No Judge Rules the Executive: The Constitution Crushes the Myth of Judicial Supremacy

[rangerrebew]

No Judge Rules the Executive: The Constitution Crushes the Myth of Judicial Supremacy

Another day, and another federal judge fancying himself king.

In a stunning display of judicial overreach, a federal judge in California has attempted to override the constitutional authority of the president of the United States. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup — sitting in San Francisco — ordered six executive agencies to reinstate thousands of employees recently dismissed as part of President Donald Trump’s lawful efforts to restore accountability and efficiency within the federal workforce. The judge’s ruling purports to bind the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and the Treasury — as if a single unelected jurist can dictate the internal operations of the executive branch.

Let’s make one thing absolutely clear: No single federal judge — nor even a panel of them — has the constitutional authority to override, countermand, or nullify a lawful order issued by the president of the United States directed at officers within the executive branch. That assertion is not up for debate; it is a matter of constitutional design, historical precedent, and the plain language of the founding charter.

The Constitution does not create three equal branches of government. It creates three distinct branches — each supreme within its own sphere. The executive branch is not a mere administrative errand boy of the federal judiciary. It is a coequal power — and in many ways, given its unitary and energetic structure, was designed to be the most vigorous defender of the people’s liberty against both legislative overreach and judicial arrogance.

https://www.alipac.us/f9/no-judge-rules-executive-constitution-crushes-myth-judicial-supremacy-427887/

[rangerrebew]

Without judicial supremacy, democrats have nothing to offer voters.

[Free Vulcan]

The problem with judicial supremacy is that it's completely without limits. There is no concept of standing, jurisdiction or separation of powers. Some of nakedly political and not based on law or legal principle. We've even had two different judges have completely opposite rulings and SCOTUS has allowed it to stand.

There needs to be a complete restructuring of the judicial chain of command so to speak, and SCOTUS needs to take out the internal trash and head these rulings off at the pass instead of waiting for it to go up the chain.

[roamer_1]

The problem with judicial supremacy is that it's completely without limits. There is no concept of standing, jurisdiction or separation of powers. Some of nakedly political and not based on law or legal principle. We've even had two different judges have completely opposite rulings and SCOTUS has allowed it to stand.

There needs to be a complete restructuring of the judicial chain of command so to speak, and SCOTUS needs to take out the internal trash and head these rulings off at the pass instead of waiting for it to go up the chain.

In fact, Congress should impeach. It all boils down to a Congress, jealous of its powers.

[libertybele]

Without judicial supremacy, democrats have nothing to offer voters.

Have they ever truly offered anything but deceit and evilness??

[Fishrrman]

Vulcan spouts smoke and fire with:
"The problem with judicial supremacy is that it's completely without limits. There is no concept of standing, jurisdiction or separation of powers. Some of nakedly political and not based on law or legal principle."

Once again, I'm going to post this:
=========================
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.
=========================

There's only one way to rein in these rogue judges and get them under control.
And that's by -- IGNORING them, and by de-fanging them by refusing to acknowledge the "powers" that they seem to believe are theirs as ordained by the Constitution.

I believe in time it may actually come to this.

I guess it depends on whether or not you REALLY want to stop them.
I do.
And I make no bones about it.

Marbury v Madison... can go to hell.