Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, April 25, 2025

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from dismantling Voice of America, the government funded broadcaster, at least temporarily.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Another Trump Administration defeat in court Federal judge in DC orders the Voice of America to return fired workers back to the job and to restore Voice of America's programming ... pending further order of the court storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us ...

[image or embed]

-- Scott MacFarlane (@macfarlanenews.bsky.social) April 22, 2025 at 3:07 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Lamberth wrote that the administration's decision to dismantle the agency was "arbitrary and capricious."

"Not only is there an absence of 'reasoned analysis' from the defendants; there is an absence of any analysis whatsoever," he wrote.

He also said the Trump administration was "likely in direct violation of numerous federal laws."

'

"arbitrary and capricious."

Aren't those the names of two of his Cabinet members?

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-04-22 09:05 PM | Reply

---- Fat Donnie Traitor

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-04-22 10:02 PM | Reply

So much winning.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-04-23 07:35 AM | Reply

The president probably doesn't need a specific reason for this action.

There are 677 district judges, and we're going to pretend that each of them has veto power over the president.
That's not democracy, it's a judicial coup.

#4 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-04-25 07:36 PM | Reply

"#4 | Posted by itchyp"

100% - also, we are seeing in real time why government only gets bigger. Liberals make reducing the size next to impossible with activist judges. Also, shows their end game - they have no interest in reducing spending.

#5 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-25 07:40 PM | Reply

"arbitrary and capricious."

It writes itself.
What's actually "arbitrary and capricious." is uppity TDS infected activist judges issuing fragile temporary injunctions concerning cases outside their district.

Is the deal now supposed to be the president needs unanimous approval of all 677 district judges to manage his executive branch agencies? That's a pretty high bar, even congress never achieves that kind of unanimity.
Ironically, they often use APA, which was invented to reel in rogue agencies created by congress as 'independent', thus attempting to create a "fourth branch of government" immune to constitutional process.

#6 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-04-25 07:45 PM | Reply

ITCHY #4

Well, actually they do . . unless their edict is overturned by a higher court.

It's called a system of checks and balances in the Constitution to prevent a tyrannical or wanna-be dictator from running amok with power grabs.

Of course, there's more to it than just that, but for your sake, we keep it on an elementary level.

#7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-04-25 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#4 ... That's not democracy, it's a judicial coup. ...

Continuing the Trump admin attacks on the Judiciary Branch.

The Trump admin has managed to get the GOP majority in Congress to bend over and kiss his ample derriere.

But The Judiciary Branch has not succumbed.

And has become the target du jour. of the Trump admin


#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-04-25 08:07 PM | Reply

That's not democracy, it's a judicial coup.
#4 | Posted by itchyp

Take it up with the Founders. www.law.cornell.edu

Also with Congress. www.law.cornell.edu

Here's a copy of the Court's short opinion. storage.courtlistener.com

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2025-04-25 08:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

LAMP

Trump is losing so many of his cases at all judicial levels.

I'm going to sit tight until Trump orders the DOJ to arrest (the traitorous) Chief Justice Roberts for not being more help (greasing the skids) to him on his fast track to a dictatorship.

#10 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-04-25 09:08 PM | Reply

Judiciary Act of 1798
The First Congress decided that it could regulate the jurisdiction of all Federal courts, and in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress established with great particularity a limited jurisdiction for the district and circuit courts, gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction provided for in the Constitution

To me this means that the supreme court, the only original court established constitutionally, could check the Executive, and the lower courts, with their limited jurisdiction, could stay in their lane and handle local cases in their district, otherwise it would not make sense to divide the lower courts into separate jurisdictions. What's happening right now, a baby can tell, is bulls hit.

#11 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-04-25 11:40 PM | Reply

1798's a typo^

#12 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-04-25 11:41 PM | Reply

@#11 ... to me this means ...

Good for you.

More on the topic ...

Federal Judiciary Act (1789)
www.archives.gov

... One of the first acts of the new Congress was to establish a Federal court system through the Judiciary Act signed by President Washington on September 24, 1789. ...

The generality of Article III of the Constitution raised questions that Congress had to address in the Judiciary Act of 1789. These questions had no easy answers, and the solutions to them were achieved politically. The First Congress decided that it could regulate the jurisdiction of all Federal courts, and in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress established with great particularity a limited jurisdiction for the district and circuit courts, gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction provided for in the Constitution, and granted the Court appellate jurisdiction in cases from the Federal circuit courts and from the state courts where those courts rulings had rejected Federal claims. The decision to grant Federal courts a jurisdiction more restrictive than that allowed by the Constitution represented a recognition by the Congress that the people of the United States would not find a full-blown Federal court system palatable at that time.

For nearly all of the next century the judicial system remained essentially as established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Only after the country had expanded across a continent and had been torn apart by civil war were major changes made. A separate tier of appellate circuit courts created in 1891 removed the burden of circuit riding from the shoulders of the Supreme Court justices, but otherwise left intact the judicial structure.

With minor adjustments, it is the same system we have today. Congress has continued to build on the interpretation of the drafters of the first judiciary act in exercising a discretionary power to expand or restrict Federal court jurisdiction. While opinions as to what constitutes the proper balance of Federal and state concerns vary no less today than they did two centuries ago, the fact that today's Federal court system closely resembles the one created in 1789 suggests that the First Congress performed its job admirably. ...



#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-04-26 12:29 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort