Enough’s enough, Supremes — slap down judges’ delusions of grandeur

[rangerrebew]

Enough’s enough, Supremes — slap down judges’ delusions of grandeur
Opinion by Betsy McCaughey • 12h

Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge — one of nearly 700 — in a courthouse anywhere in the nation?

The answer is obvious, and pure common sense.

The president is elected by millions, empowered by the US Constitution to ensure “the laws be faithfully executed,” conduct foreign policy and command the nation’s armed forces.
 
Most district court judges get there because they know somebody who knows somebody in the president’s party.

Their role on the bench is generally limited to deciding the case before them based on existing law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/enough-s-enough-supremes-slap-down-judges-delusions-of-grandeur/ar-AA1Bleo9?ocid=widgetonlockscreen&cvid=3f43a0cb54734b15bff59a22803dc6f9&ei=44

[rangerrebew]

Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge — one of nearly 700 — in a courthouse anywhere in the nation?

The answer is obvious, and pure common sense.

To democrats, it's the judge as it is the only means of power enough to keep from being steamrolled when republicans are in power.  Instead of rebuking Trump, the justices should spend their time on lowering the boom on these judiciary radicals.

[Kamaji]

It’s not about raw power, it’s about checks and balances, about division of power amongst the three branches in order to make tyranny harder to achieve.

[rangerrebew]

It’s not about raw power, it’s about checks and balances, about division of power amongst the three branches in order to make tyranny harder to achieve.

At least that is what the Constitution says but many law schools don't even teach the Constitution anymore.

[Smokin Joe]

It’s not about raw power, it’s about checks and balances, about division of power amongst the three branches in order to make tyranny harder to achieve.

No it isn't. It's tyranny from the bench. I am all for checks and balances, but when those checks and balances stand in the way of enforcing the law, attack the law itself if it is wrongly constituted, instead sf summarily throwing obstacles in the way of those who are trying to enforce it.

Note, too, that ALL of these judges have some skin in the game, relatives who rely on the presence of illegals or misappropriated money for their income stream. It isn't about the Law, it isn't about checks or balances, unless you mean their pay checks and bank balances.

[DCPatriot]

It’s not about raw power, it’s about checks and balances, about division of power amongst the three branches in order to make tyranny harder to achieve.

Uh-huh.....  

Chuck Schumer Says the Quiet Part Out Loud:
‘We Did Put 235 Progressive Judges – on the Bench and They
Are Ruling Against Trump Time After Time After Time’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/chuck-schumer-says-quiet-part-loud-we-did/#comments

[mystery-ak]

Enough is enough, SCOTUS — slap down these delusional judges and let Trump get to work
Betsy McCaughey


Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge — one of nearly 700 — in a courthouse anywhere in the nation?

The answer is obvious, and pure common sense.

The president is elected by millions, empowered by the US Constitution to ensure “the laws be faithfully executed,” conduct foreign policy and command the nation’s armed forces.

more
https://nypost.com/2025/03/20/opinion/enoughs-enough-supremes-slap-down-delusional-judges/

[Bigun]

 

[DefiantMassRINO]

We are no longer a nation of laws.  We are a nation of lawyers with agendas.

Laws are written and codified so there can be no doubt what the law is.  Laws can be interpreted and implemented with a difference of opinions.  In the end, the law is what is written.  If the law needs amending, amend the text of the law.

I've had it with precedent, common law, regulations, rules, policies, and opinions.  If it's important, have Congress put it in writing, have Congress approve it by majority vote, and have the President sign it - the process prescribed in the US Constitution.

Judges make sure that the written law is followed - that the arguments and the conclusions adhere to the text of the law.

Written law matters.

The US Constitution does not limit the Rights of Man, it limits the rights of Government.

[Mod2]

Topics merged.

[Bigun]

We are no longer a nation of laws.  We are a nation of lawyers with agendas.

Laws are written and codified so there can be no doubt what the law is.  Laws can be interpreted and implemented with a difference of opinions.  In the end, the law is what is written.  If the law needs amending, amend the text of the law.

I've had it with precedent, common law, regulations, rules, policies, and opinions.  If it's important, have Congress put it in writing, have Congress approve it by majority vote, and have the President sign it - the process prescribed in the US Constitution.

Judges make sure that the written law is followed - that the arguments and the conclusions adhere to the text of the law.

Written law matters.

The US Constitution does not limit the Rights of Man, it limits the rights of Government.

“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ...

James Madison, Federalist 47.

I submit that the very thing Madison was talking about here has come to pass and the "same hands" group that accomplished it are lawyers.

[roamer_1]

NOT the Supremes. A Congress, jealous of its powers. IMPEACHMENT.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1903104787551490326

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It’s not about raw power, it’s about checks and balances, about division of power amongst the three branches in order to make tyranny harder to achieve.

You understand nothing.

This is about appropriate checks and balances.  Let the full Congress and the Supreme Court reign in a runaway President, not some petty judge with a grudge who declares he knows better than anyone how the security of the country should be run or how its money should be spent.

[Luis Gonzalez]

This is (IMHO) a well-planned out prelude to the Midterms, when the thrust will become driving toward a solid majority in both Chambers with "ending the lawfare" and "codify the EOs" being the calls to action to fully implement the GOP's (read: Trump's) agenda.

[Cyber Liberty]

It’s not about raw power, it’s about checks and balances, about division of power amongst the three branches in order to make tyranny harder to achieve.

We get it.  The Founders actually meant for low level Judges to be able to  veto the Executive Branch.

[Smokin Joe]

I wonder if Jefferson's navy would have had to ignore the Barbary Pirates because they were not officially State actors.

[Cyber Liberty]

I wonder if Jefferson's navy would have had to ignore the Barbary Pirates because they were not officially State actors.

That would depend on whether a District Court Judge in North Carolina agrees. I am told a Judge of that stature has always outranked a mere President.  We laymen have no understanding of such lofty legal matters, we're such children.

[Kamaji]

We get it.  The Founders actually meant for low level Judges to be able to  veto the Executive Branch.

Whenever the Executive Branch failed to follow the law, yes.

[Smokin Joe]

Whenever the Executive Branch failed to follow the law, yes.

If, by extension, the 2nd Amendment applies to not just muskets, but to AR-15s and Barretts, then it would be within the penumbra of the law to include stateless governments, as well as terrorist groups whose hostility is not in question.

[Cyber Liberty]

Whenever the Executive Branch failed to follow the law, yes.

You mean the law as interpreted by low level leftist activist "Judges."  An old and tired argument.