Donald Trump’s election as president was not intended. The continuous Washington government refurbished Hillary Clinton’s campaign’s claim that Trump was a Russian resource to stifle his presidency and prevent him from carrying out the mission that voters had given him in 2016.
He wasn’t actually supposed to serve as president half. When he did, defying attempts to kill, confine, and destitute him, he entered the White House more battle-ready and prepared to deal with America’s enemies than ever before. His favorite plan was putting a new life on the people who were in danger of losing them.
There was no way to remove him from power, and the older methods failed. He was a victim of internet lies. So they devised a new technique: approaching friendly federal judges in friendly districts and urging them to place broad, unheard restrictions on the president’s capacity to rule. The courts have so far been content to follow orders.
Both days, the goal has always been the same: to prevent Donald Trump’s presidency.
An” Coverage Plan”
In the first 64 time of his second term, Trump has been the subject of more than 130 lawsuits that challenge his conduct as leader. There are a few anomalies, but the majority of them relate to a few recurring themes: the government’s authority to fire executive branch employees, his authority to halt or reduce saving by the professional agencies he oversees, his authority to stop improperly current threats to national security, and his ability to ensure military readiness through medical criteria for entry into the armed forces.
Judges have issued more than 50 temporary restraining orders ( TROs ), which are generally unappealing and only supposed to be used when irreparable harm is imminent, to anti-Trump plaintiffs over the past two months. In cases ranging from the administration’s efforts to deport suspected gang members who are present in the country illegally ( J. G. v. Trump ), its prohibitions on people with gender dysphoria serving in the military ( Ireland v. Hegseth ), to something as trivial as the removal of webpages from government agencies ( Doctors for America v. OPM), lower court judges have issued TROs against the Trump administration.
Lower judge judges have been even more eager to grant preliminary injunctions that would prevent Trump and his government from carrying out their legal obligations. According to acting solicitor public Sarah Harris, acting solicitor general said that there were 15 of these injunctions in February together, in which a judge with a limited geographical control unites the capacity of the U.S. leader with the injury of a pencil. That’s more than Bush, Obama, or Biden were dealt with throughout their respective presidencies.
The president would have received roughly 700 lower court orders preventing him from performing his duties if every federal district judge in America issued a preliminary injunction against him.
While held hostage by dozens of antagonistic plaintiffs and the judges who support them, it is impossible for an executive to carry out the popular mandate of his voters, never mind his constitutionally mandated duties. In Talbott v. Trump, Judge Ana Reyes of the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration should expel any service members who have gender identity disorder from the entire military, as well as the ruling that Judge Reyes made broaden the scope of the orders issued against the administration.
Anti-Trump plaintiffs have quickly learned that their best chance of halting his agenda is to seek injunctions and TROs from friendly judges, thanks to willing judges and a Supreme Court that has so far been unwilling to step in. Trump’s enemies have a new strategy for an old goal: obstructing his ability to govern now that he is in the White House, having failed to stop him at the ballot box, in criminal law enforcement courtrooms, or in a field in Butler, Pennsylvania.
The lawsuits are an “insurance policy” meant to kneecap Trump the executive after failing to kneecap Trump the candidate, to use an analogy that former FBI agent Peter Strzok of Russiagate infamy favors. Anti-Trump lawfare has changed as the Russia hoax has changed from a campaign strategy to an obstruction strategy.
Russia Hoax Redux
Despite its harm, the Russia collusion hoax was a revealing revelation. Throughout the course of the hoax’s lifetime, it became clear that the people in charge, from Congress to the intelligence agencies to the corporate press, should not be trusted.
The constitutional crisis, which was started by overeager lower court judges to stifle the federal executive’s ability to carry out its constitutional duties, is a clarifying event, similar to the Russia hoax. The president is relegated to a figurehead with no real authority over the bureaucracy he supposedly controls by the grant of 700 judges ‘ veto power over him. Trump’s campaign promises to clear the swamp, against the wishes of many Washington residents, would be met by the sweeping injunctions.
Contrary to the Russia hoax, it seems unlikely that the injunction blitz will be able to obstruct Trump’s agenda for years into his second term. It’s past time for the Supreme Court to intervene and put an end to the” judicial hubris” of the lower courts.
In the meantime, enthused plaintiffs and judges will keep using their tactics to denigrate the president. And like the Russia hoax, the country is more damaged by the longer it endures.
The Federalist’s editor of elections is Elle Purnell. Her work has been featured on Fox Business, RealClearPolitics, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Independent Women’s Forum. She received a B. Patrick Henry College offers an A. in government with a journalism minor. Follow her on Twitter at @ellepurnell.
