Rogue Judges Are Crippling The Constitution One Egregious Ruling At A Time: Rogue Judges are Pushing America Toward a Constitutional Crisis by Forgoing Their Sworn Duty to Apply the Law in an Objective Manner

Joe Gratz/Wikimedia Commons/CC0 1.0

Rogue Judges Are Crippling The Constitution One Egregious Ruling At A Time:

Rogue judges are pushing America toward a constitutional crisis by forgoing their sworn duty to apply the law in an objective manner.

There are a lot of things that would surprise the Founding Fathers about modern-day America. But perhaps among the top ticket items would be how the country’s “least dangerous” branch has usurped the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the other two.

That’s the reality currently unfolding throughout the federal judiciary, where a significant number of “judges” have flipped separation of powers on its head. While supposed to perform in an objective manner, these rogue actors have greenlit leftists’ lawfare against the Trump administration and Republicans by issuing overreaching orders — many of which have little basis in the Constitution or law.

A decision by Massachusetts District Judge Angel Kelley is a perfect example of this phenomenon at play.

Last Friday, the Biden appointee ordered the administration to reinstall national park signs that advanced left-wing narratives about LGBT ideology, climate alarmism, and American historical figures. As Skye Graham wrote in these pages, her directive came dripping with “political activism [and her] eagerness to defend promoting woke agendas at taxpayer-funded national parks.”

To the casual observer, Kelley’s bid to hijack the functions of the executive branch may seem like a one-off — if not for the even more egregious decision that preceded it.

A day prior, a different Massachusetts-based district judge, Richard Stearns, unilaterally halted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against ActBlue. The major Democrat-aligned fundraising platform is currently facing scrutiny over allegations of accepting contributions from foreign nationals and other corrupt activities.

The Clinton-appointed Stearns apparently based his preliminary injunction on pure speculation. Writing as if he were an ActBlue employee, he regurgitated the fundraising platform’s claim that Paxton’s statements as a candidate criticizing ActBlue are proof that his suit was “filed in retaliation for (and in an attempt to suppress) ActBlue’s efforts” to support Paxton’s Senate opponent, James Talarico.

“Paxton’s public statements in the wake of filing the case against ActBlue reveal his true motivation,” Stearns wrote matter-of-factly. “While a prosecutor is entitled to a large degree of prosecutorial discretion and has a right to make a considered public accounting of his actions, Paxton did not hesitate in drawing a connection between the lawsuit and his candidacy for Senate.”

According to both these decisions, serving an organization in another state and reviewing discovery creates *general* personal jurisdiction over an outside state officer? That cannot be right. If it is right, expect anti-State suits to explode. pic.twitter.com/a7V4p34oql

— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 11, 2026

A Biden-appointed district judge followed this activist blueprint on Tuesday by blocking an Idaho law requiring individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their sex.

While certainly outrageous, these types of outcome-oriented decisions aren’t surprising. Like a frog in boiling water, Americans have slowly become accustomed to activist judges overstepping their bounds to produce partisan rulings that their left-wing allies want. --->READ MORE HERE 

If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.