The other day, we told you a judge blocked the Big Beautiful Bill's (BBB) provision defunding Planned Parenthood.

In that initial ruling, the judge didn't explain her reasoning, because 'Orange Man Bad' is not grounds for blocking a spending bill passed by Congress.

Rep. Jamie Raskin said the defunding was unconstitutional (because, of course), and now the judge has amended her TRO to reflect that supposed unconstitutionality:

It's a joke, but we're not laughing.

Congress has Constitutional authority to pass spending legislation.

This is not unconstitutional. But undermining the role of Congress is.

There is nothing in the First or Fifth Amendments that guarantees Planned Parenthood taxpayer funding to kill babies.

If not funding something is a restriction on association, that means any organization is entitled to government funding.

It's insane on its face.

Far too many judges rule on feelings instead of facts and law.

Probably.

Would this surprise any of us?

This writer didn't jump on the judicial impeachment bandwagon as early as some other conservatives, but she's there now.

We cannot wait to read Jackson's dissent.

The only question is: which fellow Justice will scold her in the majority opinion this time?

Excellent question.

Anything that inhibits this is the truly unconstitutional act.

ASAP, hopefully.

If a judge can overturn legislation passed by Congress, this is correct. We don't have a country.

Yes, it is.