Judicial arrogance and judicial tyranny – not the successful foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic
Finally, the United States Supreme Court has stood up and said “Enough!” to activist judges who think they’re the kingmakers of American policy. The Supreme Court ruled that federal judges CANNOT issue “universal injunctions.” In other words, no more coast-to-coast, one size fits all inferior-court-judge-blocks-the-President nonsense.
A “universal injunction” is when a single lower court judge blocks a federal law, executive order, or policy for the entire country – not just for the parties involved in the case, but for everyone. How is it we’ve gotten to the point that we are allowing members of the weakest branch of government (according to the Founding Fathers) decide that judicial opinion overrides law legislated by Congress and the President of the United States executing those laws? We’ve gone from a court system filled with judges who are supposed to apply the law to the cases they hear to a judicial dictatorship that rejects the idea that Lady Justice is blindfolded because their opinions are not supposed to play any part in their rulings.
As Senator John Kennedy put it while being interviewed by Harris Faulkner on Fox News, federal judges just made up these universal injunctions out of thin air – because they don’t like President Donald J. Trump and are intent on doing everything they can to block his agenda. They couldn’t stop him during the election, he’s made them look like fools every time they clash with him, so they’ve retreated to the stronghold of the courts so that they can try to shackle him with the all-powerful courtroom. That’s not justice. That’s sabotage.
The Founders never intended for judges to be able to veto the executive branch, much less micromanage the President’s policies.
James Madison in Federalist Paper #78 explained that the judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of the three. They don’t have the power of the sword (like the executive) or the purse (like the legislature). Their job has always been to simply apply the law; not interpret, not imply, not review law and executive actions with what they claim to be legally binding opinions, not to invent power, and not to wield authority they were never granted by the United States Constitution.
Judges have always tried to make themselves supreme over the other three branches of government, and the final arbiters of the law. Heck, over the last decade or so, largely due to political ideological hate against Donald Trump, the inferior federal courts have tried to make themselves supreme even over the United States Supreme Court, much less superior to the President and untouchable by Congress. And they did it all under their false version and tyrannical definition of “checks and balances.”
The leftists of the Democratic Party have been gunning for President Donald J. Trump since even before he was elected (and elected again). Trump appointed who he believed to be constitutionalists to the bench – judges who actually believe in the original intent of the Constitution, not their own opinion based on their Marxist education and activist leftist leanings.
Now, with this ruling, the Supreme Court is reigning in the judicial branch. They’re restoring constitutional order – or at least partially. For the time-being, no more power-hungry judges will be acting like emperors in judicial black robes.
During the Constitutional Convention there were even delegates who argued that establishing a federal judiciary might not be in their best interests. When offered to return to the position of Chief Justice of the United States in 1801, John Jay rejected the offer by President John Adams because he considered the position “in its present form” to be too weak of a position. He was seeking power that the Constitution never provided.
Now, Americans don’t have to live under the threat that the whim of one judge thousands of miles away might tyrannical influence their lives. It means that local judges may only influence “locally,” and not dictate how the executive executes and the legislature legislates.
Finally, the Supreme Court has sent a message to all of those judicial activists out their sipping their soy lattes in their chambers thinking that they rule the world: Your reign is over. The voice of the consent of the governed is back in charge. The Constitution is back in the driver’s seat.
Somewhere down in the fiery depths of a special place where leftwing judges descend to, Chief Justice of the Midnight Judges John Marshall is frowning from ear to ear, screaming “What about judicial review!” The activist left hold him up as one of the most significant figures in American legal history – and worship everything he unconstitutionally pushed upon us. It is his version of judicial power they are chasing and trying to use to control the fate of this country.
Marshall may have laid out the roadwork to lead the judiciary to believe it was supreme over the two other branches of government, but in the end it is still all unconstitutional. Thank God the current United States Supreme Court agrees that the Founders never intended for judges in San Francisco or Seattle to override a President or Congress just because they don’t like a policy. Those kind of judicial actions are unconstitutional, and such actions are examples of judicial arrogance and judicial tyranny – not the successful foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic.
Read next: The Death Penalty Upholds the Value of Human Life
Email Us | Reader Friendly | Comments
Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
