When Presidents Are Right and Courts Are Wrong: Defying the Bench to Save the Nation

[mystery-ak]

When Presidents Are Right and Courts Are Wrong: Defying the Bench to Save the Nation

David Manney | 4:44 PM on May 29, 2025


When a president defies a court, the media pulls the fire alarm. Legal experts fill TV panels with words like "unconstitutional" and "authoritarian." The phrase “constitutional crisis” gets tossed around like glitter at a political parade.

But what most people forget is that history doesn’t always side with the judiciary. Some of America’s greatest presidents defied court rulings, and history later confirmed that those examples of defiance were not only justified but necessary. They didn’t do it to seek power. They did it to protect the country when others froze.

That’s not a crisis. That’s leadership.

Now that two federal courts have blocked President Trump’s new economic tariffs, it’s worth revisiting the long American tradition of presidents ignoring the gavel when national security, survival, or sovereignty are on the line. In every example below, the court ruled against the president, but the president was right.

more
https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2025/05/29/when-presidents-are-right-and-courts-are-wrong-defying-the-bench-to-save-the-nation-n4940272

[DefiantMassRINO]

Presidents are elected.  Judges are not.

Presidents communicate clearly.  Judges speak legal-ese and latin.

Judges pull 'precdents' and 'common law' out their @$$e$ when the written law isn't on their side.

[Free Vulcan]

It's obviously all a delay tactic by corrupt, partisan, activist judges to use injunctions and TRO's to overstep and control the Executive for as long as possible at the behest of the DNC.

It looks like the Trump admin is appealing all those rulings and for the most part they get slapped down, but the reality is that circuit courts need to be limited in their jurisdiction, and also be limited to addressing the plaintiffs concerns only and not leap to making nationwide policy so that they are not overstepping into Executive authority.

I know there was a bill to accomplish some of this, not sure where it's at right now.

[Fishrrman]

Vulcan spits out sulfur with:
"I know there was a bill to accomplish some of this, not sure where it's at right now."

A bill isn't going to do it.
It will never pass, unless you're willing to see the Pubbie Senate ditch the filibuster as well (I would be happy to see that).

Once more (I will post this again and again):
================================
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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Presidents are elected.  Judges are not.

Presidents communicate clearly.  Judges speak legal-ese and latin.

Judges pull 'precdents' and 'common law' out their @$$e$ when the written law isn't on their side.

One other thing is they are lifetime in office.

Let's see, didn't our forefathers flee Europe due to unelected, lifetime rulers who were unaccountable to anyone and made laws at whim?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It's obviously all a delay tactic by corrupt, partisan, activist judges to use injunctions and TRO's to overstep and control the Executive for as long as possible at the behest of the DNC.

It looks like the Trump admin is appealing all those rulings and for the most part they get slapped down, but the reality is that circuit courts need to be limited in their jurisdiction, and also be limited to addressing the plaintiffs concerns only and not leap to making nationwide policy so that they are not overstepping into Executive authority.

I know there was a bill to accomplish some of this, not sure where it's at right now.

There will always be corrupt judges who over-reach.  The real problem is SCOTUS, who refuse to rein them in, which would end this foolishness who are dismembering this country's laws.