Law Professor Nails The Exact Thing Missing From GOP Senator's 'Anomalous' Trump Talk
Kate Shaw, a University of Pennsylvania law professor and an ex-Obama White House lawyer, schooled Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) Tuesday over his claim on nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's administration.
Hawley, in a testy moment during a Senate judiciary subcommittee hearing, turned to an Axios graph showing how federal district courts issued 64 injunctions against Trump in his first term, a figure that well exceeds the number of rulings that froze policies under both Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
'You don't think it's a little bit anomalous?' asked Hawley of the graph.
'A very plausible explanation, Senator, you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents, right? You must concede that is a possibility,' Shaw hit back.
There were at least 25 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration from the start of his second term through late April, per a Congressional Research Service report.
That figure is just one short of the total of combined nationwide injunctions against both of Obama's administrations and the Biden administration, according to Harvard Law Review data.
Their clash comes as the Trump administration continues to face challenges in the courts with executive orders ranging from its deportation efforts to tariffs.
Trump and his allies have proceeded to relentlessly attack judges and courts who have opposed the administration's agenda in his first few months of office.
Hawley later claimed that judges appointed by Democratic presidents 'love' imposing injunctions against the Trump administration.
While Harvard's figures show that a majority of such rulings were issued by the opposing party's appointees in Trump's first term, Shaw noted that GOP-appointed judges did just that against the Biden administration.
Moments later, Hawley sarcastically declared there shouldn't be nationwide injunctions with a Democrat in the Oval Office, but the decisions are 'absolutely fine, warranted and called for' with a Republican in the White House.
'How can our system of law survive on those principles, professor?' Hawley asked.
'I think a system in which there are no constraints on the president is a very dangerous system,' Shaw replied.
Trump Admin Sends 'Ominous Signal' On Emergency Abortion Care Guidelines
Man Accused Of Faking Trump Death Threat In Attempt To Get Witness Against Him Deported
Elon Musk Gets Roasted Online After Attempting To Dodge Trump Interview Questions
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know
In February, President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to American taxpayers from the savings identified by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Are they happening? No official plan or schedule for such a payout has been released, and a decision on the checks would have to come from Congress, which has so far been cool to the idea. And there have been questions as to how much DOGE has actually saved. The idea was floated by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, who suggested on Musk's social media platform X that Trump and Musk should "should announce a 'DOGE Dividend'" from the money saved from reductions in government waste and workforce since it was American taxpayer money in the first place. He even submitted a proposal for how it would work, with a timeline for after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt," he said in a separate post. Musk replied, "Will check with the President." "We're considering giving 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% to paying down the debt," Trump said in a during the Saudi-sponsored FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach the same month. DOGE has dismantled entire federal agencies, wiped out government contracts and led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving many agencies struggling to continue operations. DOGE checks? Elon Musk dodges DOGE stimulus check question during Wisconsin rally: Here's what he said. Fishbeck suggested that the potential refund go only to households that are net-income taxpayers, or households that pay more in taxes than they get back. The Pew Research Center said that most Americans with an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 effectively pay no federal income tax. They would not be eligible. If DOGE achieves Musk's initial goal of stripping $2 trillion from U.S. government spending by 2026, Fishback's plan was for $5,000 per household, or 20% of the savings divided by the number of eligible households. If DOGE doesn't hit the goal, Fishback said the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 'So again, if the savings are only $1 trillion, which I think is awfully low, the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500,' Fishback said during a podcast appearance. 'If the savings are only $500 billion, which, again, is really, really low, then the [checks] are only $1,250.' However, while Musk talked about saving $2 trillion in federal spending during Trump's campaign, he lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office and said in March he was on pace to hit that goal by the end of May. At a Cabinet meeting in April, Musk lowered the projected savings further to $150 billion in fiscal year 2026. Musk left the White House at the end of May when his designation as a "special government employee" ended. DOGE, the advisory group he created, is expected to continue without him. That depends on who you ask. On its website, DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion as of May 30, "a combination of asset sales, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletions, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions." The site says that works out to $1,086.96 saved per taxpayer. However, many of DOGE's claims have been exaggerated and several of the initiatives to slash agency workforces have been challenged in court. DOGE has been accused of taking credit for contracts that were canceled before DOGE was created, failing to factor in funds the government is required to pay even if a contract is canceled, and tallying every contract by the most that could possibly be spent on it even when nothing near that amount had been obligated. The website list has been changed as the media pointed out errors, such as a claim that an $8 million savings was actually $8 billion. On May 30, CNN reported that one of its reporters found that less than half the $175 billion figure was backed up with even basic documentation, making verification difficult if not impossible. Some of the changes may also end up costing taxpayers more, such as proposed slashes to the Internal Revenue Service that experts say would mean less tax revenue generated, resulting in a net cost of about $6.8 billion. Over the next 10 years, if IRS staffing stays low, the cumulative cost in uncollected taxes would hit $159 billion, according to the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale University. The per-taxpayer claim on the website is also inflated, CNN said, as it's based on '161 million individual federal taxpayers' and doesn't seem to include married people filing jointly. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: DOGE dividends: Will American taxpayers get a $5,000 check?
