America no longer has constitutional seperation of powers for the legislature, executive and judicial
The nation is now being run by a handful of unelected Kahgaroo court leftist judges who make up their own laws and order the president around like one of their illegal alien lawn-boys.
Why spend billions on presidential elections or our multi-billion dollar congressional greedheads when these out-of-control judges do it all for a fraction of the cost?
But, despite all of the HORRIFIC ‘rulings’ by obama and bidet, not ONE judge had a say in any of it?????
For decades, the principle of separation of powers has often been invoked selectively—used as a shield to preserve authority in the hands of the politcal left. One enduring concern I have with the Constitution is a structural flaw: when the judiciary issues rulings that arguably exceed its constitutional authority, it is that same judiciary which determines the legitimacy of its own actions. If the Supreme Court upholds such decisions, what recourse remains? Constitutional amendment? Civil unrest, or worse?
If POTUS today were to defy what he determines is an unconstitutional judicial order, the response would likely be immediate and framed as a constitutional crisis, with relentless calls for impeachment. Yet, when a judge actually oversteps constitutional bounds, that too should precipitate a crisis, but it does not.
If the judiciary can issue orders that effectively direct executive action—even with sweeping political and policy implications—then why is it impermissible for the executive to issue directives that interpret or nullify judicial decisions? The Constitution does not grant unilateral supremacy to any branch, yet in practice, rogue judicial rulings are treated with finality without reciprocal checks. This imbalance raises a fundamental question: If courts can act executively, why would executive judicial review considered a constitutional crisis?
I have never heard the talking head legal scholars ever broach this subject.
Should a future administration from the opposing political party take office, one might expect a flood of legal challenges. However, there is a strong suspicion that ideologically aligned judges would dismiss such cases on procedural grounds like standing or the political question doctrine.
In my view, the nation is in a precarious state. Its constitutional balance and institutional integrity may not endure unless the judiciary is eventually repopulated with jurists who embody the judicial philosophies and temperaments of figures like Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.