The Founders Provided Remedies for a Runaway Judiciary

American Thinker ^ | March 19, 2025 | Steve McCann

[george76]

What the country is witnessing is the culmination of many decades of ever-expanding judicial activism and the cowardice of the Congress to exert its prerogative to rein in this runaway usurpation

...

Thomas Jefferson, a staunch opponent of a powerful central government, also recognized the potential abuse of power by an out-of-control Judiciary and a recalcitrant Congress

...

Alexis de Tocqueville .. if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent or bad men, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war.

...

By refusing to address this long-festering issue, Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court have given the green light to 856 District and Appellate judges

...

Therefore, the Judiciary, not the President or Congress, is in charge of the nation’s sovereignty as the Courts would be declaring themselves to be the sole arbitrators of all immigration policy

...

there are remedies if the Supreme Court continues to allow the inferior courts to usurp the powers of Congress and the president. Congress, if it could get over its fractious tribalism, can:

Abolish or severely curtail judicial review for the lower courts as the Congress created

...

Redraw and change the boundaries of the district and circuit courts or even eliminate them entirely if they care to and create new ones with new judges.

Defund enforcement of unconstitutional court decisions. As noted above in Federalist 78

...

Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Federal Courts have been gradually aggregating more power to themselves than what the Founders originally envisioned;

...

until the Supreme Court or Congress acts, America will continue to be held hostage by the Federal Judiciary as it proceeds apace in seizing the constitutional authority delegated to the President and Congress,

[ABN 505]

How about reassigning these Judges to more meaningless Benches dealing with more mundane areas of the law? Let them do thier damage in traffic or divorce courts.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

there are remedies if the Supreme Court continues to allow the inferior courts to usurp the powers of Congress and the president. Congress, if it could get over its fractious tribalism, can:

Abolish or severely curtail judicial review for the lower courts as the Congress created

...

Redraw and change the boundaries of the district and circuit courts or even eliminate them entirely if they care to and create new ones with new judges.

Yes. But even in the best case, none of this is likely to happen in a Congress led by Mike Johnson and John Thune. I doubt Congress will do anything at all, and certainly not before the 2026 mid-terms. Trump's only real way forward is probably to ignore judicial edicts which are obvious un-Constitutional infringements on the rights of the Executive Branch.

[Flavious_Maximus]

And the vast majority of these rogue “judges” are foreign born maggots. They are barely American citizens, while one of them even has Canadian citizenship born to Egyptian parents.

If the limp wristed milquetoast John Roberts does not reign in these rogue judges, then the entire court system is going to collapse. Let the repercussions begin.

[DesertRhino]

The Constitution gave the most power to Congress, the President a close second, and the Judiciary a distant third.
The founders never dreamed some inferior judge could direct the President in his running the government, because they didn’t even give the supreme court that power.

[aquila48]

Here’s a better solution...

There really is only one way around this.

Trump ignores the judges and makes the case to the American people why he’s doing it. He has to have the backing of the majority or this will probably fail.

He also needs to get most of the republican congressmen to support him.

There will be loud calls for his impeachment and one of Rats representatives will undoubtedly introduce such a resolution.

Then the judiary committee will hold hearing and vote on it. This is where things get interesting. Will all the Republicans, who have a majority there, stick together and vote against impeaching? Those that don’t will be committing career suicide.

If it goes to the full house, given the tiny majorly the GOP has it’ll probably pass.

Then on to the senate. That’s where things almost surely will end. For the senate to convict it would need 20 GOP senators to vote for conviction. I doubt very much that will happen.

This of course creates a huge “constitutional crises” in that it sets the precedent that the president can do as he wishes and willfully ignore the courts IF he has enough support in the senate (and the people).

To be honest, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. It reduces significantly the power of the unelected men in black robes and it makes the two branches of elected people the final arbiters.

In essence what this would result into is a system where any two out of the three branches of government get the final say.

And if anyone has the balls to make this happen, it’s Trump.

The more I think about it the more I like it

What do you think?

[pierrem15]

Yup: reassign the DC circuit to handle only parking tickets and vehicular citations from DC.

Reassign the 9th circuit to all cases arising from the Aleutians, etc.

[pierrem15]

I think the problem is the Senate. Unless Bondi has the goods to threaten many of them with arrest, no impeachment will get the two-thirds required.

Trump could also push for a state Constitutional Convention, which could frighten SCOTUS enough for the squish Roberts to act.

Or, Trump can go on TV and explain why he is ignoring the judge's orders. He can explain how he is saving the US from illegal alien invasion and keeping the US from going bankrupt. That should force SCOTUS to act quickly to rein them in or become irrelevant, just as FDR's court packing scheme intimidated them. Trump could also push to expand the size of SCOTUS himself as another warning shot.

