Posted on 06/26/2025 9:12:38 AM PDT by george76
Just because the judiciary chooses to violate the Constitution does not mean the other branches are required to follow suit.
...
Since returning to office, President Trump has faced what can only be described as a judicial coup. Through the use of overreaching nationwide injunctions, predominantly Democrat-appointed judges have gleefully granted requests from left-wing activists to block enforcement of the agenda 77 million Americans voted for last year.
Yet, despite this egregious affront to America’s constitutional framework, Trump and his administration are neglecting to stop it.
The latest example of the administration’s refusal to uphold separation of powers is its ongoing battle with a Massachusetts-based federal judge over the president’s deportation of illegal aliens to so-called “third countries.” After District Judge Brian Murphy placed a sweeping injunction blocking the policy’s enforcement, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which temporarily stayed the Biden appointee’s order on Monday.
In a stunning act of rebellion against the justices, Murphy — seemingly believing his power usurps that of SCOTUS — issued a separate edict hours after the high court’s ruling in which he declared his initial order “remains in full force and effect.” The judge further claimed, “The District Court’s remedial orders [were] not properly before the [Supreme] Court because the Government has not appealed them, or sought a stay pending a forthcoming appeal.”
So, what did Trump and his administration do?
While U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer correctly characterized Murphy’s power grab as a “lawless act of defiance,” the administration continued to grant the rogue judge’s order legitimacy it doesn’t have. Instead of implementing the president’s policy and telling Murphy to pound sand, team Trump went running back to SCOTUS to ask the justices to “clarify” their Monday stay on the judge’s initial injunction.
But there’s nothing to “clarify.” The high court already spoke on the matter, and there’s no logical or legal reason the administration shouldn’t be executing Trump’s directives — irrespective of what Murphy claims.
Trump and his team’s “strategy,” as it seems, is to continue following the same playbook previously disclosed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. When asked by Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway last month about how the administration plans to confront the judicial coup undermining the president’s executive authority, Leavitt said that the game plan is to “comply with the courts’ orders” and “win on the merits of these cases.”
In other words, the administration is going to continue granting the premise that what these rogue judges are doing is lawful and the notion that the judiciary has the final say on matters of law and public policy in America — otherwise known as judicial supremacy.
Except, that’s not the system of government the Founding Fathers had in mind when drafting the Constitution. If anything, framers like Alexander Hamilton viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches, as it lacks the “sword” of the executive and the “purse” of the legislature and relies “upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
Contrary to claims made by Chief Justice John Roberts, the courts are not supreme to the other two branches. And just because its members choose to violate the Constitution does not mean the executive and legislative are required to follow suit.
As president, Trump has an obligation to abide by the nation’s founding document. It is he who is granted Article II authority to execute the nation’s laws — not rogue judges seeking to usurp such powers.
As Justice Samuel Alito recently observed, federal matters involving nationwide injunctions “may take two or three years before it could come up” to the Supreme Court to be fully adjudicated. That would mean that by the time cases involving the Trump administration reach the high court for final rulings, Trump’s second term would effectively be over.
The longer Trump continues to play along with leftists’ judicial coup, the longer the votes of those who supported him last year will be rendered meaningless, thus ending a presidency before it could even begin.
Says the bloviating blogger who has never been elected to anything or run anything in his life:
“Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. “
Don’t agree with the “finished” part but the courts are definitely interfering effectively. The problem of ignoring the courts is that the left will go crazier over it. Impeachment riots the whole 9 yards
I suspect Trump knows what he’s doing, and when he doesn’t, he has trusted staff who does.
I don’t think this presidency is putting re-election above properly running the country as most other ones do. And I think when they take action, the possible outcomes are carefully considered.
Yeah, I’m suggesting the “4D chess” thing is still quite real and the wisdom of many of his moves have yet to come to full fruition.
OK, what do we do when the judiciary doesn’t respect judicial supremacism?
Yeah
If A then we’re finished.
If B then the country’s over. Done.
If C then ...
Like slowly boiled frogs we’re still here!
Last term ≠ lame duck.
they really really mean it this time...
Yep. Not this time! 👍
“If Trump Doesn’t Reject Judicial Supremacism, His Presidency Is Finished”
If Trump Doesn’t Reject Judicial Supremacism, our Republic Is Finished
There, fixed it
Also, if the low level judges can ignore Supreme Court rulings, why should we obey them
President Trump’s second term has been about exercising his constitutional powers to their fullest extent.
He has not addressed the judicial branch intrusion into executive branch powers yet.
It’s hard to imagine he won’t do so at the time of his choosing. In politics, setting the stage is very important.
Agreed. And with all the illegals still here, the country will be done as well.
Before Trump rejects anything he needs the country to reject it. He can’t just heavy handed go around canceling things and organizations. People. Groups ideologies
We are an uneducated lazy assed group. We want the government to fix everything. A corrupt group will be tempted to takeover suchamifiotic lazy country
They did. And now it has to come from popular demand that this out of control judiciary get fixed
Here’s the thing, last week a hack judge was slapped down by the SC. The judge defied the SC and stood by his ruling. So Trump had his SC ruling but instead of ignoring this hack judge he capitulates again and goes back to the SC. This is what the author is talking about and he’s right.
"Since returning to office, President Trump has faced what can only be described as a judicial coup. Through the use of overreaching nationwide injunctions, predominantly Democrat-appointed judges have gleefully granted requests from left-wing activists to block enforcement of the agenda 77 million Americans voted for last year."
Lawmakers could clean up the judiciary, but are not willing to do so.
Consider the first impeached Supreme Court justice, whom the Senate chose to not remove from office.
Samuel Chase
The real problem concerning the judicial coupe is that misguided, post-17th Amendment ratification voters (popular voting for federal senators) keep reelecting the same scum career lawmakers, evidenced by giving the deep state Congress another free ride in 2024 elections to protect likewise scum judges, voters seemingly expecting different results from Congress every time.
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Once reelected, crook lawmakers then ignore dirty judges and continue to abuse their 16th Amendment power (16A; direct taxes) by oppressing the people with unconstitutional federal taxing and spending.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Trump-supporting patriots need to wake up and primary all state and federal candidates in 2026 midterm elections who refuse to publicly promise to support Trump in leading the states to repeal 16A, that amendment note only the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime, but also weakening our 4th Amendment protections imo.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear too.
We'll call the repeal amendment Trump's Boston Tea Party II Amendment.
Once unconstitutional federal taxing and spend is stopped, the states will ultimately find a tsunami of new revenues that they probably won't know what to do with imo, state power healthcare and education certainly on the short list of top priorities.
Again, misguided 17A voters (caveat emptor) are the real problem with corrupt state and federal governments, not a constitutionally resolvable judicial coup.
"16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived [emphasis added], without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
(Again) "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
Illegals are indeed getting immediate Social Security, contrary to Democrat claims (7.11.24)
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
What is needed is a strong AG who writes a short sweet letter to the Mass judge saying the SC has said he is wrong, and unless he wants the FBI looking into his business dealings, professional and personal, then he should stand down. But, that would require an AG with some……
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.