|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Bob Unruh (WND NEWS CENTER)
Democrats lost in the 2024 election. In a big way. They lost, of course, the White House, and the power to run all executive branch agencies and departments. They lost the majority in the Senate, where Chuck Schumer now is relegated to holding news conferences, claiming to want to find government “corruption” and such. And they left the GOP majority intact in the U.S. House.
CNN host Kaitlan Collins claims the United States is “dangerously close to a Constitutional Crisis”
“A federal judge came out today & said the White House is DEFYING his order to unfreeze billions of dollars in federal aid”
Good. Trump is President, not the activists judges. pic.twitter.com/X00NDDUNi8
— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) February 11, 2025
So now they are left to relying on leftist and activist judges installed by Joe Biden or Barack Obama in his first two terms in the White House, to try to hold back President Donald Trump’s wave of transparency, cost-cutting and efficiency.
A commentary at the Federalist explains to what level the Democrats have been reduced.
“What’s happening right now is that Democrats, having been thrown out of power by American voters in a landslide victory for Trump, have decided they’re going to deploy a widely-used tactic from Trump’s first term to thwart the president’s agenda: use the federal judiciary. Under the false pretext that the lower federal courts are part of a ‘coequal branch of government’ with the executive, they’re aiming to shut down Trump’s reform efforts with a fusillade of preliminary injunctions.”
A top legal expert says the scheme ultimately will collapse, but the nature of American government means that will take some time.
The Federalist noted the “dozens” of lawsuits from Democrat attorneys general and “various left-wing groups.”
They choose their venues, so that the cases are brought before “rabidly anti-Trump activist judges.”
In just the past few days eight different judges have created blockades for portions of Trump’s work.
“Federal judges in Democrat-majority districts have issued preliminary injunctions blocking Trump’s executive actions to end birthright citizenship, reform and downsize the United States Agency for International Development, and offer buyouts to federal bureaucrats. A federal judge this past weekend blocked Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and all other political appointees in the Trump administration — including the Treasury secretary and his deputies — from accessing payment data at the Treasury Department,” the report noted.
One even radically insisted that federal inmates had to be housed with other inmates of the sex they claim to be, not the sex they are, a component on Biden’s transgender ideologies.
The result is “a kind of judicial coup against the sitting president,” the report said.
“It’s a simple enough tactic. All Democrats have to do is shop for a venue to find the most activist, rabidly anti-Trump federal judges in the country, file their lawsuits, and wait for the injunctions to come raining down,” the report said.
There are problems, in that American voters chose Trump’s campaign in the election specifically to clean up government corruption, and federal judges “have no actual authority to do this.”
“They can’t decide on their own who the president can talk to or what data he can access. They can’t bind the president at all. According to the U.S. Constitution they’re ‘inferior’ courts and therefore don’t have any authority over the executive branch. Yes, the three branches of the federal government are coequal, but the only part of the federal judiciary that’s equal to the presidency is the Supreme Court, not all the federal district courts scattered across the country,” the report said.
The Supreme Court, in fact, already has undermine the Democrats’ concept that any judge anywhere can issue an order affecting the entire nation.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in fact, said those injunctions, “appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.”
It was Alan Dershowitz, a longtime Democrat and Harvard law professor emeritus, who said in a Daily Caller News Foundation report that those injunctions probably will be thrown out on appeal.
“Nobody ever said that our system of checks and balances would make it easy to govern or would make it efficient to govern. No, no, the design of our system of checks and balances was to create enough power to govern effectively while, at the same time, denying any one part of our government enough power to create a tyranny. So we have to counter our system of checks and balances, and it’s working, even today, as we speak. The president issues executive order after executive order after executive order, and what do the states do? They get their attorneys general to bring a lawsuit.”
He explained their scheme: “They search all over the country for the best judges. They hand-pick the judges. They file the lawsuits, and you get judges saying, ‘Uh-uh, no, Mr. President, you can’t do that,’ and so you get a single judge for about an hour being able to stop the president from doing something. I say an hour metaphorically. It could be days, but ultimately those issues are brought up to the court of appeals and eventually to the Supreme Court. It will be resolved, and the president will obey, wouldn’t do what Andrew Jackson did, saying, ‘The chief justice made the ruling, now let him enforce it,’”
He said many of the injunctions will found to be improper, as the lower courts simply don’t have the authority to do what they are trying: pursue the Democrats’ political agenda using the power of the gavel.
He said a president’s power is at a peak when dealing with agencies, as Trump has been doing.
“People keep forgetting, the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy, the alphabet agencies. They are not an independent branch. They are part of the executive, and the executive is the president. Now, it’s complicated, because Congress created many of these agencies. For example, you know some of them, Federal Communications Commission, federal security, federal drug, those are created by Congress, but they’re part of the executive department. Some of the people are confirmed by Congress, and so your argument is you can’t fire them, only Congress can unconfirm them, but that’s never been the rule. For example, the head of the FBI is confirmed, and all cabinet members are confirmed by the Senate, yet the president can fire any of those heads of agencies at his whim. He doesn’t even have to have a reason to do it.”
The Democrats’ actions, however, appear to be just an extension of their lawfare against President Trump between his terms of office. They created multiple cases over his possession of presidential documents, over his comments and opinions about the 2020 election, and even alleged his was involved in an organized crime case. Those all eventually fell apart.
* * *
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
