Posted on 07/07/2025 11:54:32 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Unless the Supreme Court reins in lower-court judges or Congress asserts its power over the courts it established, judicial tyranny may persist.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority” Congress has granted federal courts has been framed as a victory for a Trump administration stymied by an unprecedented barrage of them.
But the majority’s 6-3 opinion in favor of the administration’s challenge to universal injunctions — via its appeal of several such rulings in cases consolidated under CASA, whereby courts halted its executive order curtailing birthright citizenship — is far greater than a win for one president. It is a triumph for the rule of law and our republic over judicial tyranny, though it comes with loopholes that Resistance 2.0 is already plotting to drive a truck through in its ongoing lawfare campaign.
First, the good. The status quo ante, whereby an opponent of a presidential policy needed only to find a single favorable district court judge to prohibit the enforcement of that policy against anyone, everywhere, was an absurdity and an abomination.
Courts exist to decide cases and controversies concerning the parties before them. The idea that an unelected judge in any district would deign to effectively expand his jurisdiction to the entire country by adding everyone as a plaintiff to a suit was an affront to our Constitution and common sense. Judges effectively coronated themselves as presidents in overriding executive decisions on personnel, policy, and practices. Thus the pre-CASA judiciary effectively disadvantaged and disenfranchised tens of millions of Americans who elected the commander-in-chief.
Inferior court judges elevated themselves not only above the president but Supreme Court justices too in unilaterally rendering opinions with nationwide effects, “invert[ing]” the typical appellate process, as Solicitor General John D. Sauer...
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Trump should create aa new position as the secretary of trials. This group should be made up of trial lawyers under retainer that are able to defend the actions of the previously approved acts of the POTUS. They will need to be both constitutional and civil lawyers so as to cover the POTUS from whatever direction the liberals come from. They will also be used for determination of actions for impeachment and can be used as a public mouthpiece in these instances. He is getting sued so much that since he is the president, he needs a special group to stop the continual political and personal attacks. The taxpayer doesn’t pay him to be in court. Bigger fish.
wy69
Shut up, Federalist.
Just remember that traitor Roberts was unable to ID any 0bama Judges.
Perhaps you can identify how this specific article is deficient? I found it to be salient in expressing emphasis on the Alito/Thomas concurrence.
It makes NO mention of the FACT that Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution gives the power of judging how a President does his job SOLELY to “We The People” at election time and that the Judicial branch has NO power to chime in much less dictate terms. I would call that quite deficient-
”Explain how this article is deficient”
It makes NO mention of the FACT that Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution gives the power of judging how a President does his job SOLELY to “We The People” at election time and that the Judicial branch has NO power to chime in much less dictate terms. I would call that quite deficient-
____________________________________________________________
Even presidents are bound by the law and Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers some time.
“It makes NO mention of the FACT that Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution gives the power of judging how a President does his job SOLELY to “We The People” at election time ... “
Also:
Impeachment conviction by legislature.
By declaration of the VP and majority of cabinet and congressional approval
Quote for me please where in the Constitution the Judicial Branch has the authority to dictate how a President does his job. Doing so is a usurpation of the power GUARANTEED to we the people in Article IV, Section 4.
Both impeachment and removal via 25th Amendment are ultimately judged by we the people at the next election cycle.
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.