Rogue Judges Are Turning Judicial Review Into Judicial Rule:
President Donald Trump made headlines this week by continuing deportation flights of illegal immigrants, including members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang, despite a federal judge’s ruling that attempted to halt the practice.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, issued an order barring the administration from carrying out deportations to El Salvador. The White House called the decision “lawless” and said the order was moot because the flights had already left and crossed into international waters. It has stopped further such flights for now.
Trump’s defiance is already being framed as an attack on the rule of law. But the real assault is coming from the courts themselves. For too long, judges have operated under the assumption that their authority is limitless, that elected officials must bow to their rulings no matter how far they stray from the Constitution. Boasberg’s ruling is not judicial review, but judicial rule — a clear case of a court attempting to override a core executive power in the name of politics.
For decades, American society has placed an almost sacred trust in the judiciary, elevating it above the elected branches of government. That deference has emboldened judges to expand their power, transforming the courts from interpreters of law into de facto rulers in black robes. The Constitution and Congress grant courts the authority to review executive actions, but not to dictate governance. When judges take issue with the legitimate exercise of executive power, they don’t defend democracy — they undermine it.
Boasberg’s ruling is just the latest example of a judge substituting his own political preferences for executive decision-making. Immigration enforcement is a core constitutional power of the executive branch. The president has the legal and constitutional authority to direct deportations and manage foreign relations. A district court judge does not.
Pattern of Judicial Overreach
This pattern of judicial overreach has become routine. A federal judge recently blocked Trump’s executive order clarifying birthright citizenship before full legal arguments could even be made. Another halted the administration’s directive to end federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, prioritizing ideology over executive authority. Courts have even interfered with Trump’s attempts to reform the federal workforce, treating personnel decisions as if they required judicial approval. At what point does judicial review turn into judicial rule?
This problem isn’t just about these issues or executive power — it’s about the broader politicization of the judiciary. When a judge blocks a policy because he personally opposes it, rather than because it violates the Constitution, he is no longer functioning as a neutral arbiter. That’s exactly what Judge Ana Reyes did when she turned a courtroom into a political spectacle, using a hearing on Trump’s military readiness executive order to mock the government’s legal arguments and ridicule a Department of Justice attorney’s religious beliefs. Instead of engaging in legal analysis, she signaled her disdain for the administration’s policy positions in open court. Judges like Boasberg and Reyes aren’t interpreting the law — they’re rewriting it. --->READ MORE HERE
Disobedience to Judges is Obedience to the Constitution:
Trump isn’t defying checks and balances, he’s restoring them.
Judge James Boasberg issued an oral order demanding that planes carrying Venezuelan gang members, who were not even a party to the lawsuit before him and over which he did not have jurisdiction, be turned around in international airspace. Boasberg is now infuriated that his mere utterance, not even set down in writing, was not immediately obeyed.
Democrats and their media have taken to crying that any disobedience of Boasberg, who was appointed by Barack Obama to apparently rule not only the entire country, but the planet and all its airspace, is a “threat to democracy” and a violation of checks and balances.
It’s not. If anything, it’s an urgently needed restoration of those checks and balances which have been trampled on by judges who have seized unlimited power from elected officials like Trump.
Boasberg’s coup began when the D.C. judge decided to hear a lawsuit from the ACLU based on the detention of four inmates in Texas and one in New York. Despite it being the entirely wrong venue, Boasberg took the case. The 5 inmates who were on average 1,500 miles away from Boasberg denied that they were members of the Tren de Aragua gang targeted by Trump. Despite that, they claimed they were at risk of deportation because Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act and demanded that Boasberg block a 200-year-old plus law that predates D.C.
The lack of minor matters like venue and standing didn’t stop Boasberg from blocking the implementation of a law that predates the White House, the Capitol and the entire principle of ‘judicial review’ that only came 5 years later in Marbury v. Madison before issuing an oral order turning around planes in midair. King George III would have been less presumptuous.
There’s a term for this that ends in a ‘y’ and it’s not ‘democracy’.
President Trump is not defying ‘checks and balances’ when he pushes back against a D.C. judge declaring that his word is law around the country and the world, he’s implementing them. A judiciary unbound by laws, by the limitations of venue and standing, where judges pick and choose precedents and then go with their feelings is unchecked and unbalanced tyranny.
And it’s the farthest thing from what the Founders and the Framers had in mind for America.
Boasberg may be one of the worst examples of a judicial insurrection in which Democrat judges collude with allied political organizations to seize power and impose their will on everything. In recent weeks, Democrat federal judges have seized the power to manage every contractual detail of federal appropriations, the perpetuation of federal agencies only brought into being by presidential fiat, and mandated the presence of mentally ill crossdressers in the military.
Boasberg’s attack on the Alien Enemies Act not only uses the principle of judicial review to block a law that predates the very concept of judicial review, but is a direct assault on the Constitution. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment