Posted on 03/18/2025 12:39:08 PM PDT by Lazamataz
Recently, Activist Judges (I call them 𝐏𝐨𝐩-𝐔𝐩 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐬©) have been hamstringing President Trump in nearly every effort he has taken to try to right the country. From interfering in ending Birthright Citizenship, to any Federal Funding Freezes, to Federal Employee Buyouts, to Access to Treasury Records...even trying to TURN PLANES OF DEPORTED GANG MEMBERS AROUND IN MIDAIR... there is nothing these people will not attempt to block.
Trump’s 2025 term shows an extraordinary rate—46+ judicial interventions in under two months, which dwarfs Biden’s 5 TROs in four years, Obama’s 20 in eight, and Trump’s own first-term 40 in four. There is a 45x higher rate than Biden’s for February alone.
Trump’s current term stands out for its immediate and intense judicial resistance, outpacing all predecessors in speed and scale, driven by controversial immigration and governance reforms. Earlier administrations, even recent ones, faced fewer and slower challenges, highlighting a unique moment in executive-judicial dynamics.
Solutions have been offered such as ignoring the orders or impeaching the judges, neither of which strikes me as a true solution.
But there is an action that DOES strike me as a solution: Jurisdiction stripping.
In United States law, jurisdiction-stripping (also called court-stripping or curtailment-of-jurisdiction) is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and to exclude or remove federal cases from state courts.
I'm unclear if this would require only the House or the House and Senate. If it is the latter, then this would not work either.
Discuss.
Submitted for your consideration.
House and Senate with a presidential signature. It would be normal legislation enacted through normal channels.
I agree.
Trials for Treason and sedition?
Well then.
We’re screwed.
And there is no president, just a bunch of leftwing judges.
What the cabal wants more than anything is civil war leading to complete destruction of the United States.
Always the problem: by Congress
Rope, tree, traitor. Some assembly required.
What can this judge do if ignored?
How many infantry divisions does the Judicial branch have?
I’ve been proposing this for a long time. No District Court judge should have any jurisdiction to hear any controversy in which the executive branch is a defendant. The Constitution provides that SCOTUS has Original Jurisdiction in these cases and the congress (stupidly) expanded that to lower courts. That can be undone. Simple majority of both houses and presidential signature.
Easiest beginning of a solution:
https://x.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1901792352785879519
“FEDERAL RULES require courts to collect financial guarantees frm ppl seeking 2halt exec orders bc wrongful restrictions cost taxpayers BILLION$ However activist judges cont 2issue nationwide injunctions without required bonds Trump admin is right to demand courts comply w law”
The proper procedure is via the impeachment process. Granted, the two thirds vote in the Senate is a showstopper, but those who defend violent alien gangs in order to keep misbehaving judges on the bench will be the center of really bad optics.
The key here is the impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee. The committee had the right to subpoena financial information and communications. The evidence gathered there might prompt the judge to resign and hold onto his pension rather than face an impeachment trial, wherein if convited he would lose it all.
Would not the filibuster prevent passage through the Senate?
Question venue, too. Why is the DC court or SDNY ruling on cases that occur outside their jurisdiction?
Don't ignore the possibility of a filibuster in the Senate.
Correct.
The reason, according to what I can see, is this:
Screw you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.