SCOTUS finally rules on lower-court judges’ nationwide injunctions, and it’s good
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons
Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee Post staff! Thank you again for subscribing!
This week is Fourth of July week, when many Americans, including the Huckabee Post staffers, are taking a break. Don’t worry, we’ve prepared plenty of material in advance for you. And as always, if anything major happens in the news, we’ll drop our corn dogs and rush back to our keyboards to report it (fortunately, World War III breaking out suddenly seems a lot less likely.)
As a reminder the Morning Edition delivers Monday - Saturday.
Daily Bible Verse
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:8
SCOTUS finally rules on lower-court judges’ nationwide injunctions, and it’s good
Well, wouldn’t you know.
The day after we departed for a long-planned vacation, the Supreme Court decided to release their last flurry of decisions before THEY went on vacation. We could wait to comment till we get back next week, but one decision in particular (Trump v. CASA) is so potentially significant, we decided to at least offer a reaction and link you to some insightful reading material. We’ll be back to our normal schedule next week and bring you up to date on the rest of the news. In the meantime, enjoy your 4th of July!.
Before getting into that SCOTUS decision, we should note that none other than Chief Justice John Roberts himself has warned that judges have been put in danger by political rhetoric and “threats of violence and murder.” This comment, of course, comes within the context of President Trump blasting some federal judges as “monsters” who suffer from a “sick” ideology and want the United States to “go to hell.”
More details from Newsmax…
Two problems with Roberts’ observation: One is that it’s the left that’s making openly violent threats against the judiciary (remember Chuck Schumer’s threats about the overturning of Roe v. Wade that likely helped inspire an attempt on Justice Kavanaugh’s life?) The other is that Trump has been reacting to judges who really are acting out of their own ideology. And the President has a point: What better way to quickly make the U.S. a very hellish place indeed but for unelected and unaccountable liberal activists in robes to prevent him from exercising his constitutional authority to deport violent criminals?
Roberts said, “Threatening judges for doing their job is totally unacceptable.” That is true, but we would also say these are judges who really need to learn what their job is --- and what it is not. And Roberts, as Chief Justice, needs to know when not to get involved in the public debate.
Moving on...as you surely know by now, SCOTUS issued a 6-3 landmark opinion on Friday that effectively restrained judges’ ability to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions to block presidential policy. The Epoch Times offers some key takeaways; this gets a bit into the weeds but is recommended reading.
Be prepared, though, to be stunned by the quotes from Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. Because she so strongly disagrees with Trump’s orders, she supports universal injunctions in the name of “equity.”
We’d like to remind you of a quote from Justice Elena Kagan in 2022: “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks, and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through a normal process.” That was then; this is now: In 2025, she joins Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent, supporting the overreaching by district judges.
FOX News has a rundown on the various SCOTUS rulings that were released at the end of last week. You’ll want to see all of these if you haven’t yet, especially the one siding with the religious rights of parents against schools indoctrinating their kids with LGBTQ+++ propaganda without their knowledge or permission...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/final-day-scotus-decisions-brings-wave-history-making-rulings
Another must-read piece is this from Jonathan Turley about the response of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to hyperbolic commentary from fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Quote of the Day might come from Turley, speaking of Jackson when he says, “Liberals who claim ‘democracy is dying’ seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.”
Here’s another excellent article from Joe Cunningham at Redstate.com about Justice Barrett’s evisceration of her colleague Jackson’s stunningly incorrect dissent, which as Barrett said, decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary (and only one of those is elected by the people. We wonder if Jackson knows which one?)
David Manney at PJ Media has a subscription-only piece about the Chicago Tribute “having a meltdown” over this decision. Their editorial “practically collapses into grief,” he says. (This is because their strategy to stop Trump has itself been stopped.) Manney explains why the left is so upset: for years, they’ve run to “the nearest friendly courtroom” when they couldn’t prevail in Congress or at the ballot box. “The tactic became so common that it was practically choreography.”
Judges pretty much knew to stay in their lanes, he says, before Obama became President. Then all bets were off. Just now, however, “in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court declared what any honest lawyer should’ve already known: nationwide injunctions aren’t standard judicial tools. They’re judicial overreach.”
