I love Grok!
I asked, Did President Trump Sign EO That He Will IGNORE All Lower Court Rulings Until SCOTUS Rules on the Constitutionality of Activist Judges?
Grok:
There is no credible evidence from official government sources, reputable news outlets, or legal records to confirm that President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) stating he would ignore all lower court rulings until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules on the constitutionality of activist judges. This claim appears to have originated from a post on X on March 12, 2025, and was subsequently reported on a website called NC Renegades, which labeled it as satire. However, no official documentation from the White House, the Federal Register (where all EOs are published), or mainstream news corroborates this assertion as of March 16, 2025.
The idea of a president issuing an EO to bypass lower court rulings would raise significant constitutional questions, as it conflicts with the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which grants courts the authority to interpret the law and bind the executive branch. Historically, presidents have complied with court orders, even when disagreeing, as seen with Richard Nixon during Watergate or Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War (though Lincoln initially resisted, he ultimately aligned with Congress). Defying courts outright would likely provoke a constitutional crisis, a scenario legal experts frequently discuss but which has not materialized in this context.
Posts on X and some web sources have circulated this claim, but they lack substantiation beyond anecdotal or satirical framing. Without an official EO number, publication in the Federal Register, or confirmation from Trump administration statements, it remains unverified and likely misinformation. That said, the Trump administration has faced numerous legal challenges to its executive actions in 2025, with federal judges issuing injunctions on policies like birthright citizenship and federal funding freezes. Trump has criticized these rulings but has so far followed the legal process by appealing them, not ignoring them.
In short, as of now, no such Executive Order exists based on available evidence. Always check primary sources like the Federal Register or White House announcements for definitive confirmation of executive actions.
POTUS doesn't need an EO to do that, he already has the power to ignore them. The courts have NO authority to infringe on the Executive Powers or Branch.
“The province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals... . Questions, in their nature political or which are, by the Constitution and laws, submitted to the Executive, can never be made in this court.” ~ John Marshall (1755-1835) US Supreme Court Chief Justice
Marbury v. Madison, February 23, 1803
“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Letter to Mrs. John Adams, September, 1804
“The powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Federalist Paper 47, 1788
“To maintain the ascendancy of the Constitution over the lawmaking majority is the great and essential point on which the success of the [American] system must depend; unless that ascendancy can be preserved, the necessary consequence must be that the laws will supersede the Constitution; and, finally, the will of the Executive, by influence of its patronage, will supersede the laws ..." ~ John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) American statesman
“I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
speech in the Congress of the United States, June 17, 1789
“The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.” ~ Joseph Story (1779-1845) US Supreme Court Justice
Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
“Constitutions are violated, and it would be absurd to expect the federal government to enforce the Constitution against itself. If the very federal judges the Constitution was partly intended to restrain were the ones exclusively charged with enforcing it, then “America possesses only the effigy of a Constitution.” The states, the very constituents of the Union, had to do the enforcing.” ~ John Taylor (1753-1824) usually called John Taylor of Caroline, served in the Virginia House of Delegates, US Senator, writer, political pamphleteer
c. 1790
There are almost 700 federal district court judges. I say “almost,” because while officially there are 677 of them, some retired judges have taken senior status and may sit from time to time on cases, so the figure is inexact on any given day. Since President Trump was sworn in for a second term, there have been an avalanche of cases seeking relief from executive actions. Last month alone district court judges issued 15 temporary restraining orders. “That’s more nationwide injunctions than there were issued for the first three YEARS of the Biden Administration. District court judges are out of control.“
This might be click bait. No one seems to be able to identify what EO this is. So beware of sharing this info with others.
It is clickbait
I love Grok! I asked, Did President Trump Sign EO That He Will IGNORE All Lower Court Rulings Until SCOTUS Rules on the Constitutionality of Activist Judges?
