![\"HAPPENING](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/582268362_122220643190123475_6112790474091949102_n-1763346231-q80.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
On this week\u2019s broadcast of Fox News Channel\u2019s \u201cFox News Sunday,\u201d House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said President Donald Trump was \u201ceager\u201d and \u201cdetermined\u201d to reopen the federal government as quickly as possible.<\/p>\n
Anchor Shannon Bream began: \u201cSo the president says it\u2019s about getting rid of the filibuster, not something you have to deal with on the House side. But he\u2019s putting pressure on your Senate colleagues, saying, get rid of the 60 vote threshold. You can move most things by a majority vote in the House. Here\u2019s part of one of his recent posts. He says, \u2018Remember Republicans, regardless of the Schumer shutdown, the Democrats will terminate the filibuster the first chance they get. They\u2019ll pack the Supreme Court, pick up two states, and add at least eight electoral votes. Don\u2019t be weak and stupid, Republicans you will rule rue the day that you didn\u2019t terminate the filibuster. Be tough, be smart and win.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
She then asked Johnson: \u201cThere are some GOP senators indicating at least the tiniest open door to possibly making changes. What\u2019s your advice to the other side of the Hill?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, I think there\u2019s a lot of Democrats. I mean, a lot of senators, Republican and Democrat, who have resisted it in the past. We, on our side traditionally have resisted that because the worst impulses of the far left Democrat Party, they would pack the court,\u201d Johnson began.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey would do all the things the president. Let\u2019s discuss there. I think what you\u2019re seeing there is a reflection of his anger, his real frustration that the government is closed. He he is a big-hearted president,\u201d the Speaker and Louisiana Republican continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe wants everybody to get their services, and the health services for veterans and SNAP benefits and all the rest. And he\u2019s tried everything he can, and he is now exhausting his ability. The courts are now saying you can\u2019t go any further. So he\u2019s just desperate for the government to open. He\u2019s tried everything,\u201d Johnson said.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe\u2019s tried to negotiate with them. He\u2019s he\u2019s pleaded with them and they\u2019re still dug their heels in. So this is a reflection of all of our desperation. We\u2019re angry about it. I think we should be.\u201d<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)\u00a0said Sunday\u00a0that he\u2019s hopeful the government shutdown could end this week now that President Trump has returned from his trip to Asia.<\/p>\n
In an interview on CBS News\u2019s \u201cFace the Nation,\u201d Warner avoided specifying where Democrats might be willing to compromise in the monthlong funding standoff but urged the president to return to the negotiating table.<\/p>\n
Asked at what point the \u201cpain and pressure\u201d from air traffic controllers and other government workers will finally \u201cend the shutdown,\u201d Warner said, \u201cI hope it ends it this week.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe knew this wasn\u2019t going to end unless Donald Trump was back in the country. He\u2019s now back in the country. He\u2019s got to go ahead and put America first and sit down with us, deal with the health care shortage,\u201d Warner added, as Democrats begin to feel the heat from the media and others normally friendly to his party.<\/p>\n
He noted further that any negotiation will \u201crequire Trump in the room.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s why the bipartisan conversation so far, I don\u2019t think we\u2019ll ever get to \u2018yes\u2019 because unfortunately, my Republican colleagues can\u2019t move on anything without a Trump sign-off,\u201d Warner said.<\/p>\n
\u201cTrump has spent enough time going out there now trying to audition for a Nobel Prize, running around the world. Come back and put America first. Sit down and let\u2019s get this resolved. It can be done in an hour,\u201d Warner said without addressing the fact that Senate Democrats have voted no to fund and reopen the government 14 times.<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court provided another victory for President Donald Trump on Tuesday, facilitating his executive order aimed at reducing the oversized federal government through extensive layoffs across various agencies.<\/p>\n
In an unsigned ruling, the justices overturned a lower court\u2019s decision that had prevented the president\u2019s February 13 directive, which called for \u201clarge-scale reductions in force.\u201d This injunction originated from Judge Susan Illston, who was appointed by Clinton in Northern California. However, the Supreme Court stated that her ruling was based on her personal interpretation of the order\u2019s legality, rather than on the actual reorganization plans, which were not even presented to the court, as reported by The New York Post.<\/p>\n
\u201cGiven that the Government is likely to prevail on its assertion that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful \u2014 and considering that the other factors relevant to granting a stay are met \u2014 we approve the application,\u201d the court stated.<\/p>\n
Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, known for her liberal stance, concurred with the majority in granting the stay, although she clarified that she was not supporting the downsizing initiative itself\u2014merely that it was premature to obstruct it.<\/p>\n
\u201cI concur with the Court\u2019s stay because it allows the District Court to address those issues initially,\u201d she noted. \u201cThe plans themselves are not currently before this Court at this time.\u201d<\/p>\n
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the ruling and asserting that it could result in \u201cmass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as established by Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n
She contended that Trump required congressional consent before proceeding with such measures, stating, \u201cAccording to our Constitution, Congress possesses the authority to create administrative agencies and define their functions.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, the majority of the court disagreed. They concluded that the administration was acting within its rights to commence the implementation of the president\u2019s strategy.<\/p>\n
The action is part of a larger initiative by the Trump administration aimed at reducing the size of government and enhancing efficiency. The Department of Government Efficiency\u2014previously headed by Elon Musk\u2014has been managing the transition.<\/p>\n
Labor unions and progressive organizations had filed lawsuits to halt the initiative, which would impact personnel at essential agencies such as Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, the Treasury, State, Veterans Affairs, the EPA, among others.<\/p>\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi commended the ruling, stating on X: \u201cToday, the Supreme Court prevented lawless lower courts from limiting President Trump\u2019s power over federal personnel \u2014 yet another Supreme Court triumph thanks to [Justice Department] lawyers.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNow, federal agencies can achieve unprecedented levels of efficiency,\u201d she continued.<\/p>\n
This ruling contributes to the remarkable two months the president has experienced at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
His most recent success in June involved the court agreeing to hear a Republican-led challenge to U.S. campaign finance laws that restrict the amount of money political parties can expend on behalf of particular candidates.<\/p>\n
The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was initially presented to the court by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and two Senate Republican candidates who were campaigning at that time, including the current Vice President JD Vance.<\/p>\n
The case addresses whether federal restrictions on campaign spending by political parties infringe upon free speech protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Petitioners urged the Supreme Court to examine the matter, asserting that the spending restrictions \u201csignificantly hinder political party committees from exercising their First Amendment rights: to fully associate with and advocate for their candidates for federal office.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On this week\u2019s broadcast of Fox News Channel\u2019s \u201cFox News Sunday,\u201d House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said President Donald Trump was \u201ceager\u201d and \u201cdetermined\u201d to reopen the federal government as quickly as…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11771,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t