Post Editorial: The Judicial Resistance Lives

Yesterday I wrote about Boston Judge Indira Talwani who had just issued a ruling that the Trump administration must continue to pay Planned Parenthood through Medicaid on the grounds that a lawsuit to overturn a portion of the Big Beautiful Bill was likely to succeed. Her decision was of course hailed by Planned Parenthood but as I pointed out, Judge Talwani had already done this once before and lost.

When the BBB passed, Planned Parenthood immediately filed a lawsuit in Boston to prevent their funds from being cut off. Judge Talwani issued a series of restraining orders until, finally, a panel of judges at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled her. But having lost in that case, Judge Talwani then used a separate case filed by a group of Democratic AGs to reach the same conclusion. Once again, she's overruling congress and the president (who signed the bill). Once again, she's stepping in to rescue Planned Parenthood.

To my surprise, even the Washington Post's editorial page thinks enough is enough. Yesterday they published an editorial titled "The liberal judicial ‘resistance’ lives."

What message does it send that even this legitimate, politically accountable decision has been blocked for a second time on flimsy legal grounds? Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts, a nominee of President Barack Obama, tried to block the provision from going into effect in July after Planned Parenthood filed suit. Her ruling was unanimously put on hold by a three-judge appellate panel in September.

Now Talwani has struck again, ordering the same result in a suit brought by states with Democratic governors...

Talwani writes that states will be harmed by the change because “reduced contraceptive care, less frequent screenings for sexually transmitted infections, and delayed treatment for certain cancers” will burden them. Perhaps, but if the policy is harmful, residents of affected states can elect senators to reverse it. Judicial policymaking distorts the political process.

The bottom line here is that Congress holds the power of the purse and it can spend money or not spend it as it sees fit. But boy oh boy is this going over like e lead balloon with Post readers who are well-accustomed to having their liberal views flattered by the paper. The comments are one complaint after another: Here's the top comment from someone who calls himself "Team Blue."

Can't even express an opposing opinion against this joke of an editorial board. They can't stand opposition.

Here's #2:

Does the Editorial Board really not know what a stay is? Clue: it's not a "reversal," and it's not a decision on the merits. No reason for a district court to stop issuing orders because a previous injunction has been stayed pending appeal. Looks like the EB has abdicated their opinion writing to Grok.

A stay by the appeals court isn't a judgment on the merits but it should be a hint to Judge Talwani that she's barking up the wrong tree. So when she reaches the same outcome again in a different case she should probably expect the same result.

It just keeps going like this:

• Another empty screed from the EB.
• The Rightwing WAPO Examiner follows orders.
• The WaPo seems to be sliding down the slippery slope from libertarian to MAGA.
• The editorial board had become an absolute joke. I’m glad I canceled my subscription and I’ll be reminding you constantly that it’s because of editorials like this that read like they were written by an Oklahoma state junior.
• The EB hates activist judges unless they are bought and paid for by the Federalist Society and reside on SCOTUS.
• Who actually sits on the Post's "Editorial Board", and why are they such puppets of the administration?

They are not taking it well. They big mad, as the kids say.

It's worth noting that the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals which stayed Judge Talwani the first time around is not a conservative court. In fact, the 1st Circuit is the only one in the country that is entirely composed of Democratic appointees.

The U.S. Senate on Monday confirmed President Joe Biden's nominee Seth Aframe to a seat on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, making the Boston-based federal appeals court the only one whose active judges are all Democratic appointees...

The vote gives Biden his fourth confirmed appointee to the 1st Circuit, which hears appeals from Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico, and has the fewest judges of the 13 intermediate federal appeals courts.

He fills a seat previously held by the last remaining appointee of a Republican president on the court, Jeffrey Howard, and makes the 1st Circuit unique in being the only federal appeals court whose active judges are all appointed by presidents of the same party.

That's the court that is at odds with Judge Talwani. She is, as the Post editorial board says, playing resistance politics if her decisions can't even pass muster with an appeals court appointed entirely by Democrats.

Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people.

Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.