The other day, we told you a judge blocked the Big Beautiful Bill's (BBB) provision defunding Planned Parenthood.
In that initial ruling, the judge didn't explain her reasoning, because 'Orange Man Bad' is not grounds for blocking a spending bill passed by Congress.
Rep. Jamie Raskin said the defunding was unconstitutional (because, of course), and now the judge has amended her TRO to reflect that supposed unconstitutionality:
Judge Talwani amended her TRO and explained that Congress defunding Planned Parenthood violates the—*squints*—First and Fifth Amendment
— John Hasson (@SonofHas) July 12, 2025
I don’t even know where to begin. This is a joke pic.twitter.com/4WYVLZ5ApS
It's a joke, but we're not laughing.
Congress has Constitutional authority to pass spending legislation.
This is not unconstitutional. But undermining the role of Congress is.
Like that’s just not how either of those constitutional claims work. Especially the void for vagueness claim—that just breaks my brain
— John Hasson (@SonofHas) July 12, 2025
There is nothing in the First or Fifth Amendments that guarantees Planned Parenthood taxpayer funding to kill babies.
The restrictions on funding do not infringe on anyone's right of association. The law does not prohibit their activities. it just says that the federal government is not going to fund those activities.
— Haytham Kenway (@HaythamKenway99) July 12, 2025
If not funding something is a restriction on association, that means any organization is entitled to government funding.
It's insane on its face.
She must be another judge who likes to have her feelings expressed in her opinions, no matter the relationship with constitutionality.
— Kitcatsmeows (@Catarisper) July 12, 2025
Far too many judges rule on feelings instead of facts and law.
Is this where the alleged right to baby murder comes from in the constitution?
— Maxwell Paddock (@MaxwellPaddock1) July 12, 2025
Probably.
maybe judges are using Ai to write their orders now.
— SidneysGoat (@SidneysGoat) July 12, 2025
Would this surprise any of us?
It is past time for the house to start impeachment proceedings on these judges, I know the Senate won’t do anything, but the process ties up these jurists while it is ongoing and they have to pay for their own defense.
— The Howling D (@Howlng_D) July 12, 2025
This writer didn't jump on the judicial impeachment bandwagon as early as some other conservatives, but she's there now.
8-1 smackdown incoming.
— Dr. Grumpy Peach, esq ✝️🇺🇸🇮🇱🐘 (@grumpypeach89) July 12, 2025
We cannot wait to read Jackson's dissent.
The only question is: which fellow Justice will scold her in the majority opinion this time?
Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but https://t.co/D98W2xvtjF pic.twitter.com/uHwZ0f4X0S
— Chloe in Texas (@ChloeChloeChl19) July 12, 2025
Excellent question.
Congress has the Constitutional power to determine what to fund and what not to fund. Period. End of story. Some judges have a weird fetish for treating the Constitution like a list of suggestions. https://t.co/Y97IgPUJav
— Justin Camp (@_justincamp_) July 12, 2025
Anything that inhibits this is the truly unconstitutional act.
How … what … I got nothing.
— The🐰FOO (@PolitiBunny) July 12, 2025
When does SCOTUS strike this one down? https://t.co/Sj3NuwGoGx
ASAP, hopefully.
You don’t have a country at this point. https://t.co/HZec7c0ueQ
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) July 12, 2025
If a judge can overturn legislation passed by Congress, this is correct. We don't have a country.
This is even flimsier than the Bill of Attainder argument. https://t.co/psZA9pHv8O
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) July 12, 2025
Yes, it is.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member