No, Trump Does Not Have to Abide by a Mythical 'Judicial Supremacy'

[mystery-ak]

February 12, 2025
No, Trump Does Not Have to Abide by a Mythical 'Judicial Supremacy'
By Selwyn Duke

It’s an old story: When people are allowed to get their way for too long, when they’re never told “No!” they may get too big for their britches.

They may develop a sense of entitlement and even become narcissistic.

And proving that judges are no exception to this reality are a number of recent court “opinions” designed to scuttle President Trump’s agenda.

One disallows DOGE from scrutinizing Treasury Department data.

Another states that the Trump administration must unfreeze funding on grants and loans.

A different opinion puts a freeze on Trump’s buyout offer for federal employees.

And yet another ordered the administration to restore sexual devolutionary (on “gender” and “sex changes”) government web pages Trump’s team had rightly deleted. So Biden could create those pages but, somehow, the current president may not remove them. Yes, it’s insane.

There’s a little known reason, however, why the rogue judges in question could so confidently engage in such insane judicial overreach. To wit:

We long ago accepted the overreach known as “judicial supremacy.”

This brings us to the simple remedy. Trump could just paraphrase the paraphrase of Andrew Jackson and say, “The courts have made their decisions — now let the judges enforce them.”

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/02/no_trump_does_em_not_em_have_to_abide_by_a_mythical_judicial_supremacy.html

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Excellent analysis.

Now if only all members here would read this very clear article, mods would not have to intervene in many arguments on this subject.

[Hoodat]

Trump swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Forfeiting Executive power over to the Judicial Branch would be a violation of that oath.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Trump swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Forfeiting Executive power over to the Judicial Branch would be a violation of that oath.

Exactly

[GtHawk]

Trump swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Forfeiting Executive power over to the Judicial Branch would be a violation of that oath.

I sure that those judges swore the very same oath and their usurping the power of the Executive Branch is also a violation of that oath.

[MeganC]

Excellent analysis.

Now if only all members here would read this very clear article, mods would not have to intervene in many arguments on this subject.

So you're saying you agree that the Dodgers and the Yankees are right in line to win the Stanley Cup?

 

[MeganC]

Trump swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Forfeiting Executive power over to the Judicial Branch would be a violation of that oath.

What's needed here is for the Supreme Court to rule that the lower court judges are intruding on Executive authority.

[Bigun]

What's needed here is for the Supreme Court to rule that the lower court judges are intruding on Executive authority.

What's needed here is for the president to simply ignore these ankle biters.

[Fishrrman]

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.

I never cared for William F. Buckley, but remember his famous comment about the Boston Telephone Directory...?

[Bigun]

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.

I never cared for William F. Buckley, but remember his famous comment about the Boston Telephone Directory...?

No sir! Not now! Not ever!

Doing that would play right in to the hands of the commies among us who want nothing more than a direct democracy!