Call off your dogs, Chief Justice

More than 200 rulings against the president in his first 101 days

Bloomberg gloated, “President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive power faced at least 328 lawsuits as of May 1—with judges halting his policies far more often than they allowed them.

“Courts entered more than 200 orders stopping the administration’s actions in 128 cases, with judges sometimes ruling at multiple stages of the legal fights. Judges had allowed contested policies to go ahead in 43 cases, and hadn’t ruled yet in more than 140 others. Most cases are in the early stages, and new ones are being filed daily.”

This is authoritarianism by unelected officials. At this rate, there will be almost 3,000 court orders against him by the end of his term. The imperial judiciary is a national disgrace.

A president gets 1,461 days to run the executive branch.

677 district judges have all the time in the world to thwart him.

Democrats want to nullify the November election and the district judges are all too happy to accommodate this election denial.

Bloomberg said, “The flood of lawsuits began within minutes of Trump’s Jan. 20 swearing-in. The cases range from his hardline immigration policies and sweeping tariffs to efforts to dismantle US agencies and punish elite universities and law firms he considers adversaries. Elon Musk’s ‘government efficiency’ project prompted more than three dozen lawsuits alone.”

Democrat lawyers and the judges who serve them did not even let Trump dance with his wife at the inauguration ball before filing these lawsuits, which should be dismissed as frivolous.

Politico relished the latest ruling against Trump, reporting, “U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport anyone located in his southern New York district.”

Earlier on Thursday, Fox reported, “A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to immediately resettle some 12,000 refugees into the U.S. under a court order that partially blocks President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at halting the refugee admissions program.

“U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a 2023 appointee of former President Joe Biden, issued the order despite the Trump administration saying during a hearing last week that it should only have to process 160 refugees into the country and would likely appeal any order requiring thousands to be admitted.”

Whitehead’s district covers only the western portion of the state of Washington. His ruling should not be nationwide.

The media’s reporting on these court cases is sloppy and anti-Trump. Consider this report last night from CBS, “Trump fires longtime Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden.”

As head of the judicial branch of government, Chief Justice John Roberts needs to neuter these petty political appointees who seek to veto every single action by the chief of the executive branch.

The judicial lawfare against the president is unprecedented, unwarranted and unconstitutional. Outside of the DC courts, district judges have no jurisdiction over presidential actions.

Even then, the justices should place restraints on the DC judges. After the Supreme Court reined in Justice Jimbo Boasberg on the deportation of a “Maryland Man” to his actual home country of El Salvador, the judge seeks to hold the president in contempt for failure to facilitate the illegal alien’s return.

Trump met with El Salvador’s president days after the Supreme Court decision. That’s facilitating, but facilitating does not guarantee success.

Jimbo’s DEMAND would be like a Russian judge demanding Putin come to America and bring Britney Griner back.

For all the smack talk about Trump being an authoritarian, these judges are the real tyrants and threat to democracy.

Consider this report from Reuters: “Trump asks US Supreme Court to allow revocation of migrants’ legal status.”

What nutty world were we transported to last night in which a duly elected president must ask for permission from the Supreme Court to do his job?

Reuters said, “The Justice Department requested that the justices put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s order halting the administration’s move to terminate the immigration parole granted to [some illegal aliens] migrants under Biden. The move is part of Trump’s hardline approach to immigration.”

Hardline means actually enforcing the law.

So an Obama appointee ruled it was OK for Biden to grant parole but it is not OK for Trump to revoke the parole. Where in the Constitution does it say Democrat presidents have more authority than Republican presidents?

As Trump faces hundreds of lawsuits—an average of three new ones a day, seven days a week—the Imperial Wizards of the Judiciary finally have one of their own to deal with.

Conservative Brief reported, “A pro-Trump legal organization founded by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, marking a long-shot effort as Trump allies push back against court rulings that have blocked key executive actions.

“The suit, brought by the America First Legal Foundation, targets Roberts in his role as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, as well as Robert J. Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Fox News reported.

“The complaint alleges that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have engaged in regulatory actions that exceed their constitutional mandate, arguing such actions fall outside the judiciary’s core responsibilities of adjudicating cases and providing administrative support.

“The lawsuit also contends that records maintained by the U.S. Judicial Conference, under Roberts’ leadership, should be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests as a consequence of the alleged regulatory actions.

“In its lawsuit, America First Legal cited actions taken in 2023 by both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office to accommodate congressional requests to investigate alleged ethical misconduct by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The group also pointed to efforts by these bodies to develop or adopt an ethics code for Supreme Court justices as part of its complaint.”

I hope a Trump-appointed district judge gives the judiciary a taste of its own medicine.

Chief Justice Roberts did nothing nothing to reform FISA judges after they accommodated Obama’s use of the FBI to spy on Trump’s 2016 campaign.

I doubt that Roberts will rein in the district court justices but maybe—just maybe—the other five justices who were not appointed by Democrat presidents will.