Activist Judges Attempt to Steal American Sovereignty

[rangerrebew]

Activist Judges Attempt to Steal American Sovereignty
Commentary
April 9, 2025


By William Davis

Last November, President Donald Trump won a decisive election victory on a promise to restore law and order to America’s immigration system, but now his administration is being hamstrung by activist judges who are abusing their power.

The robed resistance this president has faced is unprecedented. During Trump’s first month in office, his administration was subject to 14 nationwide injunctions, nearly as many as the Biden Administration faced in its first three years combined. As was the case in his first term, the president has faced stiff pushback from left-wing judges, including James Boasberg, a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

In a case concerning the application of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, Boasberg recently decided that he, not the duly elected commander in chief, should have the right to dictate U.S. foreign policy, blocking the administration from deporting violent gang members to El Salvador. In a separate case involving the Trump Administration’s decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status previously granted to Venezuelan nationals, Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco halted the administration’s policy despite a statutory prohibition on judicial review of such matters. This has created a crisis of democracy where the president is essentially prohibited from exercising his constitutionally held powers to fulfill the will of the people who elected him.

The actions of these rogue judges not only attempt to thwart the will of the more than 77 million people who voted for Trump in the last election, but are an illegal and illegitimate intrusion into the president’s plenary powers. Under Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has a duty to guarantee every “State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and “protect each of them against Invasion.”

https://www.irli.org/activist-judges-attempt-to-steal-american-sovereignty/

[Fishrrman]

Posted before, I will post this again:
======================
There needs to be proclaimed (yes, proclaimed) "The Trump Doctrine" on the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary.

It must re-define how much power the federal courts have to exercise against the president and his powers.

No individual federal judge anywhere should have the power to overturn executive action.
At the district court level, when and where federal/nationwide policies are impacted, judges should have no more power other than to issue an opinion (strictly an "opinion", not a "ruling").

It will be up to the president as to whether to accept or reject such an opinion.

If rejected, then it can be appealed upwards to the next level. The president should declare in his proclamation that only a judgment by the full appellate court (NOT a 3-judge panel) will be binding -- and ONLY within the confines of that district -- AGAIN, IF the president chooses to accept the ruling.

And after that, we're left with the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, this is going to carry more weight, but I've come to the (very personal) conclusion that even the 9 justices in their black robes should not be entrusted to dictate final decisions before the American people.

Rather, in matters of national social and cultural importance, any U.S. Supreme Court decision should be "annullable-cancelable" by a vote of the U.S. Congress and Senate.

Frankly, I don't even trust most of our "elected leaders" (do YOU?).
I'd rather see such matters put up to a national vote -- much like the Swiss people do RIGHT NOW.