If today, you dishonor the court orders albeit for right reasons in your view, tomorrow, the other side can do the same for their "right" reasons at which time you won't be able to question them. It may lead to anarchy & probably a greater danger. While taking any decision, we must always keep posterity in mind - not guided by only the current needs. What the Govt can do instead is that they can request for consolidation of all such case by the Supreme Court & insist that they be heard as one issue quickly for a prompt decision. Alternatively, or even in addition to that, they may also look into the core issue of other side's contentions on 'conflicts of interests' & make changes as required without diluting the purpose or veracity of the exercise to clean up the whole apparatus. Musk can stand aside, may be JD Vance can head it & drive. He will have the political authority as well. When the goal is important, it doesn't matter who does it. Musk can still be there behind providing critical inputs necessary for speeding up the exercise.
Your point is valid. It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" dilemma.
Given this dilemma, and given my contention that government corruption is the single greatest threat to the U.S., I would still come down on the side of DOGE continuing what they're doing cleaning up waste and fraud and not allowing court orders to stop them, while going on with the appeals process.
You raise a good point about SCOTUS. SCOTUS has utterly failed - since 1913 - in its one and only responsibility to safeguard the Constitution and ensure that all laws, bills, acts, mandates and executive orders are constitutional.
I could give several dozen or even hundreds of examples. But the point in this one issue is that SCOTUS must take a more active role in grabbing these cases and sorting them out, instead of waiting for cases to be brought before them.
The Constitution doesn't require SCOTUS to wait for cases, but for some reason the lengthy and arduous appeals process evolved.
Here are supporting views for my argument from no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .
The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
(Sept. 11, 1804)
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....
Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
(Sept. 28, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
(Aug. 18, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”
Very well written! I appreciate your point of view and agree with all of it with one exception. I think they should comply with court orders even if I may feel they are unconstitutional. AND appeal them all the way to the Supreme Court. They (Trump & DOGE) are testing the powers of the executive branch (which I feel they rightly have) and going to the Supreme Court will solidify and codify these powers and legitimize them. I do believe there is a constitutional crisis but not in the way that Democrats do. I believe there is constitutional crisis in the activist judiciary trying to hamstring the executive branch and that ultimately it will just be a stalling tactic to throw sand in the gears. I WANT this to go to Supreme Court such that this argument can be put to bed. Again, very well written and I agree w/ 90%+ of what you said. Just that we have to get this issue settled in the Supreme Court and get the executive power legitimized and justified.
I'm good with going through the appeals process, while Trump and DOGE keep doing what they're doing and ignore all court orders trying to block them as the appeals process goes upon the line to SCOTUS.
There are a couple of fatal flaws with the idea that the executive branch must follow unconstitutional court orders while appealing them.
All court orders related to DOGE have nothing to do with "legitimate judicial review." That's a manufactured and false premise used to justify these bogus lawsuits.
Following such court orders while appealing them allows the fraud and corruption to continue. And gives the perpetrators time to cover their tracks. The Constitution, Article III and the founding fathers NEVER intended to allow or prolong government corruption or any violations of the Constitution using the Constitution itself as false justification. That amounts to circular "logic," a never-ending hamster-wheel, and is not a constitutional basis.
The appeals process all the way to SCOTUS takes months, maybe even a year or more. Corrupt politicians know this and are the ones calling for these lawsuits, using judges they control to issue these court orders forcing corruption to continue. They're counting on the lengthy appeals process to continue their corrupt activities. Again, circular but dishonest and unconstitutional "logic."
If Trump follows these unconstitutional orders, judges controlled by corrupt politicians will continue issuing court orders blocking DOGE ad infinitum - with the end result that corruption in government continues unabated.
None of these scenarios were ever meant to exist using the Constitution itself as the basis. That defies not only the spirit and intent of the Constitution, but also just plain common sense.
No, the ONLY answer to eliminating fraud and corruption in government is for DOGE and Trump to continue what they started in defiance of any court orders to the contrary. They can appeal at the same time, but eliminating corruption is the senior and overriding consideration.
This may be another four years of the same "get Trump, impeach, indict, bad man" b.s. and with liberal, corrupt judges it's often appeal after appeal even if they're proving corruption, that doesn't matter to these crazed, vindictive people.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the judiciary, many years after the U.S. came into existence. Pardon my boasting, but he supports my position:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .
The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
(Sept. 11, 1804)
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....
Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
(Sept. 28, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
(Aug. 18, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”
Constitutions... they mean nothing. They are just pieces of paper. It is the people that abide and act accordingly with them that make those pieces of paper a great thing. The Western countries are finding this out right now.
Here are supporting views for my argument from no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .
The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
(Sept. 11, 1804)
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....
Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
(Sept. 28, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
(Aug. 18, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”
Great post, many people in the UK envy the USA with the actions being taken on corruption and fraud in government 🇬🇧🇺🇸
If today, you dishonor the court orders albeit for right reasons in your view, tomorrow, the other side can do the same for their "right" reasons at which time you won't be able to question them. It may lead to anarchy & probably a greater danger. While taking any decision, we must always keep posterity in mind - not guided by only the current needs. What the Govt can do instead is that they can request for consolidation of all such case by the Supreme Court & insist that they be heard as one issue quickly for a prompt decision. Alternatively, or even in addition to that, they may also look into the core issue of other side's contentions on 'conflicts of interests' & make changes as required without diluting the purpose or veracity of the exercise to clean up the whole apparatus. Musk can stand aside, may be JD Vance can head it & drive. He will have the political authority as well. When the goal is important, it doesn't matter who does it. Musk can still be there behind providing critical inputs necessary for speeding up the exercise.
Your point is valid. It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" dilemma.
Given this dilemma, and given my contention that government corruption is the single greatest threat to the U.S., I would still come down on the side of DOGE continuing what they're doing cleaning up waste and fraud and not allowing court orders to stop them, while going on with the appeals process.
You raise a good point about SCOTUS. SCOTUS has utterly failed - since 1913 - in its one and only responsibility to safeguard the Constitution and ensure that all laws, bills, acts, mandates and executive orders are constitutional.
I could give several dozen or even hundreds of examples. But the point in this one issue is that SCOTUS must take a more active role in grabbing these cases and sorting them out, instead of waiting for cases to be brought before them.
The Constitution doesn't require SCOTUS to wait for cases, but for some reason the lengthy and arduous appeals process evolved.
Here are supporting views for my argument from no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .
The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
(Sept. 11, 1804)
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....
Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
(Sept. 28, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
(Aug. 18, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”
(Oct. 31, 1823)
Very well written! I appreciate your point of view and agree with all of it with one exception. I think they should comply with court orders even if I may feel they are unconstitutional. AND appeal them all the way to the Supreme Court. They (Trump & DOGE) are testing the powers of the executive branch (which I feel they rightly have) and going to the Supreme Court will solidify and codify these powers and legitimize them. I do believe there is a constitutional crisis but not in the way that Democrats do. I believe there is constitutional crisis in the activist judiciary trying to hamstring the executive branch and that ultimately it will just be a stalling tactic to throw sand in the gears. I WANT this to go to Supreme Court such that this argument can be put to bed. Again, very well written and I agree w/ 90%+ of what you said. Just that we have to get this issue settled in the Supreme Court and get the executive power legitimized and justified.
I'm good with going through the appeals process, while Trump and DOGE keep doing what they're doing and ignore all court orders trying to block them as the appeals process goes upon the line to SCOTUS.
There are a couple of fatal flaws with the idea that the executive branch must follow unconstitutional court orders while appealing them.
All court orders related to DOGE have nothing to do with "legitimate judicial review." That's a manufactured and false premise used to justify these bogus lawsuits.
Following such court orders while appealing them allows the fraud and corruption to continue. And gives the perpetrators time to cover their tracks. The Constitution, Article III and the founding fathers NEVER intended to allow or prolong government corruption or any violations of the Constitution using the Constitution itself as false justification. That amounts to circular "logic," a never-ending hamster-wheel, and is not a constitutional basis.
The appeals process all the way to SCOTUS takes months, maybe even a year or more. Corrupt politicians know this and are the ones calling for these lawsuits, using judges they control to issue these court orders forcing corruption to continue. They're counting on the lengthy appeals process to continue their corrupt activities. Again, circular but dishonest and unconstitutional "logic."
If Trump follows these unconstitutional orders, judges controlled by corrupt politicians will continue issuing court orders blocking DOGE ad infinitum - with the end result that corruption in government continues unabated.
None of these scenarios were ever meant to exist using the Constitution itself as the basis. That defies not only the spirit and intent of the Constitution, but also just plain common sense.
No, the ONLY answer to eliminating fraud and corruption in government is for DOGE and Trump to continue what they started in defiance of any court orders to the contrary. They can appeal at the same time, but eliminating corruption is the senior and overriding consideration.
This may be another four years of the same "get Trump, impeach, indict, bad man" b.s. and with liberal, corrupt judges it's often appeal after appeal even if they're proving corruption, that doesn't matter to these crazed, vindictive people.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the judiciary, many years after the U.S. came into existence. Pardon my boasting, but he supports my position:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .
The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
(Sept. 11, 1804)
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....
Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
(Sept. 28, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
(Aug. 18, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”
(Oct. 31, 1823)
Great piece, thank god Trumps back, teaching Europe and the UK how to treat citizens !!
Constitutions... they mean nothing. They are just pieces of paper. It is the people that abide and act accordingly with them that make those pieces of paper a great thing. The Western countries are finding this out right now.
Very very good! To the point and easy to understand… but I agree with Ben’s comment that the Supreme Court should interviene…
Thanks and Good!!!
Here are supporting views for my argument from no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .
The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
(Sept. 11, 1804)
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....
Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
(Sept. 28, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
(Aug. 18, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”
(Oct. 31, 1823)
See my response to Ben
no musknis deep state a militartary asset.