Oddly, now that the left can’t rig outcomes this way anymore, it’s crying that the game is rigged. (In a related story we’ll have more on when we get back, Democrat activists such as Norm Eisen are already filing motions to try to get around this ruling. It will not stop.)
Apologies if you can’t read this entire VIP piece. But you get the gist…
RELATED DOJ NEWS: Attorney General Pam Bondi has fired at least three federal prosecutors involved in J6 cases. Two were supervisory attorneys in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in DC, and the third was a line prosecutor involved in trying several related cases.
No specific reason was given, other than the citing of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which simply refers to the Executive Branch’s authority to remove personnel.
We’ll have more when it comes in, but at least be advised that things are happening. In the meantime, here’s the report from FOX News…
In another related story, Ward Clark at RedState has an excellent piece on where the Biden autopen scandal stands now, as testimony is underway. Who was making the decisions in the White House while Joe Biden was President? And what happens if/when we determine that Biden was not really in charge? Here’s where Clark thinks we are…
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2025/06/29/heres-where-the-biden-autopen-controversy-is-now-n2191043
RELATED: How a new SCOTUS ruling in an unrelated case guts the Democrats' legal challenges to Trump's tariffs.
Essays from the Vault
The spiritual side of our life really does matter
By Mike Huckabee
NOTE: This essay originally posted on 7/6/2023.
When I was growing up, my bedtime ritual always included a fairy tale that started with “Once upon a time...” and ended with the comforting words we all remember: “And they lived happily ever after.” As a child of the optimistic 1950s, I dreamed that life might be like that: whatever obstacles, dangers or perils might come my way, in the end, I would live happily ever after.
There were certainly plenty of struggles along the way, but I have to say that things did eventually work out even more happily than I could have imagined, from a career that I love to a wonderful family, including the world’s greatest grandkids. But sadly, for many people, “living happily ever after” does seem like an unobtainable fairy tale. Why is that happy ending growing ever more out-of-reach for so many people?
Of course, there are always factors beyond our control, like health problems and accidents. None of us can ever know if our birthday or Christmas celebration was the last we’ll ever enjoy. We have no way of knowing when it will all end, only that someday, it will (that’s why it’s said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes.)
Well, I can’t help you with your taxes, but I do have a bit of advice that I think will make death less frightening and greatly increase your chances of living “happily ever after.”
For decades, our nation has been focused on personal pleasure. The message drummed into everyone by pop culture is, “If it feels good, do it.” It’s fostered a culture of self-centeredness that led to Baby Boomers being nicknamed “The Me Generation.” Today’s young people have been dubbed “iGen” because many are so fixated on self and selfies that even their gadgets’ names all start with “I.” Advertising bombards us with the message that life is all about me and all about now. Such messages of immediate self-gratification may sell products and services, but they cause us to sell our souls if we follow this philosophy to its logical conclusion.
At some point in life, we all experience events that shake up our routine, much like the agitator in a washing machine shakes loose the grime in our clothes. We may not want or enjoy such experiences, but they’re necessary to force us to focus on the frailty of life and the certainty of death. They also force us to begin asking what really matters and why.
If we react to setbacks based solely on what feels good right now, we greatly lower our chances of enjoying a happy future. But if we believe there is even a remote possibility that our actions have lasting implications beyond the immediate, both within and beyond our lifetimes, it should cause us to think differently, live differently, and leave a different kind of legacy.
Without apology, I believe that the spiritual side of our lives really does matter. To believe otherwise is to define humans as little more than animated protoplasm, going through the motions of life for no particular purpose. I prefer to believe there’s more to us than flesh and blood. If we possess a soul capable of living beyond our lifetimes, then the seeds we plant in this life will yield fruit forever. If you believe those things, the ultimate becomes more important than the immediate.
When we decide to live beyond our lifetimes, our responsibilities to the next generation will outweigh our roles in our current jobs. More important than the money we’re paid for our work is what we will become as a result of our work. Our character will become more important than the careers we follow.
For all of us, life began “once upon a time.” Unlike the fairy tales, however, it’s up to us to make the choices that determine whether the last line of our life stories will read, “And they lived happily ever after.”
