The list is growing of judges who moonlight as the president of the United States. These “judges” have reversed executive orders, prevented the firing of federal employees, and even ordered deported gang members returned to the United States.
No one should be surprised at this judicial insurgency. For decades, Democrats have “judge-shopped” to get their cases before “friendly” judges. The openly corrupt part of this tactic is having “friendly” not impartial judges. But the crazy stuff eventually got overturned, and the system worked. So how did we get to this place where the system no longer works?
Well, for anyone who didn’t notice, there was a silent coup in 2020. A pandemic and the resulting tsunami of mail-in ballots were used to illegally remove a sitting president.
So President Trump was out, and the Biden regime was in. But unlike Brazil, where courts banned President Bolsonaro from running for office in upcoming elections, the Biden regime lacked the legal muscle to keep Trump from running in 2024. This is why Biden stacked the courts with his judges during his occupation. As Chuck Schumer bragged, Biden confirmed 235 judges. And, he added, “they are ruling against Trump, time after time after time.”
Maybe, maybe not. The Democrats did add 235 judges, but if any of them was commissioned with an autopen, then probably not so much.
Legitimate or not, these judges are indeed ruling against the president “time after time after time.” And it’s not just district judges. SCOTUS joined the insurgency with its recent decision to block President Trump’s deportations.
In his dissent, Justice Alito slammed the majority, saying they lacked jurisdiction “given that the case is still being litigated in lower courts.” The Court “acted literally in the middle of the night, without full information or proper process, based solely on applicants’ submission with no response from government.”
Translation: SCOTUS issued this decision not based on jurisdiction, evidence, or process to sanction the Judiciary overriding the Executive Branch, though clearly unconstitutional.
“Each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”
—Thomas Jefferson
So how are courts repeatedly ruling against the Constitution? Enter “judicial review”: “the power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution.”
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. This ruling served as “precedent” for future courts to override the Legislative and Executive Branches.
This is the exact outcome James Madison warned against.
“As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper.”
—James Madison
The check on the Judiciary is the Constitution, but as Marbury demonstrated, the court can rule on a power not explicitly stated in the Constitution. And even an extraconstitutional ruling will not only survive as precedent, but will become accepted law.
So is precedent absolute? If the Supreme Court rules that free speech can be limited, is censorship then “accepted law”? If they rule that there are restrictions on gun ownership, is gun control then “settled law”?
But if we’re going to defer to precedents as rule, then President Trump can just ignore these court orders using presidential precedent.
President Biden openly defied the Supreme Court’s ruling on student loan forgiveness. He even bragged that SCOTUS didn’t stop him. This defiance of the High Court was without consequence — no contempt of court charges, no constitutional crisis, nada. Yet the media, the Deep State, and lawyers now band together to say President Trump cannot ignore the court.
From an article stressing the president’s inability to defy the court:
Open defiance of the judiciary by a President would violate the fundamental concept that no branch can unilaterally override another’s constitutional role.
Even when defending judicial tyranny, these people trip over the Constitution. If no branch can “unilaterally override another’s constitutional role,” then the Judiciary cannot override Executive actions, full stop.
These rogue judges, including SCOTUS, are a shot across the bow of our constitutional republic. The Constitution of the United States is the one true test to establish law — not extraconstitutional court interpretations, but actual written text and probable meaning.
Meanwhile, as Congress endlessly mulls impeachment of these rogue judges, members should ask themselves if they ultimately have the power to impeach judges. If impeachments are challenged and courts overrule Congress’s action (again), what will be their recourse? And if they’re subordinate to courts on this issue, what other powers will Congress have conceded?
“Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny.”
—Patrick Henry
Since “judicial tyranny” is already underway, maybe Congress could take some time off from vacation and actually impeach some of these judges. Maybe members could look into defunding some of these corrupt courts. Maybe they could do something, anything before it’s too late and our beloved Republic becomes a juristocracy, before liberty is subject to a court order.
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
—John Adams
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.
Jesus Christ is King
