It took an Act of Congress to make them do it, but legacy media finally called out the judicial coup against President Trump;  at least in one particular case.

The Washington Post Editorial Board published “This is what judicial overreach looks like”

Tuesday evening, regarding the ruling out of Massachusetts on the legislative defunding of Planned Parenthood.  

Amazingly, they call out Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani for “the kind of lower court activism that gives the Trump administration fodder for its attacks on judges.”

They wrote:

… A federal judge has blocked an act of Congress [emphasis original] — not an executive order but legislation — steering Medicaid funds away from abortion providers. Allocating public money is Congress’s core competency.

The judge reached a couple of centuries back into history, transmogrifying one arcane piece of it:

Incredibly, Talwani agreed with Planned Parenthood that the provision is an unconstitutional “bill of attainder” … (asserting) that the concept includes other forms of “legislative punishment.”

A “bill of attainder”?  “Punishment”?  The Washington Post lays out the consequences of this inanity if taken to it’s inevitable conclusion:

The judge strained to label Congress’s exercise of its spending discretion unconstitutional. … But Congress has no obligation to subsidize any group’s operation. If forward-looking budgetary measures can be scrutinized as bills of attainder, Congress’s fiscal function will be incapacitated.

Exactly.  

We can like or not like bills made into law all day long, but the the “defenders of democracy” have to concede that a bill passed into law and signed by a president is the voice of the people.  Sometimes we like them.  Sometimes we don’t.  That’s our system of government and in this case, Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” was executed as per our constitution, per vox populi.  

That’s it.  It’s done.  If we don’t like it, we can pass another law countermanding it, softening it, repealing it wholesale.  That’s how it works.  

But not according to this progressive activist in a robe who, it seems, read something about a bill of attainder in a graphic novel once.

The editorial concludes:

By curbing funding for abortion providers, social conservatives have advanced one of their longtime legislative priorities, fair and square. To protect that funding in the future, liberals will need to make the case to voters in 2026 and 2028. Judicial fiat cannot substitute for democratic legitimacy.

Amen.

Image: FreeSVG // CC0 public domain