Since President Trump’s election, his administration has been subject to constant administrative obstruction from progressive activist judges who want to halt, or at the very least, his agenda.
Federal courts have consistently stepped in to destroy professional authority, whether it is U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg’s attempt to stop the Trump presidency from deporting suspected illegal alien group members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 or U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander’s decision to stop Expand from accessing Social Security Administration data.
The” separation of powers” used by Trump’s supporters as explanation for the administrative system’s opposition to his plan will be cited by critics of the Trump administration, alleging that the system was designed by the Founding Fathers to be effective. This serves as a window into a far more ominous truth, though.
The district judge system that operates below the Supreme Court has subverted the executive and legislative branches to establish a plan mission imposed by unelected judges rather than elected officials, a trend that has become increasingly prevalent in America.
More than half of the total injunctions against the federal government since 1963, according to a Fox News report from the country’s first management.
Even worse, President Trump’s next word has surprisingly experienced more federal prosecutor prohibitions in his first 60 days than Joe Biden and Barack Obama did during their entire eight-year president.
This obstruct is far removed from the original’s intent.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Charles Jarvis that it would be” a very dangerous philosophy, and one that would house us under the tyranny of an oligarchy” to view courts as the “ultimate enforcers of all legal questions.”
Alexander Hamilton made the argument in Federalist No. 78 that the court had” no control over either the weapon or the purse,” making it the “most risky” branch of government.
Federal judges have proven to be a significant risk to America’s democratic order, in contrast to Hamilton and Jefferson’s warnings and beliefs. Although the majority of Americans elected presidents, our appointed judiciary has consistently attempted to have the final say over how the country is run.
This energy transition began with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1803. In this case, the practice of” criminal review” was born, giving American authorities the authority to revoke laws and orders that were deemed to have violated the Constitution.
While criminal review was intended to stop governmental overreach and abuses of power, it has significantly evolved into a tool for unaccountable liberal justices to impose their political opinions on policies they intellectually oppose.
This obfuscation of judicial review violates the political principle that elected representatives, no appointed judges, should influence national plan.
Consider, for instance, the Trump v. Hawaii Supreme Court case from 2018;
President Trump issued Executive Order 13769, a term that democratic competitors frequently refer to as the” Muslim moratorium,” following the tragic mass shooting by a Muslim partners in San Bernardino, California. The purchase stifled access from seven predominantly Muslim nations and caused widespread protests and quick legal challenges.
Federal judges ruled that the ban’s enforcement was unlawful and exempt from the president’s authority to enact rulings across the country.
In fact, the issue was more fueled by hatred and Islamophobia than it was that progressive politicians and activist judges thought the travel restrictions was “unconstitutional.”
Judge Derrick Watson of the U.S. District Court concurred and said,” A review of the traditional context these makes clear why the Government wishes to concentrate on the Executive Order’s words rather than its environment. The evidence before this Court is special. Significant and unrefutable evidence of spiritual antagonism that led to the adoption of the Executive Order and its related president is included.
However, after a few revisions, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the travel ban and made a decision (5-4 ) in favor of the Trump administration. According to Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, the travel ban fell under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s” squarely within the range of National power” and that the president can revoke non-citizens ‘ access whenever necessary for national protection.
However, federal policy alone does not stop judicial overreach. The controversy surrounding California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure demonstrates how courts have overstepped their duties by undermining and undermining the rights of states, which were once a fundamental tenet of our republic.
Proposition 8 legalized same-sex unions in California by changing the state constitution to only allow marriage between a man and a woman.
Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who claimed that the measure had no legitimate state interest and was based on discrimination against same-sex couples despite 52 % of California residents voting in favor of the measure.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ( equal protection ), overriding the 10th Amendment ( states ‘ rights ). The outcome of Obergefell v. Hodges ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s decision to explicitly state that marriage could not be violated under the Constitution, as it had historically been a state-regulated matter and was traditionally defined as a union between one man and one woman.
The courts have increasingly shifted from their primary role as law interpreters to that of legislators, as these two cases demonstrate. The separation of powers has been fundamentally undermined by this, turning the judiciary from a neutral arbitrator to a catalyst for liberal activism.
This disturbing pattern of judicial overreach furthers the oligarchy’s foundation and furthers our already fragile representative democracy. We now have an unchecked judiciary that can override the executive and legislative branches whenever elected officials pursue policies that conflict with the liberal establishment’s ideological preferences rather than three equally polarized branches of government.
President Biden proudly claimed that the Supreme Court had the power to revoke approximately$ 90 billion in student debt. A constitutional crisis is looming, but the Trump administration has so far tried to appeal the challenges to the president’s executive power through the same court system.
The judiciary will effectively establish itself as America’s unelected ruling class if the deliberate legal obstruction of Trump’s presidency continues without significant pushback, either by winning legal appeals, impeaching partisan justices, eliminating some federal courts, openly defying court orders, or by the Supreme Court approving the Trump administration’s request to narrow the scope of the district court injunctions.
