Supreme Court saves the judiciary

Like Trump's triumphant Iran raid, the press won't give ACB and the boys credit

Trump v. CASA was the most important decision in this term of the Supreme Court. We know this because it was among the last few decisions handed down. The court found itself trapped in a constitutional showdown with the president—a situation that can only lead to a trail of tears for the Supreme Court because as President Jackson supposedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

The issue is whether each of the 677 district court judges in the land has the power to veto any and all actions by the president. This is like jury nullification in which members of a jury take it upon themselves to ignore the law and let the guilty man go. The trial of O.J. Simpson is the best example.

Democrats filed hundreds of challenges to the president and district judges have enjoined him from doing his job dozens of times. By creating a power of judicial veto, Democrat judges pose an existential threat to the legitimacy of the judicial branch of government. Democrats don’t care because they will do anything to stop Trump—including rooting for Iran to build a nuclear bomb.

District judges have issued a record 40 injunctions against him in just 5 months time. Not since the election of Abraham Lincoln has a president faced such outrageous behavior.

This is a constitutional crisis that threatens our republic because a bunch of Smurfs in robes want to stop the will of the American people who overwhelmingly elected Trump for a third time.

President Trump has made it clear this cannot stand and the six justices worthy of the title agree. Justices decided that these injunctions district judges issue only apply in the judge’s district.

The press spin is that the Supreme Court’s decision is strictly partisan but that is all projection because the press cheers when rulings go against Trump, no matter how ludicrous the decision. Jimmy the Kangaroo Boasberg actually tried to order military planes to turn around.

NYT said, “The Supreme Court term that ended on Friday included an extraordinary run of victories for President Trump, culminating in a 6-to-3 ruling largely eliminating the main tool that his opponents have used to thwart his aggressive agenda.

“In that case and others, the justices used truncated procedures on their emergency docket to issue decisions that gave Mr. Trump some or all of what he had asked for in cases dealing with immigration, transgender troops and the independence of government agencies.

“The emergency rulings in Mr. Trump’s favor were theoretically temporary and provisional. In practice, they allowed the president to pursue his policies indefinitely and sometimes irreversibly.”

What NYT declared to be a main tool is non-existent. The Constitution does not give district judges the power to cancel presidential activity. He does not need the permission of the court to act.

Federal judges want to stall the president, who has only 1,461 days to do his job. Given the January 20, 2029, deadline for President Trump to act, overturning these Imperial Judges is an emergency.

Megyn Kelly said it best, “You find the most liberal judge, you make your case, you get your nationwide injunction, and yet another piece of Trump’s agenda is done. And this court was listening. They agreed. They decided the answer to potential executive overreach is not judicial overreach and pretending the courts have more power than they do to stop executive initiatives on a nationwide basis (as opposed to on a plaintiff by plaintiff basis, where we look at this plaintiff to see if he has adequately alleged harm and decide whether, for example, an executive order should be enjoined in this case).

“So, as a result of Friday’s ruling, these leftists likely will not be able to march into a far-left judge in Boston or in San Francisco or in Washington, D.C., and get a Trump policy they don’t like put on hold or ended while their case plays out in the merits, which could take years.”

The federal government is power mad. Boasberg Brigade willing feeds this madness with no regard to the damage their unlawful orders do to the legitimacy of the courts.

The times called for the Chief Justice to intervene, write a decision to put the rebelling judges in their place and save the republic from a lynch mob in robes.

John Roberts did not do that. He passed the writing of the decision to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, barely more than a rookie as the second-least tenured jurist.

Maybe the chief held a tournament to see which associate judge made the best case because there were concurring opinions from each of the four associate justices who voted for sanity in this case.

While much has been made (and should be made) of ACB’s scolding of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s goofy dissent, the fact is Amy made a great case for reining in the district judges, concluding:

Some say that the universal injunction “gives the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.” But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.

The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity. The injunctions are also stayed to the extent that they prohibit executive agencies from developing and issuing public guidance about the Executive’s plans to implement the Executive Order.

Amy destroyed the myth of oversight and accountability. Neither word appears in the Constitution and for good reason. We have three equal branches of government. A president acts without Congress looking over one shoulder and the courts looking over the other shoulder.

If the president has too much power, it is on Congress, not the president. After all who created 400+ federal agencies? The Constitution put those agencies under the president’s control.

For a decade now, the Roberts Court has gently reminded DC that there is no such thing as an independent agency. Anyone appointed to office serves at the will and pleasure of the president.

Amy was not so gentle in reminding the district judges that they do not have the power to impede a president they don’t like. Just because they don’t like a policy does not render that policy unlawful or unconstitutional.

She repeatedly beat down KBJ:

The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a “mind-numbingly technical query,” she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.

Isn’t the whole point of the Supreme Court to be mind-numbingly technical?

Space limits me in a newsletter to cite just one example. But it is clear that KBJ’s belligerence (some would say stupidity) pushed the vast majority of justices too far. They are calling her out.

Which is why Amy got the assignment. Under the name of any male justice, the complaint would be dismissed by liberals as sexist.

But Amy is the perfect hitman for the job. She is a woman, of course, but she also is a junior member of the Court. The two likely will work, um, together for the next three decades. The longer the majority is 6-3, the more likely KBJ is to bail.

She won’t because there is no other job for her because The View has met its quota of ignorance.

Publicly embarrassing an associate justice should send a message to the district court judges that they risk a personal price for continued defiance of the Constitution and the Court itself.

The decision should have been unanimous because district court judges have no authority to review much less veto every decision by a president.

As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his concurring opinion, “For good reason, the Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions. The Court also makes clear that the complete relief principle provides a ceiling on federal courts’ authority, which must be applied alongside other ‘principles of equity’ and our holding that universal injunctions are impermissible. Lower courts should carefully heed this Court’s guidance and cabin their grants of injunctive relief in light of historical equitable limits. If they cannot do so, this Court will continue to be ‘dutybound’ to intervene.”

Having saved the judiciary and with it the Republic, Amy and Thomas put their velvet gloves back on over their iron fists.