In a blistering statement, the American Bar Association describes "attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize" diversity initiatives as "wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself."

The American Bar Association (ABA) issued a statement Tuesday citing concerns with the Trump administration’s comments condemning court orders that blocked some of the president’s executive actions.

“These bold assertions, designed to intimidate judges by threatening removal if they do not rule the government’s way, cross the line. They create a risk to the physical security of judges and have no place in our society,” the ABA wrote.

“There have also been suggestions that the executive branch should consider disobeying court orders. These statements threaten the very foundation of our constitutional system.”

White House officials made scathing statements about a federal judge who ruled that Elon Musk should not have access to the Treasury Department’s central payment system. Democrats have also protested the tech giant’s probe of sensitive taxpayer information without bounds.

The president openly admitted he was “disappointed” by the ruling.

“We’re very disappointed with the judges that would make such a ruling, but we have a long way to go,” President Trump said over the weekend while traveling to the Super Bowl on Air Force One.

The CFPB put $19.7B back into the pockets of families who were cheated by financial predators.

Let’s be honest: the only reason Trump and Musk would shut down America’s consumer watchdog is because they are corrupt—and they don’t like when anybody stops them from being corrupt.

Washington — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration to restore webpages and data that had been scrubbed in compliance with President Trump's executive order on gender ideology while litigation moves forward.

U.S. District Judge John Bates agreed to grant a temporary restraining order sought by the group Doctors for America, which argued that its members used the websites when treating patients and conducting research. The nonprofit organization said that the removal of the webpages by the Department of Health and Human Services and its components violated federal law.

Bates found that the challengers were likely to succeed in their claims that the Department Health and Human Services, CDC and FDA acted unlawfully when they stripped medical information from public-facing websites.

"It bears emphasizing who ultimately bears the harm of defendants' actions: everyday Americans, and most acutely, underprivileged Americans, seeking healthcare," he wrote. Citing declarations from two doctors filed in the case, Bates said if they "cannot provide these individuals the care they need (and deserve) within the scheduled and often limited time frame, there is a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe, life-threatening conditions. The public thus has a strong interest in avoiding these serious injuries to the public health."

During his second week in office, the president fired the Democratic members and general counsels of two multimember agencies that help resolve labor and employment discrimination disputes: the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Critics charged these were unlawful firings since the statutes that govern many independent agencies and commissioners require that they not only have multiple members with staggered, lengthy terms but also have members selected by both major parties.....

Some of those dismissed aren’t taking their purported firings lying down. Gwynne Wilcox, for example, has already filed a lawsuit to be reinstated to her role on the NLRB; meanwhile, Ellen Weintraub, whom Trump removed as chair of the FEC, told Rachel Maddow on her Feb. 7 broadcast that she was considering all of her options.

So far, only one dismissed official has won a reprieve, albeit a temporary one: Hampton Dellinger, the special counsel of the Office of the Special Counsel.

Dellinger is not to be confused with Jack Smith, Robert Mueller or other special counsels who have been appointed by a U.S. attorney general. Rather, the OSC is a permanent federal agency best known for its role in protecting government whistleblowers and enforcing the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity, including fundraising, by certain federal officials and/or on federal grounds.

And as is especially relevant now, as the legal fight over the administration’s so-called buyout program escalates, the OSC also has a more significant role: overseeing enforcement of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). Essentially, the OSC is charged with investigating, resolving and even sometimes elevating disputes in lieu of or before a federal employee seeks relief independently through the Merit System Protection Board.

Monday night, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued an administrative stay, or pause, on Dellinger’s firing until midnight on Feb. 13. Tellingly, the DOJ has already filed a notice of appeal and is seeking an emergency stay from a federal appeals court, arguing that the judge's purportedly modest order is instead “an extraordinary — indeed, unprecedented — intrusion into the President’s authority to exercise all of the executive power of the United States.” That appeals court has ordered both sides to submit additional briefing by noon on Wednesday......

So for now, Dellinger is back at the Office of the Special Counsel, but given Trump’s focus on firing whomever, whenever and however to consolidate executive control, Dellinger’s battle for his job could become one of the first and most telling tests of where this Supreme Court might impose limits — and even if it does, how the Trump administration will react.

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis issued a major rebuke Tuesday to the Trump administration’s plans for mass deportations of migrants, warning that the forceful removal of people purely because of their illegal status deprives them of their inherent dignity and “will end badly.”

Francis took the remarkable step of addressing the U.S. migrant crackdown in a letter to U.S. bishops in which he appeared to take direct aim at Vice President JD Vance’s defense of the deportation program on theological grounds....

History’s first Latin American pope has long made caring for migrants a priority of his pontificate, citing the biblical command to “welcome the stranger” in demanding that countries welcome, protect, promote and integrate those fleeing conflicts, poverty and climate disasters. Francis has also said governments are expected to do so to the limits of their capacity.....

Vance, a Catholic convert, has defended the administration’s America-first crackdown by citing a concept from medieval Catholic theology known in Latin as “ordo amoris.” He has said the concept delineates a hierarchy of care — to family first, followed by neighbor, community, fellow citizens and lastly those elsewhere.

In his letter, Francis appeared to correct Vance’s understanding of the concept.

“Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups,” he wrote. “The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan,’ that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

One amateur sleuth, John O’Connell, made a persuasive and widely shared case that “Trump at the Superbowl was soundly booed and hissed. Heard clearly international coverage and commented on in multiple countries.”

The American viewers who watched on Fox, which carried the Super Bowl, didn’t hear the boos because the pro-Trump network overlayed canned “cheers,” O’Connell surmised.

When challenged, O’Connell posted a video recorded by “someone who was actually there.” One problem: The account of the person who recorded it is inactive.
https://x.com/jdpoc/status/1888792311758275068

.....The second video, shot when Trump was on the field, was more hostile toward the president. One fan can be heard yelling “Thank You, Donald” to the president, followed by another shouting “Traitor.” Boos followed though it’s unclear if they were directed at the president or the guy calling him a traitor.

“Sky News just showed it but edited out any booing disgraceful manipulation,” one person replied.

Trump questions the legitimacy of Kamala Harris’ popular vote totals

How does the president deal with the fact that his 2024 Democratic rival received 75 million votes? By pretending the accurate vote totals aren’t real.

But the president, who’s never been altogether comfortable with the idea that Americans settle their differences at the ballot box, apparently can’t help himself.

In the same interview, the Fox anchor reminded his guest that his 2024 rival, former Vice President Kamala Harris, received 75 million votes. Trump disapproved — not about Baier bringing this up, but about the validity of the electoral total.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3lhubn3ntu52a
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1889091018626073068
“Well, if you believe the whole thing,” the president said, apparently referring to the outcome of last year’s election. “The whole thing is ridiculous,” he added.

It was a telling moment for Trump. In reality, according to the latest tallies, Harris received over 75 million votes, finishing with more than 48% of the popular vote. By both metrics, the California Democrat fared better in 2024 than Trump did in either of his first two elections.....

Why? Because he says so. Trump is one of those rare election conspiracy theorists who not only tries to undermine public confidence in the results when he loses, but who does the same thing when he wins.

Stepping back, watching the president’s scorched-earth approach to post-inaugural governing, it’s only natural to wonder whether the Republican believes he owes anything to the 50.2% of American voters who didn’t support his 2024 candidacy. The answer, by all appearances, is no — because as far as he’s concerned, he doesn’t want to believe those vote totals, no matter how accurate they are.