Grok: There is no credible evidence from official government sources, reputable news outlets, or legal records to confirm that President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) stating he would ignore all lower court rulings until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules on the constitutionality of activist judges. This claim appears to have originated from a post on X on March 12, 2025, and was subsequently reported on a website called NC Renegades, which labeled it as satire. However, no official documentation from the White House, the Federal Register (where all EOs are published), or mainstream news corroborates this assertion as of March 16, 2025.
The idea of a president issuing an EO to bypass lower court rulings would raise significant constitutional questions, as it conflicts with the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which grants courts the authority to interpret the law and bind the executive branch. Historically, presidents have complied with court orders, even when disagreeing, as seen with Richard Nixon during Watergate or Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War (though Lincoln initially resisted, he ultimately aligned with Congress). Defying courts outright would likely provoke a constitutional crisis, a scenario legal experts frequently discuss but which has not materialized in this context. Posts on X and some web sources have circulated this claim, but they lack substantiation beyond anecdotal or satirical framing. Without an official EO number, publication in the Federal Register, or confirmation from Trump administration statements, it remains unverified and likely misinformation. That said, the Trump administration has faced numerous legal challenges to its executive actions in 2025, with federal judges issuing injunctions on policies like birthright citizenship and federal funding freezes. Trump has criticized these rulings but has so far followed the legal process by appealing them, not ignoring them.
In short, as of now, no such Executive Order exists based on available evidence. Always check primary sources like the Federal Register or White House announcements for definitive confirmation of executive actions.
Deleted post on the way to the 'Box of Shame'.
Some say it was a satire
Could they charge Trump with 'Contempt of Court' ?
I hope they do be trying !!!
POTUS doesn't need an EO to do that, he already has the power to ignore them. The courts have NO authority to infringe on the Executive Powers or Branch.
“The province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals... . Questions, in their nature political or which are, by the Constitution and laws, submitted to the Executive, can never be made in this court.” ~ John Marshall (1755-1835) US Supreme Court Chief Justice Marbury v. Madison, February 23, 1803
“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President Letter to Mrs. John Adams, September, 1804
“The powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President Federalist Paper 47, 1788
“To maintain the ascendancy of the Constitution over the lawmaking majority is the great and essential point on which the success of the [American] system must depend; unless that ascendancy can be preserved, the necessary consequence must be that the laws will supersede the Constitution; and, finally, the will of the Executive, by influence of its patronage, will supersede the laws ..." ~ John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) American statesman
“I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President speech in the Congress of the United States, June 17, 1789
“The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.” ~ Joseph Story (1779-1845) US Supreme Court Justice Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
“Constitutions are violated, and it would be absurd to expect the federal government to enforce the Constitution against itself. If the very federal judges the Constitution was partly intended to restrain were the ones exclusively charged with enforcing it, then “America possesses only the effigy of a Constitution.” The states, the very constituents of the Union, had to do the enforcing.” ~ John Taylor (1753-1824) usually called John Taylor of Caroline, served in the Virginia House of Delegates, US Senator, writer, political pamphleteer c. 1790
Deleted post on the way to the 'Box of Shame'
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/03/do_we_have_677_unelected_presidents.html
Do We Have 677 Unelected Presidents?
American Thinker, by Clarice Feldman
Posted By: Judy W., 3/16/2025 6:44:13 AM
There are almost 700 federal district court judges. I say “almost,” because while officially there are 677 of them, some retired judges have taken senior status and may sit from time to time on cases, so the figure is inexact on any given day. Since President Trump was sworn in for a second term, there have been an avalanche of cases seeking relief from executive actions. Last month alone district court judges issued 15 temporary restraining orders. “That’s more nationwide injunctions than there were issued for the first three YEARS of the Biden Administration. District court judges are out of control.“
I have a permit.
Why is this fake shit being posted here?
Trying to discredit this board???
DO BETTER OP
Deleted post on the way to the 'Box of Shame'
I’ve been there too.