Judges were never supposed to second-guess the executive or legislative branches on policy: Mark Levin

FOX ^ | 04.20.25 | Mark Levin

[Coleus]

Watch Video

Fox News host Mark Levin gives his take on the judicial branch’s role on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’

[FlingWingFlyer]

The trouble is, everyone is too shickenchit to do anything about it. The whole judiciary in the country is full of nothing but friggin’ frauds. All of the experts are saying something different about everything. The damn Azho Commie Losers Union is running the entire show.

[MikelTackNailer]

I saw Levin’s show. He cited numerous examples of how the founders and the thinkers who influenced them were nearly unanimous believing courts (and the other branches) HAVE to stay in their lanes for a nation to function properly.

Like Justices Alito and Thomas I’m flummoxed by Roberts’ clique creating a protected class of incorrigible illegal alien criminals. What can anyone do when the Supreme Court itself goes off the rails?

[John S Mosby]

Take them out of the rail cars, for their own safety having run off the rails. That is to say— this is grounds for Constitutional removal. Imagine an injunction ordered Before a Lower Court has ruled— with the pre-knowledge they would rule opposite to SCOTUS.

This is nigh onto criminal deliberate incompetence— by the Chief Justice. Remember Boasberg admitted last week he did not have the jurisdiction or power. Neither does this “case” stepped on by SCOTUS. Roberts is in serious trouble taking these actions....supporting political “justice” for foreign invading criminal deportees. They are not the Executive Branch- and there is a motive to “set up” a conflict on a false basis, further dragging down the SCOTUS into the mud.

[gwjack]

I agree. I forget who wrote that Roberts is in quicksand because if this collection of rulings, and every move he now makes only hastens his submersing. Robert’s has shot himself in the foot, once again, and led 6 other justices into the quagmire with him. Perhaps some were misinformed, or maybe drunk or hungover, or maybe not thinking straight when woke up at the unusual hour.

But, in re-reading the Consittution, I am reminded in Article III that a judge only serves during good behavior. 7 have crossed the line. Time for “We the people” to eradicate the country from the bad behavior.

Gwjack

[maddog55]

Levin is smart but I can’t listen to the guy. All he does is holler in his weird voice.

[AndyJackson]

Well since Roberts and Gorsuch and frat boy and Ms Junior League have gone squishy I presume, as we must in all cases, that there is deepstate grift involve. Always and everywhere.

[Bratch]

Over the years, the Legislative Branch has relinquished its authority to the Judicial Branch to avoid the responsibility of voting on controversial issues.

They have no stomach for upsetting the status quo.

There’s little/no chance Congress will try to reign in the Roberts court.

[super7man]

I’m with you. Like what he says but can’t listen to him.

[Uncle Sham]

Article IV, Section 4, where we are GUARANTEED a “Republican” form of government is being stepped on by an out of line Judiciary Insurrection. The founders never intended for lifetime appointed judges to assume the power of representing the will of the people. We elect people to do that and if they don’t do what we want, we send them home by electing someone else. We the people are supposed to be in control. Elections give us that control. The judiciary is robbing us of the control we were GUARANTEED by our founders. It is time to ENFORCE Article IV, section 4 and GITMO everyone involved denying us it’s intent.

[curious7]

Wouldn’t it be great if President Trump could replace 7 questionable squishes on the SCOTUS - assuming he ignores the previous organizations and people who recommended B and K - with 7 young Thomas/Alito types?

[gwjack]

I agree. My (short) memory is that all judicial appointments (district, circuit, and Supreme) for PDJT were vetted by the .federalist Society that spoke for their bona fides. It was supposed to be all. Those that were originality and would follow the law, and Constitution as intended originally. Roberts is more of an institutionalist that will change votes, and split hairs to arrive at a cohesive decision. He is dangerous.

Frankly, I am thinking that someone like Stephen Miller would be excellent. Someone away from an Ivy League law school. Need to get lawyers that have practiced law, from other areas of the country. It was that way for decades, but Roosevelt started the trend to secure seats on the Supremes for Harvard.

Gwjack