"(None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary"

 

That's the title of an article over at Real Clear Wire.  It paints a troubling picture of a judiciary that's setting itself up in opposition to the will of the people, as shown in their choice of elected politicians and the policies they espouse.  Here's an extended excerpt.

Now, in Trump’s second term, we see that the bureaucracy has a close ally in the judiciary – not one judge, but multitudes that aim to preserve the status quo of liberal governance. If that wasn’t clear before April 24, there was no room for doubt after the day was filled with one court ruling after another telling Trump to “stand back and stand by” rather than to exercise his lawful power as president.

Here’s what tumbled out of the judicial branch that day:

• A federal district court judge in California blocked Trump’s executive order that would have denied federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit or forbid cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
• A Washington, D.C., judge blocked the Trump administration from following through on the president’s executive order requiring that voters in federal elections show proof of citizenship when registering.
• A district judge in New Hampshire blocked efforts to defund public schools that utilize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Not to be outdone, judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., essentially issued the same order, giving added protection to one of the least popular programs ever shoved down the throat of American citizens.

At the time, those were the latest of more than a dozen nationwide injunctions issued by unelected federal judges who appeared more interested in preserving and protecting left-wing shibboleths than the Constitution.

Also in courts across the nation that week were attempts by judges to reject Trump’s authority as commander in chief to ban transgender participation in the military, to deny Trump the right to strip security clearances from law firms that he says put national security interests second to political partisanship, and stop the administration’s efforts to eliminate federal news services such as Voice of America that engage in anti-American propaganda.

Those are all in addition to the several injunctions issued relative to Trump’s promised reform of the immigration system to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants, especially those who have a criminal history or are members of international gangs.

If that seems normal, it isn’t. There were only six nationwide injunctions during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, and only 12 during the Obama presidency. That increased to 14 under President Biden, which was surpassed by President Trump in the first nine weeks of his second term when 15 such injunctions were issued. Of course, Trump should be accustomed to such judicial abuse. In his first term, there were 64 injunctions against his policies, a staggering 92.2% issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Julien Benda would have clearly recognized the “political passions” that had supplanted the disinterested intellectual rigor we once expected of our judges.

Yet because of our habituated respect for the separation of powers, none dare call it the treason of the judiciary.

. . .

Now, at long last, we can see the fruit of the corrupt tree sprouting in our court system, where judges help illegal immigrants escape through the back door of the courtroom, where other judges demand the return of deported gang members or halt the deportation of antisemitic radicals, and where every effort to put America first is ruled unconstitutional.

Fighting back against the overreach of the judiciary must be Donald Trump’s No. 1 priority as he seeks to restore sanity to the federal government. Because the most important principle of constitutional law that is being decided in the next few months is whether the president is truly the chief executive or whether he serves at the pleasure of left-wing judges who put political passion ahead of national interests.

In the ultimate irony, the case must be decided by nine men and women in black robes, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fate of the nation’s future hinges on whether they will seek justice impartially or be swayed by partisan rancor.

Unfortunately, it’s an open question.

There's more at the link.

This is a very troubling question, one that may have a profound impact on the future of this nation as a whole.  What are we going to do if an activist judiciary claim - or, rather, arrogate to themselves - powers that the constitution does not explicitly grant them?  What if they say that their claimed powers are "implied" or "implicit in" the constitution?  Who's to gainsay them - and what if they simply disallow all action against their perspective in court?

My personal opinion?  I think that President Trump should come out flat-footed on this one.  I think he should demand to be shown any and all constitutional authority(ies) and/or any juridical precedent(s) for a lowly Federal district judge to make a ruling concerning anybody except the actual persons appearing in court (or having lawyers appear for them), and applicable to any greater area than the district where that judge presides.  In other words, no more class action suits, no more national mandates or nullification of laws, at district court level.  If no such authority can be cited or demonstrated, it should be federal government policy to ignore as invalid all rulings from district courts that exceed those limitations.  For higher courts (appeals, circuits, even the Supreme Court) there should be clearly defined powers and limitations, founded on the constitution and on juridical precedent.  If such authority cannot be cited, those powers and limitations must be abolished.

Bear in mind that Article III, Section 1 of the constitution begins:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In other words, Congress has the power to define what court structures should exist beneath the overall sway of the Supreme Court, and Congress has the power to define what their powers and prerogatives should be.  If SCOTUS plays fast and loose and refuses to deal with the issue, this is something President Trump will have to do with a quickness.  If the Democratic Party tries to filibuster it in the Senate, I think the issue is important enough for the Republican Party to abolish the filibuster for this issue at least, and ram the legislation through.  This is simply too important to allow for delay.

Furthermore, this isn't something that can be left to the judiciary alone to decide.  What if SCOTUS decides to make new law and define for themselves what the powers of judges might be?  What if those powers are not evident in the constitution, or in the history of our country's jurisprudence?  Who is going to stand up to SCOTUS and defy them? - because that's what it will take to stop such overreach.

We need to watch this situation very, very carefully.  It may have dramatic implications for all of us, as individuals and as citizens, going forward.

Peter