Judicial Imperialism: The House of Boasberg and the Left’s War on Sovereignty

[mystery-ak]

April 13, 2025
Judicial Imperialism: The House of Boasberg and the Left’s War on Sovereignty
By Charlton Allen

The Supreme Court’s order on Monday granting the Trump administration’s emergency request to lift a lower court stay on deportations of certain Venezuelan nationals was unsigned, swift, and unmistakable in its signal—or signals.

For now, the executive branch retains its sovereign authority to enforce immigration law. And for President Trump, now in his second, non-consecutive term, the ruling marked an early victory in a week that would yield several more.

But if constitutionalists interpret this as a decisive turning point, they misread the terrain. The Left’s lawfare brigades remain dug in—launching salvo after salvo—with their campaign of sabotage unfolding in courtrooms and press releases alike, aimed less at justice than at jurisdictional chaos, narrative warfare, and no matter what, thwarting the duly-elected president of the United States.

Make no mistake: this is a war of attrition—not waged with ballots or legislation, but with briefs and bench rulings. It aims to nullify the last presidential election—and a statute nearly as old as the Constitution itself. Its arsenal: blunt injunctions and the sharpened blades of ideological jurisprudence.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/04/judicial_imperialism_the_house_of_boasberg_and_the_left_s_war_on_sovereignty.html

[Kamaji]

[Free Vulcan]

What bothers me is the double standard. They think they are bidden to hold the Executive to 'standards' but follow none themselves, like jurisdiction, standing, precedent, or proper court procedure.

Let's hope the bill that passed the House will get signed and reign them in.

[Kamaji]

What bothers me is the double standard. They think they are bidden to hold the Executive to 'standards' but follow none themselves, like jurisdiction, standing, precedent, or proper court procedure.

Let's hope the bill that passed the House will get signed and reign them in.

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

 

Clever rebuttal, but I do agree with the article, claiming this violent gang will suffer violence from their home country is a bit absurd.

[Free Vulcan]

 

So you advocate a double standard?

[Kamaji]

So you advocate a double standard?

I advocate people stop demonizing the judiciary and try reading opinions and using the brains God gave you.  Other than the fact that you personally dislike the end-result of Boasberg's decision, you cannot point to a single basis on which that decision was not legitimate.  And no, the fact that the Supreme Court stayed his injunction does not mean that he acted without jurisdiction or any of the other vices you have been falsely accusing him of.  The Supreme Court had a different view on a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree - there are a lot of issues like that - they just get to prevail because they're the Supreme Court; so lucky them.

[Free Vulcan]

I advocate people stop demonizing the judiciary and try reading opinions and using the brains God gave you.  Other than the fact that you personally dislike the end-result of Boasberg's decision, you cannot point to a single basis on which that decision was not legitimate.  And no, the fact that the Supreme Court stayed his injunction does not mean that he acted without jurisdiction or any of the other vices you have been falsely accusing him of.  The Supreme Court had a different view on a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree - there are a lot of issues like that - they just get to prevail because they're the Supreme Court; so lucky them.

So let me get this straight, Boasberg's decision is rock solid, grounded in concrete, and full of common sense interpretation of the law, but the SCOTUS decision is a little debatable and sketchy? Right.

Your slip is showing.

You're sidestepping the other cases that have issues of not only jurisdiction, but standing, conflict of interest, grabbing cases out of rotation, granting a decision without even hearing the govt's side, attempting to rule on a case where another judge has already ruled, or ruling where there is already precedent.

You advocate for no standards or restriction on the circuit courts, yet they can hold anyone to any standard they wish. I celebrate Congress exercising their rightful and lawful duty of putting boundaries on these out of control, wild west judges.

[Bigun]

So let me get this straight, Boasberg's decision is rock solid, grounded in concrete, and full of common sense interpretation of the law, but the SCOTUS decision is a little debatable and sketchy? Right.

Your slip is showing.

You're sidestepping the other cases that have issues of not only jurisdiction, but standing, conflict of interest, grabbing cases out of rotation, granting a decision without even hearing the govt's side, attempting to rule on a case where another judge has already ruled, or ruling where there is already precedent.

You advocate for no standards or restriction on the circuit courts, yet they can hold anyone to any standard they wish. I celebrate Congress exercising their rightful and lawful duty of putting boundaries on these out of control, wild west judges.

His slip has been showing for quite some time if you've been paying attention. Judges are not Kings and Queens!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't think we advocated that it wasn't legitimate, I certainly didn't. He's a federal judge and the decision should be followed as per the law. I just disagree with it, I think that's still ok?