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Primary election 2025: Berks officials certify election results
Berks County election officials have finalized the tally of results from the primary election. During a special meeting Friday, the elections board voted unanimously to certify the vote totals and authorize the submission of the results to the secretary of the commonwealth. There is now a clear picture of which Democratic and Republican candidates will be on the November ballot for municipal, school, county and judicial races. In addition to those candidates who appeared on the primary ballot, nearly 100 candidates were added to the fall election through successful write-in campaigns. Independent and third-party candidates still have a chance to petition to be on the ballot before the lineup is finalized. Elections Director Anne Norton told the elections board that her term performed the required reviews and audits of the May 20 primary, finding no variations or discrepancies with the official tally. The official results of the election will be posted on the county elections website. Overall, just over 21% of registered Democrats and Republicans voted. Voter turnout was slightly lower than recent, similar elections. In the 2023 municipal primary, for example, turnout was about 24%. The elections board thanked the election services team as well as those who worked the polls and handled mail ballots for the hard work and long hours they put into making sure every vote was counted. 'A huge thank you to everyone involved,' Commissioner Michael Rivera said. Commissioner Dante Santoni Jr. also commended those who ran to represent their fellow residents in local positions. 'When you run for office it takes time away from other things,' he said. 'You stick your neck out for your community at all levels of government and I give kudos to everyone who participated in the democratic process.'
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Berks officials send 2 alleged election violations to DA to investigate
Two allegations of potential campaign law violations in Berks County have been forwarded to law enforcement for investigation. At a special meeting of the board of elections Friday, members of the county legal team presented two complaints stemming from the May 20 primary election. One involved a candidate who failed to indicate who paid for campaign materials and the other involved a text message from an unknown sender. The first complaint involved Matthew McCluskey, a Republican candidate running to represent Washington Township on the board of supervisors, who failed to include a disclaimer on campaign material sent to voters about who paid for its distribution. While the board decided last month that they would not be sending the complaint to authorities for further review because they believed the candidate had taken the necessary action to fix the situation, Assistant County Solicitor Alexa Antanavage told the board Friday that the issue is still unresolved. They said upon closer examination of financial campaign documents filed by McCluskey and a committee acting on his behalf, the source of the money used to send mailers to Republican voters in the township ahead of the primary remains unclear. 'Given the totality of everything that's going on here and the discrepancies that we have seen, along with the failure to include disclaimers, I think it's appropriate to recommend referral to the district attorney's office for further investigation,' Antanavage said. The board agreed, voting unanimously to forward the issue to law enforcement. Contacted by the Reading Eagle, McCluskey said Friday afternoon that he believes further investigation of the latest campaign finance documents he filed will accurately show who was responsible for funding his materials. 'I made a mistake filling out the paperwork,' he said. 'There's not even a question about that because I misunderstood the instructions. Listen, I'm a rookie and I've never done this before.' McCluskey said he recently met with an attorney and financial adviser familiar with campaign finance filings to fix the mistakes that were made. 'I truly believe that everything is as it should be now,' he said. The second complaint involved an anonymous text message sent a day before the primary to Republican voters in the Oley Valley School District advocating for the election of several candidates. First Assistant County Solicitor Cody Kauffman said the message may have violated the silence period that prohibits candidates, committees and parties acting on their behalf from placing an advertisement in the 120 hours before an election without giving sufficient notice to opposing candidates. He noted the message is also problematic because it did not state who paid for its distribution to voters. Kauffman recommended the matter be sent to law enforcement for further review. The board voted unanimously to forward the issue to the district attorney. The two referrals to the district attorney's office bring to five the total number of potential violations regarding the handling of campaign material that the county has handed over for investigation this election season. Commissioner Michael Rivera, chairman of the elections board, said it appears this is a growing issue that needs to be addressed. He suggested the board put in place guidelines about how candidates should respond to complaints when they are brought to their attention. 'The remedy has to be equal to or greater than the infraction,' he said. 'So, in the case of the mailer sent out without a disclaimer, the candidate must send another mailer to the same people with the disclaimer. If you are sending a text message without a disclaimer, then another text message should be sent to the same people with the disclaimer.' Rivera said adopting that guideline would help the elections team more easily determine if the candidate has taken the appropriate action to address the complaint. His fellow board members agreed that adopting guidelines would be beneficial for the elections team and candidates who may be unfamiliar with the requirements. They asked Kauffman to work with Elections Director Anne Norton to craft guidelines for the board to approve.
