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

[Mashmont]

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

So why doesn't Trump bull ahead, ignore the judges and do it.

 

[toobfreak]

Show me the court-ruling that would support your ridiculous and false claim of Biden being a criminal

1. Congress ordered money spent in Ukraine. Biden is on video going there and threatening he will unilaterally BLOCK IT unless they stopped investigating son Hunter.
2. Congress ordered money spent to build the border wall. Biden BLOCKED IT unilaterally on grounds of needing to do some stupid environmental study.

You never complained about any of those actions, until now Trump is using similar actions to now block money allocated by Congress from being spent until he can audit the agency to see HOW it is being spent.

Trump is going to win, and we will find out that USAID is nothing but a slush fund for laundering money for the democrat party.

 

[toobfreak]

Off course - even Trump today in a White-House press conference acquitted towards "respecting" the law.

Just as I thought, challenged, the FAGAT cannot even tell us which provision of the Constitution Trump's DOGE agency is violating, because it ISN'T.

 

[BackAgain]

Hey cocksucker, how are things going with your shithead?

Krotchrot just earned a ticket to the Phantom Zone.

A truly useless boring troll motherfucker that he is, I didn’t need him polluting any of the threads.

Adios, bitch.

 

[Kruska]

1. Congress ordered money spent in Ukraine. Biden is on video going there and threatening he will unilaterally BLOCK IT unless they stopped investigating son Hunter.
2. Congress ordered money spent to build the border wall. Biden BLOCKED IT unilaterally on grounds of needing to do some stupid environmental study.

You never complained about any of those actions, until now Trump is using similar actions to now block money allocated by Congress from being spent until he can audit the agency to see HOW it is being spent.

Trump is going to win, and we will find out that USAID is nothing but a slush fund for laundering money for the democrat party.

Show me the court-ruling that would support your ridiculous and false claim of Biden being a criminal

As expected YOU can't - all you and your ilk can do is to talk cock&bull all day long - boring

Do you Tranny even realize, that in the above YOU constantly cite CONGRESS

Did Biden and the Democrats have a majority in Congress?? - YES
Did Biden violate the Constitution? - NO - since he as US President is entitled to scrap the entire bill - based onto a fiscal year and signed off by him - you idiot

Did Trump and his morons pass a fiscal bill for 2025? NO - you dumb-ass. therefore he is bound to the existing bill, passed by Congress and signed by Biden - you don't know anything moron.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Activist judges versus activist President.

 

[Kruska]

Just as I thought, challenged, the FAGAT cannot even tell us which provision of the Constitution Trump's DOGE agency is violating, because it ISN'T.

Stop spreading lies - cocksucker.

I am still waiting for you to show that verdict, which pronounced Biden to be a criminal - dumb-fuck.

 

[Lastamender]

Activist judges versus activist President.

Just more people that underestimate Trump. You guys have been doing it for nine fucking years.

 

[OKTexas]

The inferior courts were created so that SCOTUS would not have to rule on every federal matter. They have no judicial authority to supersede the Executive branch, that would give them the same power as Congress and the Supreme Court.

There was a time when district courts could only consider cases originating within their district, and their rulings only applied to their districts. They didn't have the authority to impose national injunctions. most all of that changed in 2016-17.

.

 

[Nostra]

Activist judges versus activist President.

One is supposed to be, one is not.

Moron.

 

[BackAgain]

Activist judges versus activist President.

You’re a true idiot.

Judges aren’t supposed to be activists.

Presidents are elected to be.

 

[jackflash]

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?

The lefties are attempting what is called a nuisance raid. The lefties know they have no standing but it's their hopes to slow the train down.

 

[elektra]

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.

.

It certainly does not say a thing about judicial review.

Yes, it looks like from time to time, there are inferior courts. I don't see where it says inferior courts shall manage the executive branch.

 

[elektra]

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.

Time to impeach the Inferior Court judges

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Try getting Dems to change the law. Good luck!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Time to impeach the Inferior Court judges

True. You got one right!

 

[OKTexas]

It certainly does not say a thing about judicial review.

Yes, it looks like from time to time, there are inferior courts. I don't see where it says inferior courts shall manage the executive branch.

Well you're kind of stuck with it, unless or until Marbury v. Madison is overturned.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Congress is Legislative, not judicial. So how do you propose the Congress act???

Legislate the changes is probably what they are suggesting.

 

[OKTexas]

Time to impeach the Inferior Court judges

Yeah, good luck with getting 67 yea votes in the senate.

.

 

[elektra]

Yeah, good luck with getting 67 yea votes in the senate.

.

There are things that much change. We could just eliminate the court as well. Not that would pass.

Inferior Judges are exercising power they do not have