So, Trump has taken action and, as usual, everyone negatively impacted by the action is running to the courts, hoping to find some judge, somewhere, willing help micromanage the Trump administration through the judiciary. In this case, it involves defunding PBS and their demand that we fund PBS. And in court they are claiming they have a First Amendment Right to that funding:

In the article the potato Stelter writes:

‘PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,’ Friday’s lawsuit filing states. ‘But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS’s programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.’

In legal parlance, the alleged First Amendment violation is known as ‘viewpoint discrimination.’

As we said when we introduced our semi-recurring feature 'Lawsplaining', we aren’t going to do a full on deep dive here, but we will bring some actual law into the discussion.

Now, when the government deals with private actors, the government can often be prevented from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. The most obvious example of this is in the context of criminal law enforcement. If a prosecutor treats, say, Republicans harsher than Democrats, that is a violation of the First Amendment. But the same can be said in other contexts. For instance, if the Government is handing out small business loans in general, they can’t condition those loans on particular speech.

But when the government itself is speaking—as is the case with PBS—they do not have to be viewpoint neutral. This is taught to us in the case of Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). That case involved a program funding health care that not only excluded abortion, but prohibited more or less the promotion of abortion. This was challenged, in part, on First Amendment grounds—claiming that recipients were being prevented from expressing themselves—and that claim was crushed by the majority opinion as follows:

To hold that the Government unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals, because the program in advancing those goals necessarily discourages alternative goals, would render numerous Government programs constitutionally suspect. When Congress established a National Endowment for Democracy to encourage other countries to adopt democratic principles, … it was not constitutionally required to fund a program to encourage competing lines of political philosophy such as communism and fascism. Petitioners' assertions ultimately boil down to the position that if the Government chooses to subsidize one protected right, it must subsidize analogous counterpart rights. But the Court has soundly rejected that proposition. … Within far broader limits than petitioners are willing to concede, when the Government appropriates public funds to establish a program it is entitled to define the limits of that program.

So, bluntly, that is the end of PBS’ constitutional argument … assuming that the lower courts follow the Constitution and precedent. But that is the rub, isn’t it? So, in our minds, this very much a test of the lower courts more than for the Trump administration. There is nothing in the Constitution preventing the Trump administration from doing it, but will the courts recognize the limits of their own power?

Wait a minute, then Twitchy has a right to federal money!

We have changed our minds! We take everything back! PBS is right and we say gimme, gimme, gimme!

The cut off text:

We have the WEA system through the FCC and that is the only national alert system we need, because the minute that goes off, all TV and Radio will echo the alerts.

Whatever justification there ever was for PBS or NPR, it has evaporated. Now, it is just subsidizing the propaganda of one party.

We think that was a rhetorical question.

Finally:

We think it is in the little-spoken about Twenty-Ninth Amendment which reads: ‘From now on, leftists get everything they want just by asking a judge to overrule the people.’

It’s right after the Twenty-Eighth Amendment that Joe Biden said had somehow been ratified.

RELATED: KNOCKOUT: Sanity Prevails at World Boxing. Imane Khelif Hardest Hit

WATCH: Secret Service Agents on Obama’s Detail Get in a Catfight

Trump Pardons Sheriff Scott Jenkins to Counter Biden’s ‘Corrupt and Weaponized’ Dept. of Justice

BREAKING: Portions of Biden’s Forgetful Interview With Robert Hur Has Been Released (LISTEN)

‘First Do No Harm:’ Fisking John Oliver on the Transgender/Sports Issue

The Question Isn’t Whether Trump Can Revoke Biden’s Pardons. It’s Whether They Were Issued at all

Editor’s Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump’s agenda to make America great again.

Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.