The Federal Courts Have Shut Down Our ENTIRE Government

Willard/Getty Images

Amid the imbroglio over a partial furloughing of nonessential workers in a handful of federal departments, the political class has ignored that the government has already been shut down – in full and permanently. Individual district judges now control our national sovereignty, border policy, and every other political question. And now Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially barred the doors of the Supreme Court shut to any judicial redress of this judicial crisis.

Just as reporters were going offline last Friday for the Christmas holiday, the Supreme Court announced that it had denied the government’s request to overturn a universal injunction on Trump’s commonsense asylum policy directing the flow of “asylum requests” to our points of entry. Northern California District Judge Jon Tigar and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violated all rules of standing, 200 years of precedent, and John Roberts’ own recent opinion on presidential power to regulate or exclude entry into the country, yet Roberts refused to join the four conservatives in summarily staying the injunction.

In once again allowing the lower courts to reign freely, Roberts is not only perpetuating the shutdown of our border but the shutdown of the Supreme Court itself. What is the purpose of the Supreme Court if it only encroaches on the powers of the other branches but won’t police its own inferior courts when they violate all legal norms? Let’s review the unprecedented insanity of this case:

1) Four left-wing advocacy groups were given standing to sue on behalf of caravans that are literally not even in our country simply because they asserted that their institutions must expend more resources educating their clients on the new policy. It would be equivalent to Conservative Review obtaining standing because we have to expend more resources explaining the new policies we don’t like to our readers. This is perhaps the most absurd violation of Article III standing in recent memory, yet Roberts allows it to continue. Putting immigration aside, the precedent this will set on the parameters of standing will ensure that almost any political group can sue any abstract policy without any valid personal injury.

Read the rest from Daniel Horowitz HERE.

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.