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.
Plan B—start arresting family members for aiding and abetting illegal immigration.
It would probably be a turkey shoot.
:-)
“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.”
It would take house and senate and presidential signature. It would have to get past a filibuster.
Exactly right.
The judges would still be paid their salary in full but no federal resources could be allocated to the processing or administration of particular cases.
Operation Greylord 2.
These cases are forum shopped to be placed in front of activist districts. Note that not one of these cases, though they allege constitutional issues, has been bought in a Texas district court. Most are shopped in the worst federal appellate division in the country, Washinton DC, because the Presidency is sited there thus giving them geographicaljurisdiction My solution to to move the White House to Texas
I seem to recall at least one past instance where the administrative justice for an area removed a judge’s docket leaving him sitting in a broom closet with nothing to do. I am sure it was done to a judge here in Oklahoma who was arrested for brandishing a weapon. He could not be fired but he was neutered.
Thanks. I was not familiar with that.
The DC and NYC courts have to be reined in. They’re wasting way too much of our tax dollars and they’re overstepping their authority.
It’s time to crack down. We can defund it by reducing the number of courts / judges in the district. A lot of the federal cases can be heard in states instead of in just DC and NYC.
I searched AI and got the following reply:
—
Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
This provision grants Congress the power to create and organize inferior courts, but it does not explicitly give Congress the authority to abolish the judiciary or to eliminate the Supreme Court.
However, Congress does have significant authority over the federal judiciary. Specifically:
Inferior Courts: Congress has the power to create, regulate, and eliminate inferior courts (i.e., all federal courts below the Supreme Court), as it deems necessary.
Supreme Court: The Constitution specifically states that there shall be one Supreme Court, but it does not say Congress can abolish it. While Congress has some authority to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, its abolition would likely require a constitutional amendment rather than ordinary legislation.
So, while Congress does have significant power over the structure and organization of the federal judiciary, it does not have the authority to abolish the entire federal judiciary or to eliminate the Supreme Court. Such an action would likely be unconstitutional or require a constitutional amendment.
Good idea except for one thing. If Congress won’t impeach, why would they do this? You’re assuming Congress does ANYTHING.
I would instead say read Shipwreckedcrew’s article on stubstack about how Trump is playing the long game.
1) Many of these people have already moved on to other jobs, other states.
2) Buildings are closed. They ain’t coming back. Property has been sold.
3) Trump’s people can stall, appeal, constantly demand refinements in the rulings, anything that wastes time because the former employees will move on. They can’t be unemployed for too long.
4) Part of Trump’s plan was ANTICIPATING many of the positions would be re-hired, BUT WITH MAGA or America First people, a “spoils system” effect. “People are policy.”
5) As the Rolling Stones sang, “Time is on my side.”
Interesting thesis.... I like it.... but remember, this only addresses one of the sets of injunctions.
There’s others. Birthright citizenship. Deporting gang members. Trannies in the military. Stopping fraud money.
I did like Grassley’s suggestion of forcing plaintiffs to put up bond to cover costs and effects if they lost.
Also, and I mentioned this before: The left is judge shopping. Shouldn’t we be doing the same? Bearing in mind, only one district judge opinion can hold as valid at a time?
Yes. I need to ask Zen Master about this, but couldn’t you “set up” a test case with someone actually on your side and get it with the “right judge” to preempt everything else?
That’s actually a law that so far Bondi hasn’t used.
Exactly. Fight lawfare with pre-emptive lawfare. Send that idea up the ranks, hopefully it hits someone who can implement it.
I do like brainstorming with you. 😊😊
Simply put: Congress created the lower courts and can define their powers, including any and all limitations.
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.