SCOOP: House to hold hearings next week on 'activist judges' blocking Trump agenda

Fox News ^ | March 24, 2025 10:47am EDT | Elizabeth Elkind

[Olog-hai]

The House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing early next week looking into the issue of “activist judges,” three people familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital.

It comes as the Trump administration has faced more than a dozen injunctions from various district court judges across the country on a range of policy decisions. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in one of those cases Monday after President Donald Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, also confirmed on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” that he intended to hold hearings on “activist judges” opposing the administration. He said he expects a House-wide vote next week on a bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to block district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.

Two sources said they expected that vote next week or the week after, but one source stressed that conversations were still ongoing.

That comes as some conservatives push for impeachment as a way to punish judges blocking Trump’s agenda. …

[alternatives?]

Maybe they will issue a terse memo in a month.

[rfp1234]

This could be a good MAGA midterm election issue.

[The Louiswu]

I wonder if Trump saw this judge crap coming?

[onona]

What a waste of time

[blueunicorn6]

Good

[shelterguy]

They might really really really do something this time.

[George from New England]

Here come those strongly worded letters.

[jacknhoo]

We don’t need hearings. A waste of precious time. We simply need legislation stating the obvious - district judges can not execute national injunction.

Get to work House and Senate GOP. We’re sick of all you milquetoasts.

[traditional2]

Jim Jordan has become the current Trey Gowdy: "All hat....no cattle".

Sadly, he's from my State. Talks a good game, but does NOTHING about it. (Occasionally, writes a "stern letter")

[Dogbert41]

They should remove all Demons from it first. We know how it will go and who will get all the coverage.

[1Old Pro]

We simply need legislation stating the obvious

Yep, it should only take a week or so.

[virgil]

How many months will this take, and will anything happen?

[odawg]

I bet Jim Jordan is on it.

[rellic]

About time!
Judges(judicary) have no enforcement powers under our constitution,
that power exists in the Executive branch.
Trump can ignore all judges if he so chose to do so.
I fail to understand why we allow little minded un-elected
dictators to think they can over rule The president,
who was elected.
Perhaps it is because we were raised to believe
Judges are wise. We now we see what kind of Partisan hacks some of them can be. These judges work for the Supreme court, That court is who should be firing the out of bounds nut case partisans.
Right now only 29% of the population(Democrats) trust the Judiciary!
Keep it up and that number will get smaller.

[Ex-Con777]

This isn’t a waste of time. Jordan is setting a trap for these judges. They either refuse to testify on separation of powers grounds (goose meet gander), or they testify and get asked questions about their wives, children, and personal political actions that would have forced them to recuse themselves in accordance with long time DOJ rules. (Exhibit A for an impeachment or grounds to have them administratively removed for bad behavior)

This will be interesting to see which poison they choose.

EC

[daler]

No, they should follow the Pelosi formula and hand-pick two of the most conservative Democrats they can find from red states.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Here is some good data from:

The Imperial Judiciary Of The United States
American Thinker
By Vince Coyner
March 24, 2025

Marbury v. Madison established Judicial Review in 1803 wherein the court granted itself the ability to invalidate a law it deemed in conflict with the Constitution. The court used that power:

• only twice over America’s first 70 years
• 50 times over the subsequent 75 years
• over 125 times in the last 90 years

That trajectory not only reflects the extraordinary growth in the areas of American life into which the leviathan of government has inserted itself, but it also reflects a far more activist judiciary.

And how can we tell? Look at nationwide injunctions.

• Judges issued six nationwide injunctions against George Bush over eight years—one per every sixteen months he was in office.
• Barack Obama was the subject of 12 or one every eight months.
• In Trump’s first term, judges issued 64 nationwide injunctions, or one every 22 days.
• After he left office, the courts retreated, with Joe Biden getting 14 or one every three months.
• Now, in his second term, Trump has received 12 in only six weeks; that is, one every four days.

In the single four-year period of President Trump's first term, he faced more of these injunctions than every president in the previous 60 years combined!

[wiseprince]

It’s Monday, you have all of this week

[lombardwarrior2]

Another “all bark and no bite” hearing by House Judiciary Chairman ( I really mean it this time) Jim Jordan (aka Trey Gowdy). I like it when he rolls up shirt sleeves like he’s really going to roll out justice with convictions.