Finally: Is this the real reason Michelle O. wasn’t on the ticket?
NOTE: This essay originally posted on 3/5/2025.
By Laura Ainsworth
It was such a relief during the presidential campaign last July when Michelle Obama was NOT named as Biden’s replacement on the ticket. As longtime newsletter readers know, that had been my worst fear. I had predicted it for two years, all the while hoping and praying I was wrong. But as recently as the Trump-Biden debate, I was quite sure of this, knowing the Democrats had an iron-clad obligation to choose a black woman and that Kamala was the worst disaster of a presidential candidate in living history. How could the Democrats, pathologically obsessed with winning, pick someone they knew could not win?
It was also obvious that President Biden couldn’t handle even four more weeks on the campaign trail, let alone four more years as President. It was obvious then that Democrats had been covering for him, even though some of them (this means you, Jake Tapper) are only now admitting this in ridiculous books that I hope gather dust, mold and flies on the shelves at Barnes & Noble. I assumed the Democrats were trotting out Biden to debate with Trump in the absolute certainty that he’d crash and burn. Then, of course, they’d install Michelle Obama as the new candidate. The media would go wild, and Obama II would be coronated. She was the only black female who had a chance of winning, and (most importantly) this would also ensure another term for the Obama Machine.
As for Kamala, the Democrat Mob --- I mean, Machine -- would make her one of those offers you can’t refuse.
Well, the first part, Biden’s crash-and-burn, happened spectacularly, but the second part, the Michelle coronation, didn’t gel. I was never in my life so happy to be wrong --- it doesn’t happen very often, ha --- but ever since, this chain of events just hasn’t made sense to me. Why would the Democrats have deliberately CHOSEN Kamala? There had to be a puzzle piece we didn’t have.
Then I happened upon a piece from a little over a month ago in AMERICAN THINKER by Jerome Corsi that, if he’s right, explains it. The way he tells it, Michelle, not Kamala, actually was supposed to be the nominee. Looks as though I was right about this. It was all planned.
Corsi’s piece, overall, is about voter fraud, and why this time Democrats apparently didn’t try to rig the top of the ticket but might very well have used ballot fraud to win in some of the down-ballot races. Excellent, highly recommended reading, but the part specifically about Michelle is about seven paragraphs in.
According to his sources, “At the ‘Deep Party’ Central Committee level of the Democrat Party --- at the level of Barack Obama, Klaus Schwab and George Soros, the order went out that Harris needed to lose.” (Recall that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was convinced that after Biden was “induced” (forced?) to withdraw from the race, Michelle Obama would be the nominee, as President Obama’s preference.)
Corsi explains that just under 30 minutes after post-debate Biden withdrew in a social media post on X, he posted again that after deciding “not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term,” he offered his “full support and endorsement for Kamala [Harris] to be the nominee of our party this year.”
Uh-oh. Recall that almost immediately after this, President Obama (no doubt hotter than a pistol) issued a flowery letter commending Biden for withdrawing but NOT endorsing Kamala. In fact, it didn’t mention Kamala at all. Hilariously, it said, “I believe that Joe Biden’s vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August.” (Note: can’t resist saying that it was the GOP Convention, not the Democrat, that came across as generous, prosperous and united.)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-statement-biden-drops-out-2024-race/
According to Corsi, it wasn’t supposed to go this way at all. Biden, or someone controlling Biden, brought about this outcome. Biden throwing his support to Kamala was really like throwing a giant wrench into The Machine. All consideration of an alternative presidential candidate was over. As for their big plans for Michelle, this nominee was not to be.
And since Biden’s action of positioning Kamala before Michelle was an “unpardonable offense,” Corsi explains, they weren’t going to help her win. They would let HER crash-and-burn this time. Besides, RNC Chairman Lara Trump was keeping too close an eye on the presidential election for them to do the kind of rigging they’d need to do.
So, was Biden aware enough to pull the rug out from under the Obamas this deliberately, out of his tremendous distaste for them? Or was it just a blunder by an elderly man with a poor memory? We might not ever know, but either way, this might be the ONE THING we can be eternally grateful to Joe Biden for doing. And I can be grateful to Jerome Corsi for making sense out of this for me.
