Friends, I strongly encourage you to drink deep of this article, which explores the issue of "universal injunctions" that have been coming from (Democrat-appointed) district court judges in massive quantities of late. Basically, a single, lower level federal judge can tell anyone to do anything (or to stop doing anything), and that includes the President of the United States. Injunctions can be overturned, sure, but that can take months and even years. Do we want "unelected" judges to wield this kind of power? The Democrats sure do, and you can see why... Ultimately, the Supreme Court may decide the issue, or DJT may decide to tell the judges who issue such injunctions to take a flying leap. All things are possible!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I'm guardedly optimistic about this; I don't think the present counterintuitive use of the jurisdiction of these Federal District Court judges can hold up. Not with all three branches in the hands of majority common sense judges, executives and legislators.
ReplyDeleteEg. Speaker Johnson showed consummate skill in getting that continuing budget measure through the House with his miniscule majority. His skill will be much in need.Some experienced legislators are on the case and half a loaf could be enough to put the blocks to this now grown blatant misuse of the judiciary by the beleagured dems. I think a good measure (and there is precedent for it) would be to fast track any District Court Judge' s negation of a Presidential order directly to Scotus, which is by definition his heirarchical equal. MIGHT not even take legislation; Scotus has declined so far to rule on the Constitutionality of this baloney; maybe it will soon as the pressure grows. It might find in the legislative intent of the founders or of the 1st
Congress in passing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which set up the Federal District Court system, plausible contradiction of intent to so grossly limit the prerogatives of the Executive Branch.But even if it goes to Congress, filibuster can be beaten, especially when it is a half measure such as I suggest or something else which puts a brake on this Soviet style overreach and cavalier interpretation.
With the way the country has expanded since 1789, both in maybe unimaginable geographical , cultural and political ways, perhaps the Judiciary Act of 1789 is in need of further amendment to stymie this undemocratic misuse of our subordinate Federal Judiciary .The shamefully far left captured dems cannot bear the thought that they have lost their old friend Scotus; its morally degenerate in their pinched view; so they turn inn desperation to the subordinate Federal judges. They are a terribly frustrated, rapidly becoming totalitarian and now being discredited in an unprecedented measure for a once great party, RUMP!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Yes, DJT could force the issue by simply and with analogous arbitrariness, ignoring the dems' antidemocratic presumption of our justice system to have their way, no matter what. Lawful resolution of this unsustainable conflict would be forthcoming. Gee Dems, wasn't it your faultless exemplar Obama who taunted thus: "well, elections have consequences!" Just so, just so.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Another advantage we have: according to the article you cited, we have three Scotus justices convinced that this misuse of the Federal District Courts must stop. And isn't the Chief Justice the chief executive of the Federal Judiciary?Could he simply order the District Court judges to stop issuing such far reaching injunctions?
ReplyDeleteWith the Dems in such disarray, perhaps they are near to flying into despair and complete dissolution. If we can deprive them of this cynical judicial guerrilla tactic it could be what finishes them. They would then do well to become a cult and live their smoky dreams in harmless isolation in insular oases of perfect political correctness. Again, there are a lot of empty prisons in Luddite NY state; just sayin'.
Jack, Chief Justice Roberts' recent reprimand of Trump doesn't make me very hopeful that he will side with the Administration against rogue judges, but then again I suppose Roberts could be insulating himself (in advance) from the scorn that will be poured upon him if he does, even partially, vindicate Trump. All we can do is wait and see.
ReplyDeleteGood point that these judges are arguably the Dems' and the establishment's LAST LINE OF DEFENSE. If we can break through to the other side, they may collapse in a heap once and for all.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I think that Scotus simply affirmed standing law without ruling on its Constitutionality or faithfulness to the Judiciary Act of 1789, as they should. No doubt they are anticipating legal challenges to this onerous reality couched in terms which seek relief from a blatant misuse of the authority of the District Courts and have not seen that yet from the Administration.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that the Dems, in prodding DJT to unilaterally disobey the rulings of obsequiously leftist District Court judges , are trying to build grounds for impeachment. Maybe they hope to thereby steer free of Scotus's unbearable principled lawfulness. But could their obvious cynical misuse of the Federal be declared unConstitutional in such misuse of impeachment to decide an issue which should be left to Scotus or Congress? It may well be unConstitutional to challenge the Head of one of the three branches by presuming the authority of a decision maker lacking in hierarchical status equal to the (in this case, President ).
". . . blatant, repeated, clearly partisan misuse . . . " Javk
ReplyDeleteJack, as the Dems have proven -- twice -- impeachment of a president is now a meaningless, performative act that has about as much chance of removing said president as an alien abduction does.
ReplyDelete