Author Topic: The Judicial Insurrection Is Worse Than You Think... John Daniel Davidson  (Read 4828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 401,707
The Judicial Insurrection Is Worse Than You Think
John Daniel Davidson


At this point it’s not too much to say that the federal judiciary has plunged us into a constitutional crisis. The fusillade of injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by district court judges in recent weeks against the Trump administration — on everything from foreign aid to immigration enforcement to Defense Department enlistment policy to climate change grants for Citibank — boggles the mind.

More nationwide injunctions and restraining orders have been issued against Trump in the past month that were issued against the Biden administration in four years. On Wednesday alone, four different federal judges ordered Elon Musk to reinstate USAID workers (something he and DOGE have no authority to do), ordered President Trump to disclose sensitive operational details about the deportation flights of alleged terrorists, ordered the Department of Defense to admit individuals suffering from gender dysphoria to the military, and ordered the Department of Education to issue $600 million in DEI grants to schools.

On one level, what all this amounts to is an attempted takeover of the Executive Branch by the Judicial Branch — a judicial coup d’état. These judges are usurping President Trump’s valid exercise of his Executive Branch powers through sheer judicial fiat — a raw assertion of power by one branch of the federal government against another.

more
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/20/the-judicial-insurrection-is-worse-than-you-think/
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline DefiantMassRINO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,212
  • Gender: Male
Appeal and challenge the standing of the courts, judges, and plaintiffs to seek such measures.

Courts exist to seek truth, to arbitrate legal disagreements, and try criminals.  They are not meant to be unilateral agencies of policy or practice.  Congress decides policy; the Executive implements practice.

Courts need to demonstrate standing or jurisdiction, and plaintiffs need to demonstrate standing and harm.

Have Congress pass laws to diminish a single court's or judge's authority and ability to unilaterally impede progress.
"Political correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it’s entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." - Alan Simpson, Frontline Video Interview

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,335
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
RINO snorts:
"Courts exist to seek truth, to arbitrate legal disagreements, and try criminals.  They are not meant to be unilateral agencies of policy or practice.  Congress decides policy; the Executive implements practice."

The courts will NEVER reform themselves from their over-reach into the realm of politics.
And further, Congress will NEVER act to restrain them. They can barely pass a continuing resolution.
You'll be dead before this happens. Even then, it won't.

It's up to the president -- Mr. Trump -- to define a new Constitutional relationship that will re-align the prerogative of the courts vis-a-vis the Executive branch.

Once again, I present 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.
=================

Lots of talkers in this forum.
Talkin' the talk, but never once does anyone suggest how to walk the walk.
The most that folks do here is complain.
No solutions.

My "solution" is above.
If you really want reform of the judiciary, this is the way to force it upon them.
And let the chips fall where they may.