Posted on 11/28/2025 5:50:19 PM PST by MtnClimber
In 1787, Judge Robert Yates predicted what we see happening today: judges interfering in the political process to destroy the Trump administration.
“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” – Antonin Scalia
As a litigator in the uber-left San Francisco Bay Area for three decades, I routinely witnessed left-leaning judges make up the law as they went along. One went so far as to say, “I know what the law is, but I think...” What constrained them a little was the fact that it was considered humiliating to be reversed by a higher court. Today’s leftist judges no longer operate under that constraint. Their goal isn’t justice; it’s to interfere in the political process, precisely as Judge Robert Yates predicted in 1787.
Eleven months into the second Trump presidency, it’s become old news that leftist federal judges at the district court level (that is, judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution) are blocking every single administrative initiative. My guesstimate is that roughly 80% of them have been reversed at the appellate or Supreme Court level. Significantly, these reversals haven’t been over subtle legal points. They’ve come about for gross errors that first-year law students wouldn’t make.
In the first half of 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly batted down rogue rulings that don’t even reach the merits of a case but are simply intended to run out the clock. Three examples will suffice:
Trump v. CASA, Inc. was a Supreme Court decision overruling district court judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts, all of whom had issued “nationwide” preliminary injunctions to prevent Trump from blocking birthright citizenship. In the CHNV Parole Program Termination matter, both the district court in Massachusetts and the First Circuit immediately blocked the Trump administration’s order ending the Cuba-Haiti-Nicaragua-Venezuela parole program.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
The lawfare judges may find themselves deported to North Korea or worse.
Since they’re the only branch that can “correctly” interpret the constitution, many of them think it is a free ticket to interpret it however they want, even if it supersedes their constitutional authority.
There are future Gitmo residents among them, count on it.
Mark Levin wrote about this a while back.
Just the way it is.
And Congress, bless their shriveled little gonads, refuses to do their Constitutional duty by being that oversight.
And they also refuse to pass a budget.
Which is also their Constitutional duty.
Why are we paying them again?
"Becoming"?
They dont have national jurisdiction, much less are the bosses of the president.
Other people as well as I have already discussed this on FR.
Whatever the pay for this writer is, we didn’t get it.
Too often seeing themselves as demigods insulated from the consequences of their orders, many of which are beyond illegal, hey should doff their black dresses, put on jeans and get out now and again. Their thoughts and urges are too bubble driven, if not also the stuff of “extra income” from a certain political demographic.
They already are tyrannical. I noticed that too.
Our founders feared judicial tyranny, and limited their powers to the written law. They have gone well beyond those limitations, and of course, that reality is upheld by, well, judges.
bkmrk
The jury system in the People’s Republic of Minnesota has suffered a serious blow. A recent case where a jury unanimously convicted a Somali who perpetrated a $7.3 million fraud of public funds had their verdict overturned by a leftist judge because she felt the fraud could have been an honest bookkeeping mistake.
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.