My answer, originally posted by me on 2.13.25:
==========================
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...?
==========================
"checks and balances"?
Doing what I recommend above is how you RESTORE the proper balance between the Excecutive and the courts.
