authority over immigration by blocking Trump’s deportation of Venezuelan gang members. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito dissented, with the latter once again penning a scathing opinion blasting the majority’s “unprecedented and legally questionable” actions.

It’s unclear exactly what game the high court’s majority is playing. Even for a wannabe politician like Chief Justice Roberts — whose primary concern seems to be protecting the judiciary’s “legitimacy” rather than interpreting the Constitution as written — the decisions to allow the lower courts to run afoul of America’s constitutional order and issue late-night orders are unlikely to sit well with the public. In fact, one could argue the high court’s antics are doing more damage to its reputation than leftists’ smear campaigns ever could.

Recall over the past few years when Democrats and their media allies ran hit pieces against many of SCOTUS’s Republican-appointed justices. While much of this manufactured psyop was directed at the high court’s most reliable originalists (Thomas and Alito), the end goal was the same — to delegitimize the body and its constitutional rulings in the eyes of the American public.

Yet, for all their bluster, the media’s smear campaign didn’t seem to have significantly affected non-leftists’ opinion of the Supreme Court. Pew Research data published in August shows that the decline in the court’s favorability in recent years has been driven almost exclusively by Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents, whose views of the court turned sour following the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

But what the media couldn’t do to SCOTUS — destroying its credibility among Americans — the high court is now doing to itself. By refusing to rein in the lower courts’ lawlessness, the justices have authorized a judicial coup that is stymying the will of the 77 million Americans who voted for Trump.

The longer a majority on the high court allows this circus to continue, the more faith citizens will lose in its ability to operate as a capable branch of government.

President Obama has no respect for the truth.

John Ellis has posted a long list of his lies at Front Page.

And Erick Erickson provides a list of lobbyists who are serving in his administration even as Obama continues to claim falsely that he’s ‘excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions’.

Obama  is not merely an occasional liar as politicians tend to be. He apparently lies as a matter of habit, and with such conviction that he probably believes his own whoppers as he tells them. This characteristic dishonesty is one of the many facts about him that make him unfit for the office he holds.

Now Hans von Spakovsky, who has served on the Federal Election Commission, writes at The Foundry of the Heritage Foundation:

The two claims President Obama made [in his State of the Union speech] about  the Court’s decision … in the Citizens United case are categorically and undeniably false.

President Obama claimed that the Supreme Court had “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Alito seemed to shake his head and mouth the words “not true.” And well he should. …

First of all, the 100-year claim is completely wrong. In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act that banned direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates – there was no ban on independent political expenditures in the law. “Contributions” are funds given directly to candidates for their election campaigns; independent expenditures are funds spent by third parties on things like political advertisements without any coordination with the candidate.

The Tillman Act was sponsored by South Carolina Senator Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, probably the most vicious racist to ever serve in Congress. Tillman was a Democratic segregationist who was chiefly responsible for the imposition of Jim Crow in South Carolina after the end of Reconstruction when he was governor. This federal law, that so-called “progressives” like the President are constantly praising, was intended by Tillman to hurt the Republican Party – the party of abolition and Abraham Lincoln – because many corporations contributed to the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. These corporations did not like segregation in the South – it cost them money and made it more expensive to sell their goods and services.

Congress did not ban independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions until 1947. For three decades after the passage of that law, the Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid upholding its constitutionality, and the Court actually struck down a separate ban on independent expenditures … It was not until 1990 in the Austin case that the Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a state ban on independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (a trade association) in a case completely at odds with prior precedent. The actual electioneering communications provision at issue in the Citizens United case was part of the McCain-Feingold amendments to federal campaign finance law in 2002. …

While the Supreme Court in Citizens United found that the corporate ban on independent political expenditures is unconstitutional, it did not touch the ban on direct contributions to federal candidates. That is the ban that represents “a century of law” and it remains in force today contrary to the President’s assertion.

The President’s second point about those evil foreign corporations is also totally wrong. … It is simply not true that Citizens United freed foreign corporations to make independent expenditures in American elections… Under current law, there are multiple layers of protection to prevent foreign influence on our elections. …

Foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in American elections. But their domestic subsidiaries that are American companies, employ American workers, have American officers, and pay American taxes, are able to participate in the American election process to the same extent as other U.S. companies as long as all of the money and all of the decisions are American. …

The Citizens United decision did not even consider this ban on foreign nationals.

So the President was completely out-of-line when he made the claim that foreign corporations would be able to spend without limit in our elections, a claim that seems to have become a talking point for critics of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The President should know better than to make these false claims. After all, he taught a voting rights class at the University of Chicago that loosely covered campaign finance law, and his new White House counsel is Bob Bauer, probably the leading Democratic campaign finance lawyer in Washington. Bauer even wrote one of the only books that exists explaining the nuts and bolts of federal campaign finance law.

The President owes Justice Alito and the other justices of the Supreme Court an apology for completely mischaracterizing their opinion, an opinion that helped restore the full protections of the First Amendment. It was a decision that upheld some of our most basic principles, principles about the freedom to engage in political speech that are incorporated into the Constitution, a document that the critics of this decision seem all to willing to ignore when its requirements don’t fit their political objectives.