President Trump issued an important executive order to deal with the frivolous lawsuits brought before leftist judges stopping him from enacting his agenda.
Left-wing organizations sue without any repercussions no matter how trivial the suit or how many times they lose.
Currently, there are 119 lawsuits against the President.
There is a federal rule of civil procedure, which has not been used in these cases. It requires the litigant to provide money upfront in case it is found that the case is unwarranted. That money will be used to pay court costs instead of expecting the taxpayers to pay it.
It could serve as an important deterrent.
The executive order:
This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail.
Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for Government policies they voted for.
Moreover, this situation results in the Department of Justice, the Nation’s chief law enforcement agency, dedicating substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits instead of defending public safety.
The effective administration of justice in the Federal courts depends on mechanisms that deter frivolous litigation, protect parties from unwarranted costs, and streamline judicial processes.
One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued.
Consistent enforcement of this rule is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice.
Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
That’s what needed to be done, to bring the issue of the activist judges to table.
There’s no legality to an activist judge’s ruling, because they’re not practicing law.
I never understood why that wasn’t a law to begin with, because the tax payers should not be paying for their frivolous legal expenditures. Turn’s out it was the law. Someone has fallen asleep at the wheel.
By all rights they’re still liable for the costs of frivolous legal expenses. Nailing them for the cost’s would be the correct thing to do.
I red a post last night that said he made an executive order that all activists judges rulings will be ignored until the supreme rules whether or not activist judges are legal or not.
The only problem I see is if the same judge who hears the case sets the bond, or another “shopped” judge.