Posted on 05/25/2019 8:48:25 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Federal district judges aren't emperors for the whole United States. Congress and the Supreme Court should both remind them of that reality.
By issuing putatively national injunctions, Attorney General William Barr said in a May 21 speech to the American Law Institute: “One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen. No official in the United States government [rightly] can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the president. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power.”
The subject arises because, on issue after issue, liberal district judges have blocked President Trump’s executive orders or rules promulgated by his administration. The most prominent example occurred when Trump ordered an end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program. Even though DACA was created out of thin air by an executive memorandum by President Barack Obama, three separate district judges ruled that Trump could not undo it using the same presidential power. All three said their orders apply nationwide.
Other judges have issued similar injunctions against Trump’s “travel ban,” against his effort to delay a sweeping “clean water rule” issued by the Obama administration, and against an order of his intended to protect religious freedom. (The Supreme Court reversed the injunction against the travel ban.) In all, Barr said, district judges have issued at least 37 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration in barely more than two years. They issued such injunctions only 27 times in the entire 20th century, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Until Trump stands up to them, thus tyranny will continue.
True dat.
Just another species of swamp dwellers.
They must be stopped because they see right in their own eyes believing that judicial activism is a good thing.
Yes, rein them in. But get those 137 FEDERAL JUDGE VACANCIES filled without further slowness,
He is identifying them, very publically, so when the time comes the people will understand their punishment and humiliation.
Thanks for posting. I just posted about a judge blocking part of the wall construction in Arizona.
The SC should be the ones smacking these hacks down. Roberts is a back stabbing traitor so they won’t. The moment Trumps tells one of these bastards to stuff it the GOPe Senators will use it to join the Rats on impeachment. In many the POTUS has been hobbled. Maybe a national address would help but I doubt it.
Could be tough - don't they serve "for life"?
Fire them all for political activism from the bench.
Article I, Section. 8.
“The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government”
POSSIBLE RULE:
No domestic judiciary entity/person/persons shall issue an injunction with respect to the President of the United States or the Congress.
POSSIBLE RULE:
Every federal judicial person and entity shall consider the passed acts of Congress to be Constitutional in every respect.
You would not want that, ever.
“Could be tough - don’t they serve ‘for life’?”
Make select (i.e.leftist) judges wear a black robe with a large hammer and sickle badge on their chest all the time, except while in their personal residence.
This tyranny can only end in one of two ways. One of them is not very nice.
Not only should they allow such injunctions at the District Court level to exceed the physical jurisdiction of that District Court but there should be a requirement that any petitions for an injunction against a presidential executive order or congressional legislation cannot be made at the District Court level where one hack forum shopped liberal judge gets to decide national policy. They must be commenced only at the multi judge appellate level which will put a damper on single dirtbag liberal district judges legislating from the bench
“You would not want that, ever.”
We have lots of obnoxious laws.
Trump’s financial privacy is under strong attack.
If Democrats in Congress wanting his financial records were asked the question under judicial process, Do you want them mainly for partisan political reasons, they would be perjuring themselves if they answered no.
Congress can also stuff the Supreme Court, FDR style.
If Democrats take over as they did in 2009, the Supreme Court will probably get stuffed. Supreme Court stuffing has been proposed in the Washington Post.
Rein in our “Shadow President” he’s the SOB giving the orders.
The way it should according to the very words in the Constitution:
(Only congress can pass or change laws that must be signed by the president)
A law taken to a lower federal court is ruled unconstitutional. That law STAYS IN PLACE AND IS ENFORCED UNTIL CONGRESS CHANGES IT AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNS IT INTO LAW. There is no suspension while it weaves through the courts. Justice does not have the power to stop, start or change laws.
A lower court finds a law unconstitutional it MUST be forwarded eventually all the way up to SCOTUS because SCOTUS is to instruct congress and the president to change or rescind the law. If they do not take it up once instructed the leaders of one or both houses of congress are to be impeached within 30 days.
The Supreme Court should have original jurisdiction of any such challenges.
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.