Ousted From Power By Voters, Dems Turn To Activist Judges To Defy Trump

[Doc7505]

Ousted From Power By Voters, Dems Turn To Activist Judges To Defy Trump​

Lower federal court judges have no constitutional authority to govern by injunction and undermine the executive branch.​

Dems Turn To Activist Judges To Defy Trump

Lower federal court judges have no constitutional authority to govern by injunction and undermine the executive branch.

thefederalist.com

11 Feb 2025 ~~ By John Daniel Davidson

What’s happening right now is that Democrats, having been thrown out of power by American voters in a landslide victory for Trump, have decided they’re going to deploy a widely-used tactic from Trump’s first term to thwart the president’s agenda: use the federal judiciary. Under the false pretext that the lower federal courts are part of a “coequal branch of government” with the executive, they’re aiming to shut down Trump’s reform efforts with a fusillade of preliminary injunctions.
In recent days dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration by Democrat attorneys general and various left-wing groups. These groups have carefully selected their venues, ensuring the lawsuits come before rabidly anti-Trump activist judges. So far, the tactic seems to be working. As of this past weekend, eight different rulings from the federal bench have temporarily halted the president’s executive orders.
Federal judges in Democrat-majority districts have issued preliminary injunctions blocking Trump’s executive actions to end birthright citizenship, reform and downsize the United States Agency for International Development, and offer buyouts to federal bureaucrats. A federal judge this past weekend blocked Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and all other political appointees in the Trump administration — including the Treasury secretary and his deputies — from accessing payment data at the Treasury Department.
~Snip~
The problem is, as my colleague Sean Davis noted recently on X, federal judges have no actual authority to do this. They can’t decide on their own who the president can talk to or what data he can access. They can’t bind the president at all. According to the U.S. Constitution they’re “inferior” courts and therefore don’t have any authority over the executive branch. Yes, the three branches of the federal government are coequal, but the only part of the federal judiciary that’s equal to the presidency is the Supreme Court, not all the federal district courts scattered across the country.
~Snip~
It’s long past time to settle this. The American people overwhelmingly elected Trump precisely because they wanted to see his agenda for America enacted. Lower court federal judges, whom no one voted for, have no right to assert their will over and against the will of the American people. The sooner the Supreme Court takes this up and settles the obvious question, the sooner Democrat lawfare against Trump’s agenda will come to an end. Instead of relying on activist judges, Democrats might then have to figure out how to compete at the ballot box — something they are obviously loath to do.


Commentary:
Since Neo-Marxist Democrats have muddied our judicial system with activist judges more than willing to do the Democrat's bidding.
Since we no longer have a legal justice system, red state AG’s should make this a complete clown show. Texas is very much in line with what Trump has done, and Paxton should be filing lawsuits over every one of these “decisions.” I have read he is investigating a couple schools in the Dallas area who are hiding their transvestite athletes.
A solution to deter Democrats shopping for politicized district court judges to get injunctions against their political opposition is to require an application for Temporary Restraining Order against the government or federal legislation be heard by 5 district judges nationally chosen by blind pool. Such legal arguments can be made in one 'Zoom' presentation to the 5 judges. That would stymie forum shopping and we would see less apps for TROs if the Democrat legal, operatives could not stack the deck with one of their judges

 

[Nostra]

How do these clowns think their judicial activism will hold up?

 

[elektra]

Democrats are creatimg a constitutional crisis. There is no Judicial review in the constitution. Federal judges scattered across the states is also not in the constitution

 

[martybegan]

Democrats are creatimg a constitutional crisis. There is no Judicial review in the constitution. Federal judges scattered across the states is also not in the constitution

This isn't even judicial review. This is some low level court judge saying the elected President has no power over his own branch.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Any presidential action involving freezing congressionally allocated funds violates the Impoundment Control Act. He is legally obligated to spend the funds. He is the executive, he does not have the legal authority to control how Congressionally appropriated funds are spent. He generally has 45 days to spend the money.

2) Trump has the power to dictate how agencies operate, including what is presented on the websites.

3) The courts do not have the power to interfere in the operation of an agency in the Executive Branch. That also means they can't sever access to the Treasury database from the Treasury Secretary, who was legally appointed and approved by the Senate.

 

[Thunk]

The sooner the Supreme Court takes this up and settles the obvious question, the sooner Democrat lawfare against Trump’s agenda will come to an end.

They did!

I remember it was happening in Trumps first term while he was trying to build the wall. The activist judges issued injunction after injunction delaying the building of the wall.

Finally some activist judge in hawaii issued an injunction (or a stay) and the USSC said NO MORE! You DON'T have the authority to do this.

