Posted on 06/24/2018 10:03:13 PM PDT by Zakeet
Perhaps the biggest roadblock to Trump’s MAGA agenda has been radical, liberal judges. These men and women, appointed by previous presidents and other powers, have interfered with President Trump’s lawful authority.
But that’s all about to change.
Judges are supposed to be impartial. They have a solemn duty to uphold our laws. Decisions made by judges can decide the fate of not just one person, but millions. Judges that preside over federal issues can very well affect the lives of every last American.
We’ve seen how radical judges can harm our country. Obama-appointed judges have overstepped their bounds by attacking Trump’s lawful executive orders. They have allowed their personal, political views to violate their responsibilities.
Not only that, but certain groups within our government have been appointing judges—without the approval of the president. This is clearly a violation of the Constitution. Thankfully, the Supreme Court felt so too. Now many questionable judges are about to get their walking papers.
From Reuters:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday expanded presidential control over pivotal jobs in federal agencies, ruling that the way the Securities and Exchange Commission selected its in-house judges to enforce investor-protection laws was improper.
In a 7-2 ruling, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that had endorsed the SEC’s in-house judge hiring practice that operated autonomously from the president.
The ruling could reverberate through the federal government, which has nearly 2,000 administrative law judges deciding matters as varied as unfair trade practices, veterans benefits and patent infringement. Such a ruling could also make it easier for some of these judges to be fired by political appointees.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost24.com ...
“This is potentially very good news, IF The Donald actually decides to wield this power. IF. Do not forget J. Sessions and Company have been around for months, with the president openly saying it’s not working out. Yet Mr. Trump does not actually put the hammer down and fire the A.G.”
I wouldn’t take the above as an example of Trump failing to weild his authority.
There are several reasons why Trump would want to cultivate the impression that he and the DOJ are “at odds” when they are not:
Foremost, is the fact that the Mueller investigation is being run from within the DOJ, and will (believe it or not) eventually be concluded with no findings of wrongdoing by Donald J. Trump. This will be a huge disappointment for those hoping to impeach and remove him, and they will immediately cry fowl and attempt to spin the entire investigation as a whitewash by a Trump friendly DOJ. The only trouble is the DOJ doesn’t seem at all Trump friendly, so this ploy will fail - in large part due to Trump’s painstaking effort to hold the DOJ at arms length and cultivate the appearance that he is at odds with the DOJ and AG.
Also, Trump’s implied campaign promise to “lock her up” may not be a politically wise promise to keep. Prosecuting Obama administration ex officials can easily be spun as political retribution - which would only reinforce the left’s caracature of Trump as an abuser of power.
Since any such prosecutions would come out of the DOJ, it would benifit Trump to distance himself, to avoid the authoritarian meme from the Left - or, if the prosecutions fall short of the expectations of his most bloodthirsty of supporters - to insulate Trump from the disappointment as well.
Trump’s decision to distance himself from his DOJ and AG may wind up proving to be the smartest thing he ever did.
NOW GET OUT and VOTE this November and give him more GOP to outnumber the bad ones so we can start to get things moving again.................Never vote for a demcRAT
I can think of a couple of useful court reforms though it would take a constitutional amendment to do them. In prime supreme court season in addition to the 9 justices, a 10th would be added and then a sitting jury (of the people) drawn from all the various 12 circuit Federal courts of appeal would also be empaneled to sit. The simple majority vote of the jurists in question provides the equivalent of 1 voting justice and the total votes on any case would be 11. That way the voice of the people has a voice in the decisions of great import that the Supreme Court is asked to undertake. Additionally the jury panel would be required to be a part of the decision process required in accepting a case for trial and for questions involving standing, 2 justices and the jury panel are required to decide. The jurists would be voted on by the people in their districts and as they would be required to sit through all major cases and be a part of the decision making process, these positions must be made federally paid and benefitted. These people would serve 4 years and could not run again.They would have to be at least 25 years of age, nonfelons, and at least a highschool graduate.
A similar jury system (1 majority jury decision =1 vote) would be empaneled for each of the Circuit courts of appeal with persons drawn from the circuit districts the courts serve. Again as these courts are busy, these folks would have to be paid and benefitted. Their term would be 2 years and they could serve twice. When the judges would decide not to take a case based on standing, the jury must be involved with 2 judges and the jury voting on whether a plantiff has “standing”!
My purposes for this bit of speculation has more to do with the voices of eveyday people that are being shut out. For that reason the rules changes would stipulate that the jurists so empaneled NOT be lawyers, nor paralegals, nor have had anything to do with the legal profession.