[Carry_Okie]

Pass a statute removing a judge automatically after a pre-determined number of reversals. At that point, Congress could reinstate said jurist if it finds the reason for those initial rulings valid.

[hanamizu]

We’re talking about Federal judges here. Few if any deal with traffic or divorce cases. Altering or eliminating judicial districts would, I believe, require an act of Congress, which the dems could and would block.

If you read the Constitution carefully, you will find no mention of district judges having the power to grant nation-wide injunctions. In fact you will find no mention of SCOTUS or any Federal court having the power to declare acts of Congress, the President or the states ‘Unconstitutional’.

[SMARTY]

“...He also needs to get most of the republican congressmen to support him...”

In an ultimate worst case scenario, all legislators in Congress have everything to lose...not just the Republicans

[richardtavor]

Who would make the reassignments?

[right way right]

Yeah, the second amendment.

Someone has to say it.

[Whatever Works]

Nice words, but SCOTUS is just as corrupt and drunk on their power. I do not see this ending well.

[nopardons]

BTTT

[Dr. Franklin]

Congress can remove subject matter jurisdiction from federal courts and their judges. No single judge should be declaring acts of Congress or executive orders illegal. SCOTUS and federal courts were a matter of great concern at the time of ratification of the U.S. Constitution because they threatened local common law courts in the states, which they were created to control. It was sold to the nation that SCOTUS would be comprised of prominent justices who would reign in lower federal judges. None of that has happened.

SCOTUS has become a place for a president to name young justices whom he hopes will rule according to his judicial philosophy to set policy, not because they are well respected centralists, or will discipline misbehaving lower court judges. SCOTUS has abandoned the discipline of the lower federal judges, what little there is, to the courts of appeals. Have the judges ever disciplined other judges to any affect? Why did the Senate need to remove Alcee Hastings by impeachment after he was acquitted of bribery and perjury? Because there was no judicial discipline by the court of appeals. Furthermore, since the Rehnquist Court, federal courts have stopped requiring payment from recreant judges for the fees and costs for prerogative writs such as mandamus, prohibition, or procedendo.

Congress can create a court of judicial discipline to actually discipline and remove renegade federal judges whom it concludes did not comport themselves with the constitutionally required "good conduct", which is a lower standard than "high crimes and misdemeanors" required for impeachment. Such a court would do a better job of enforcing discipline for judges who are behavior problems in many ways including not just the corrupt or senile, but also those who misrepresent the facts of the case to usurp the power of a jury, or ignore precedent and take the attitude, "If you don't like my decision, take an appeal", Ideally, it should not contain other federal judges, or even attorneys, but ordinary people or law professors, essentially a jury to determine judicial good conduct.

[aquila48]

“Or, Trump can go on TV and explain why he is ignoring the judge’s orders. He can explain how he is saving the US from illegal alien invasion and keeping the US from going bankrupt. That should force SCOTUS to act quickly to rein them in or become irrelevant, just as FDR’s court packing scheme intimidated them. Trump could also push to expand the size of SCOTUS himself as another warning shot. “

My point is that he has to do none of that as long as he’s assured that 20 Republicans Senators won’t vote to convict.

He can ignore all the courts including the Supremes as long as that’s the case. He’ll be able to serve his full term.

And I think that’s the way it should permanently be. Any two branches should have the final say instead of the single unelected judiciary.

[grumpygresh]

The House alone could defund an individual federal court. It’s never been done that but it’s theoretically possible. But the howling would be intense.
As far as redistricting court or changes in judiciary, you’d need enough votes to avoid senate filibuster. Never will happen.
Best thing to do is the old tried and true method. Investigate and get the goods on your opponents. Congress can do this with impeachment and DOJ and FBI can look into improper relationships between judges, outside groups, family members that benefit.
The fact that these judges are blocking DOGE investigations and shielding criminal gang operations should indicate that these judges have something to hide or are working for someone that has something to hide.

[pierrem15]

My hope is that Trump can intimidate SCOTUS enough that they will act to override the lower courts quickly and tailor the precedents carefully to legalize the President's authority over illegals and to impound funds allocated by an irresponsible Congress.

Don't forget that even if Trump survives impeachment attempts, the Dems will arrest and jail him (and Musk) as soon as he leaves office.

Trump has to destroy the current Democratic Party if he and the republic are to survive. So sooner or later he will have to cross the Rubicon.

[Eleutheria5]

Neither traffic nor divorce are federal issues. POTUS and Congress only have jurisdiction over the federal bench.