The Trouble With Judges
NOTE: This essay originally posted on 3/21/2025.
By Ken Allard
My wife was raised in the Texas Baptist Children's Home, where her parents were caretakers and auxiliary parents for ten other kids besides their own. Betsy's "brothers and sisters" were actually wards of the state, dependent mostly on the kindness of others – but also receiving a steady diet of Christian love in those austere, uplifting surroundings. She still remembers Bobby, an eight-year-old boy who, on his first Sunday at the ranch, was taken to church alongside everyone else in his new family. There was awed silence as the choir took their places up front, a swish of black-robed majesty punctuated by Bobby’s stage-whisper, "WOW, lookit all them judges!" In an instant, the giggles and grins shared between underage inmates showed their common experience as children who had already learned some of life's hardest lessons, in circumstances where courtrooms were far more familiar than choir lofts.
But that was 1950’s Texas. Today in our more enlightened era, President Trump is finding that today’s judges have become the un-ordained ministers of our new civic religion. Somehow, new laws, new interpretations or maybe just law-school revisionism convey upon judicial authorities a litany of new responsibilities. The expanded dispensations include gay rights, transexual liberties, government control over homeschooling and a whole host of thorny issues surrounding parental rights over minor children. Ever since Roe versus Wade a half-century ago, America’s courts have become the preferred battlefield for advocates of social change – often seeking victories denied elsewhere by prevailing political realities. So it is today - as Democrats intent upon resisting Trump’s win last November increasingly shop their cases before sympathetic judges.
As you may have seen this week, the latest engagement on the frontiers of justice brought President Trump into a nasty confrontation with Judge James Boasberg, a well-regarded district court judge in Washington DC. The bizarre case involved two planeloads of illegal immigrant being deported to El Salvador last weekend. Ignoring the well-known axiom that “hard cases make bad law,” the judge was somehow persuaded to issue a turn-around order for both planes; his order was not only unenforceable but also prompted a furious response by President Trump calling for the judge’s impeachment. As NBC News was quick to point out, however,
“The federal judge at odds with the White House over its immigration enforcement…is a bipartisan appointee whose three-decade career in Washington, D.C., has included cases that have favored Trump.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/federal-judge-targeted-trump-impeachment-bipartisan-appointee-three-de-rcna196954
Welcome to our brave new world, where even judges with cross-my-heart judicial temperaments wind up in shouting matches with presidents. Everything in Donald Trump’s agenda is aimed at discovering and if possible, reversing at least two decades of judicial excess. Slowly at first but now with increasing speed, we are beginning to reap that long overdue whirlwind. It is as if the zebras referring NFL games were allowed - or even required - to call the penalties on the field, to judge the intent of both plays and players - and even to advance the ball themselves if "fairness" somehow was at issue. Just how long would the NFL exist if such a regime were in-place? A better question: How long can this country endure a regimen of roughly 600 federal judges – spectacularly unqualified in everything except jurisprudence - who are allowed to roam so freely beyond their writ?
It is one thing to have judicial independence, quite another to have three separate but equal branches of government: but something else again to recognize the leavening effects of American history and common sense. Having separated the Government’s powers into those co-equal branches in Articles I and II, the Constitution succinctly outlines in Article III: “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” It is clear that the three separate branches were to act in accord with the Constitution’s basic objectives, including to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice (and) insure domestic tranquility.”
Rather than lecturing President Trump for his immoderate comments on the poor but plucky persona of Judge Boasberg, Chief Justice Roberts might better concern himself with sweeping up his own porch. Certain judges under his immediate control – even whole circuits sometimes - now find it convenient to put personal or political agendas ahead of their duties to the American people. Isn’t it about time, Mr. Chief Justice, that you called them to account before we are forced to do it for you?
Colonel (Ret.) Kenneth Allard rose from a Vietnam-era draftee to become a West Point professor, Dean of the National War College and NBC News military analyst
Re SCOTUS, Trump just keeps winning! Wonder what underhanded dirty parlor tricks the lefties will try next? Think I’ll have to make two kinds of popcorn next round…
Thank you. Refresh and refill we’re making good progress and still have much more to do 🙂🇺🇸