By J. D. Heyes, NewsTarget
The concept of â€œjudicial activismâ€ certainly is not new and predates the Trump administration by at least a few decades, but since Donald Trump ascended to the Oval Office, Leftist judges who have often been accused of such behavior are doubling and tripling down on it.
In fact, there have been precious few major policy decisions made by POTUS Trump that have yet to go unchallenged in federal court, where Left-wing groups who have cherry-picked federal courts in search of â€˜friendlyâ€™ judges (usually those appointed by Barack Obama or Bill Clinton) they know will â€˜sideâ€™ with them, despite what the law or the Constitution says.
So bad has the judicial activism become that many legal scholars including the current attorney general of the United States say the time has come to reign in the Judicial Branch, which was envisionedÂ by many of our foundersÂ to be the least â€˜offensiveâ€™ to liberty.
It turns out that the anti-Federalists â€” those founders who preferred the most important powers should be retained by states (States-rights party) â€”Â were right in fearing that eventuallyÂ the Judicial Branch would grow in power as the federal government did.Â
The anti-Federalists have been proven right time and again in the modern era especially. In recent days, for instance, federal courts have â€˜intervenedâ€™ to block a Mississippi law banning abortions after eight weeks, as well as a decision by POTUS Trump to use $6 billion in Pentagon funding Congress already approved to build additional walls along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In both cases, the federal judges were appointed by a very Left-wing president â€” Obama. And in both cases, the judges claim that these state laws violate the Constitution.
In the Mississippi case, the court says that because abortion has been deemed a â€˜constitutional right,â€™ state laws cannot ban the procedure. But the law doesnâ€™t do that, it merely redefines a timeframe of when a legal abortion can occur in the state.
In the caseÂ of the presidentâ€™s border wall money, the judge ruled that spending $6 billion of Pentagon funding violates â€œCongressâ€™ wishesâ€ â€” though it doesnâ€™t because Congress never earmarked the money for aÂ specificPentagon use. And the president has declared a national emergency, which wasÂ alsoÂ challenged in federal court and initially ruled â€˜unconstitutional,â€™ so he could free up those funds for wall construction.
Without input and direction Congress, it isnâ€™t likely that the federal judiciary is going to change its habits any time soon and relinquish power it has assumed and amassed over the past several decades.
So, whatâ€™s the solution? AsÂ The New AmericanÂ notes, it may just be that states and aggrieved parties will have to ignore rulings by judicial activist judges:
Consider: The legislative branchâ€™s power to make law is granted by the Constitution. The executive branchâ€™s power to enforce law is granted by the Constitution. And the judicial branchâ€™s power to strike down law and have its rulings constrain the other two branches of government is granted by â€¦ what?
Itâ€™sÂ not in the Constitution.
This is a concept called â€œjudicial supremacyâ€ which was declared, of course, by the Judicial Branch itself, in an 1803 Supreme Court case calledÂ Marbury v. Madison.
â€œThe courts gave the courts the courtsâ€™ trump-card power,â€Â The New AmericanÂ notes.
Kind of like Congress giving Congress a raise every year.
Interestingly, these judges have become the true faces of fascism and authoritarianism in America. Because Congress for centuries has refused to utilize its Article III authority to limit the scope of the federal judiciary, courts have just assumed more and more authority.
And it wonâ€™t end unless or until Congress gets its fill of the usurpation. Then again, because judges are politically appointed (theyâ€™re not really â€˜independentâ€™ like weâ€™re led to believe) thatâ€™s not going to happen.
Something will have to give, however. At some point, it might just be that states will have to ignore rulings that violate their sovereignty.
A version of this story first appeared at NewsTarget.
- This story has been published with fewer ads for maximum reader enjoyment.Â