RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-legal-trick-being-used-to-trip?utm_campaign=260347&utm_source=cross-post&r=8t06w&utm_medium=email

Judges are issuing orders that block government policies from taking effect anywhere in the country. Jed Rubenfeld explains what to do about them.

It’s been a relatively good week for President Donald Trump when it comes to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled more or less in his favor on three different challenges, including upholding on jurisdictional grounds his deportations of migrants to El Salvador. But the most pressing legal issue for Trump—the “nationwide injunctions” that have hamstrung many administration priorities—remains unresolved.

According to one count, only some 27 “nationwide injunctions”—orders issued by judges that block government policies from taking effect anywhere in the country—were issued throughout the twentieth century. Yet against Trump, counting both administrations, judges have so far handed down at least 79.

Supporters of these injunctions claim that they are a necessary check on unconstitutional actions by the administration, such as Trump’s moves to end birthright citizenship. The White House and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill say that district court judges are subverting the will of the people and want the Supreme Court to limit or halt the issuance of these injunctions.

Who is right? Let’s take it one step at a time. What are nationwide injunctions? Are they really being used against Trump more than other presidents? And are they legal?

The term nationwide injunction—a.k.a. “universal injunction”—has no legal definition, but it generally refers to a judicial order prohibiting the government from enforcing a measure anywhere in the country. That means that the ruling goes beyond the particular plaintiffs who brought the case, effectively allowing district courts to halt a policy from being applied anywhere in the U.S.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/04/09/the-word-went-out-get-trump/

It’s fair to ask how Donald Trump went from celebrity real estate developer to the man most detested by about half of Western society. We think we know this vilification happened.

Read on.

In 1949, William Randolph Hearst, owner of the largest newspaper chain in the U.S., sent a two-word message to his editors: “Puff Graham.” It made evangelist Billy Graham, in Los Angeles for one of his early crusades, into “an instant celebrity nationwide,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

“The sudden front-page coverage showered on Graham by Hearst newspapers in mid-October (after three weeks of little notice) was quickly matched by other newspapers and news magazines – literally a media circus descending on his rallies under a big tent,” says the Times.

Graham’s fame soared as he later appeared on the covers of the day’s leading magazines, from Time to Newsweek to Life.

The Billy Graham Library calls Hearst’s order “a watershed event,” and Graham himself thanked Hearst in a letter, telling him that “Literally millions of church people across the nation are rejoicing and thanking God for your interest and backing of the recent Los Angeles evangelistic campaign.”

We don’t discount the possibility of divine intervention, but Graham’s popularity is owed in large part to the power and reach of one man (who might have been moved divinely to “puff” the evangelist).

No postings until I return on April 10

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/democrats-demand-accountability-for-signal-leak-after-giving-a-pass-to-biden-clinton-administrations/

Signalgate Critics Overlook Democrats’ Own Failures

After Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly included in a Signal chat of top Trump administration officials discussing an upcoming attack on the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Politico Playbook boldly claimed that there is “no administration in the world” where a “blunder of these proportions happens and nobody gets fired or resigns.”

“Not in London. Not in Moscow. Not in Tokyo. Not in Pyongyang. Nowhere,” the outlet underscored.

Playbook’s author missed at least one glaring example: President Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, which cost the lives of 13 service members but did not result in a single firing.

CNBC host Joe Kernen brought up the Biden administration’s abysmal withdrawal during an interview with Senator Mark Warner (D., Va.), who actually laughed off the comparison.

During an appearance on Squawk Box, Warner dismissed those who voiced concerns about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and former President Joe Biden’s “incompetence,” saying the Trump administration was no better.

But Kernan noted the air strikes against the Houthis were a success, while Biden failed disastrously in Afghanistan.

“You remember the Biden administration started with the biggest f-up in history with Afghanistan and 13 dead Americans,” Kernen said. “Let’s not get too sanctimonious and high and mighty about screwing up.”

Warner laughed and said, “Should we go back to even to—”

“That’s only four years [ago], senator!” Kernen interrupted.

Fox News also reported on Warner’s hypocrisy on the issue, with the senator having used the Signal app himself to work with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch to connect with the disgraced Steele dossier author.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/03/31/musk-demolishes-medias-trump-dictator-fantasy-n4938443

Elon Musk headlined a town hall in Green Bay, Wisc., on Sunday evening, just days before Wisconsin voters decide a pivotal state Supreme Court race. During the event, Musk underscored his opposition to activist judges by signing two $1 million checks to supporters of an online petition against judicial overreach. Wearing a Wisconsin cheesehead, which he later autographed and tossed into the crowd, Musk used the event to highlight the stakes in the election between conservative candidate Brad Schimel and Democrat-backed Susan Crawford.

During his speech, he also sharply criticized the media’s treatment of President Trump, calling out the absurdity of comparisons between Trump and some of history’s most notorious dictators. Musk argued that such hyperbole reveals both a political agenda and a fundamental failure in historical education.

“They’ve called President Trump every name in the book,” Musk said. “I think there was one article that called the president worse than Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin combined.”

Musk dismissed such comparisons as not only ridiculous but also factually indefensible. “Uh, actually, President Trump has not killed anyone,” he said. “In fact, he’s very good at stopping wars — not starting them.”

Musk’s comments reflect a growing frustration with the left-wing media’s efforts to demonize Trump, often with exaggerated and unfounded claims. The idea that leftists could equate Trump with mass-murdering dictators, Musk suggested, exposes a serious lack of historical knowledge among those making these arguments.