May the streets run black with the ink of pink slips.
Congress has the power to modify or eliminate Federal courts. In doing so the judges appointed to those courts have no place to run amuck, they word still be paid until their manditory retirement.
As a example, say congress eliminated the 9th Circut Court and created three new courts to take its place. The judges on that court would have no jobs, still be judges with no assignments.
This has a very limited reach. We’re not talking USSC judges or any other “confirmed” judges.
Actually, it's pretty big news because of the way Congress has abdicated power to the administrative state through rule making and enforcement within the respective agencies.
The way it works is that Congress doesn't want to make laws because it's messy and people might get mad at them, so they pass nebulous bills which essentially say this is what we'd like to see done and the agency in question will make the actual rules, but we'll have oversight authority on them meaning our fine elected officials will grandstand for the cameras over some agency underling at a hearing along the way. Now you know why we see a lot of noisy, but meaningless hearings.
The agency in question then drafts the rules and appoints its own judge—an administrative judge—to hear cases brought against it by the aggrieved party in the private sector. Just imagine the likes of the detestable John Koskinen appointing IRS administrative judges who were heretofore untouchable and you can see the importance of this ruling. It's another tributary of the swamp and a rather large one at that which President Trump is now getting to drain.
This is pretty close to fake news.
These are ‘administrative law judges’, mostly in the Social Security Administration. These are Civil Service bureaucrats and are within the Executive Branch.
This has nothing to do with the federal Judicial Branch.
...“The Government asked us to add a second question presented: whether the statutory restrictions on removing the Commission’s ALJs are constitutional,” Kagan said. “When we granted certiorari, we chose not to take that step. The Government’s merits brief now asks us again to address the removal issue. We once more decline. No court has addressed that question, and we ordinarily await ‘thorough lower court opinions to guide our analysis of the merits.’”...
“And then there is that meddling dolt in Hawaii as well.”
Different type of judge.
L
“Consider who would replace Sessions and it would take months or forever to get a new appointee through the Senate.”
Re: Sessions’ replacement. I agree with Vlad that PDJT is biding his time to see what November brings.
If, ‘We The People’ do the heavy lifting in November and pack the Senate with PATRIOTS, all will be well.
Based on the current MELTDOWN happening on the Left, every day ‘we’ (President Trump and We The People) appear to be more of an unstoppable combination! MAGA! :)
Agreed. However, that means 2,000 people will need to be nominated and approved by the Senate, an overwhelming number. My guess is that going forward, they may replace only a handful of trouble makers. Most of their rulings are innocous. I venture to guess that administrative law judges are at the bottom of the list right now - perhaps a term 2 issue.
1. The Court’s decision explicitly refused to address the question of firing judges, only how they are appointed.
2. The case is only about administrative law judges, not Article III judges, who can be removed only by impeachment.
This is potentially very good news, IF The Donald actually decides to wield this power. IF. Do not forget J. Sessions and Company have been around for months
***************
The fact that Rosenweasel is STILL there after obstructing justice, covering up for the cabal, threatening congress, destroying the public’s confidence in the DOJ, and creating a constitutional crisis is not encouraging. It doesn’t appear that Trum will ever put the hammer down on this arrogant little POS or his rogue agency.
Glory Halleluyah! Thanks for the post. News you won’t see on the MSM
One set of judges that hasn’t been mentioned yet are bankruptcy judges. That is a huge issue. Lots of people may be able to reopen their BK cases.
This affects administrative law judges only. These are judges (tempted to put the word in scare quotes) who were named by the Swamp. They were never named by any POTUS, and never confirmed by the Senate. IOW, never in the past were they subject to real checks, they are creatures of the bureaucracy they were “judging.”Yeah, I suppose that another Obama could broom all of Trump’s Administrative Law Judges - but there is no reason to suppose that one in ten of them is any better now than what Obama would have named. And there is still the issue of confirmation by the Senate, and the Republicans can’t ram through confirmation of all the normal, constitutional judges as it is. How are they supposed to confirm all these nominees on top of that?
Federal magistrate judges are also a problem. They are currently selected by the US District Court Judges. Those magistrates no longer have authority.
This would give Trump a huge opportunity to reshape the federal judiciary.
Is this true? WP has a habit of fake news.
“I’m leery of this.
Sure it’s great when we’re in the driver’s seat, but imagine another Obama coming along. He’d take the cleaver to every decent judge he could.”
That was my immediate reaction to the headline.
Even if this is true, Trump will never fire a judge. He could be the most communists judge in America and Trump would not do it.
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.