Now we have to go thru that all over again?

 

[itfitzme]

You folks are very confused about how the The Constitution of The United States of America works. Among other basics is what is called "checks and balances". The Executive Branch doesn't have control over his own branch. He is required by law to, among other things, follow the law. The law is enacted by Congress. The executive branch's duty is to follow and execute the laws written by Congress. The courts interpret the law. The executive branch's duty is to execute the laws in accordance with the interpretation and instruction of the courts.

Y'all are very confused about how things work.

 

[itfitzme]

They did!

I remember it was happening in Trumps first term while he was trying to build the wall. The activist judges issued injunction after injunction delaying the building of the wall.

Finally some activist judge in hawaii issued an injunction (or a stay) and the USSC said NO MORE! You DON'T have the authority to do this.

Now we have to go thru that all over again?

You don't remember any such thing. You are fantasizing, making up shit in your own head. You're creating b.s out of your vague and disjointed recollection of a reality that you were barely conscious of at the time it happened.

 

[JGalt]

It's only a hop, skip, and a jump between the jury box and the cartridge box.

Go ahead, Democrats. I dare you to fuck around and find out.

 

[IM2]

Trump is breaking the law.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump is breaking the law.

Said IQ2 with no basis in reality and no truth.

 

[Thunk]

You are fantasizing, making up shit in your own head. You're creating b.s out of your vague and disjointed recollection of a reality that you were barely conscious of at the time it happened.

Spoken like a true democrat!

 

[JGalt]

You don't remember any such thing. You are fantasizing, making up shit in your own head. You're creating b.s out of your vague and disjointed recollection of a reality that you were barely conscious of at the time it happened.

There were numerous judges who filed injunctions to halt construction on the border wall during Trump's first term.

Judge blocks Trump from building sections of border wall

And yes, the US Supreme Court did rule against federal judges to allow the construction to resume.

Court allows border-wall construction to continue - SCOTUSblog

Were you living in a cave then or what?

 

[Rawley]

How do these clowns think their judicial activism will hold up?

They don't. These judges have issued TROs. Real hearings will be in the next week or two. These are just speed bumps

 

[OKTexas]

Democrats are creatimg a constitutional crisis. There is no Judicial review in the constitution. Federal judges scattered across the states is also not in the constitution

Actually they are:

Article 3, Section 1​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

.

 

[martybegan]

1) Any presidential action involving freezing congressionally allocated funds violates the Impoundment Control Act. He is legally obligated to spend the funds. He is the executive, he does not have the legal authority to control how Congressionally appropriated funds. He generally has 45 days to spend the money.

2) Trump has the power to dictate how agencies operate, including what is presented on the websites.

3) The courts do not have the power to interfere in the operation of an agency in the Executive Branch. That also means they can't sever access to the Treasury database to the Treasury Secretary, who was legally appointed and approved by the Senate.

he has 45 days to ask congress to not spend the money permanently.

And I would LOVE to see the impoundment act be reviewed by the current supreme court.

 

[TemplarKormac]

he has 45 days to ask congress to not spend the money permanently.

And I would LOVE to see the impoundment act be reviewed by the current supreme court.

Fair point.

 

[Nostra]

1) Any presidential action involving freezing congressionally allocated funds violates the Impoundment Control Act. He is legally obligated to spend the funds. He is the executive, he does not have the legal authority to control how Congressionally appropriated funds. He generally has 45 days to spend the money.

2) Trump has the power to dictate how agencies operate, including what is presented on the websites.

3) The courts do not have the power to interfere in the operation of an agency in the Executive Branch. That also means they can't sever access to the Treasury database to the Treasury Secretary, who was legally appointed and approved by the Senate.

He may have to spend allocated funds, but he can decide what to spend it on in each agency he controls.

 

[toobfreak]

How do these clowns think their judicial activism will hold up?

These district court judges have no standing to even bring these injunctions.
They should not only be overruled by SCOTUS, but their offices should be disbanded by Congress and they impeached, because their actions are rendering moot their very reason for being.

 

[Nostra]

You folks are very confused about how the The Constitution of The United States of America works. Among other basics is what is called "checks and balances". The Executive Branch doesn't have control over his own branch. He is required by law to, among other things, follow the law. The law is enacted by Congress. The executive branch's duty is to follow and execute the laws written by Congress. The courts interpret the law. The executive branch's duty is to execute the laws in accordance with the interpretation and instruction of the courts.

Y'all are very confused about how things work.

The executive Branch doesn’t have control over its own branch?

Can you show us where the Constitution states that?