U.S. DISTRICT JUDGES: THE MAKING OF CORRUPT MINI-KINGS
The Struggle Between Judicial Overreach and Presidential Authority
In an increasingly polarized political landscape, the role of U.S. District Judges has come under scrutiny. Recent developments have revealed a pattern of partisan judicial intervention that appears to go beyond legal reasoning, with judges wielding significant power to delay or even thwart President Trump’s agenda and Executive Orders. This trend raises serious constitutional questions about the proper scope of judicial authority, the balance of power between the branches of government, and the real threat of a partisan judicial conspiracy to override the will of the American people.
The judicial usurpation of the unitary power of the President of the United States…
One of the most concerning examples is the ability of any individual with alleged standing to file for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the government, potentially halting or altering executive actions nationwide. While this process can be a tool of accountability, it has become a double-edged sword, allowing judges to shape policy outcomes based on their narrow, often partisan perspectives.
Senator Mike Lee recently expressed his concerns, pointing out that some judges are not simply interpreting the law but are actively working against legitimate presidential authority. According to Lee, these judges’ actions are more akin to political partisanship than the impartial adjudication expected from the judiciary. His criticism echoes frustrations from other corners of the political spectrum, where many feel the judicial branch has overstepped its bounds.
Lee referenced a striking incident where a judge ordered the CDC, FDA, and HHS to restore deleted webpages under a Trump executive order. As CBS News reported, this action demonstrates how judges can influence government operations, potentially undermining executive decisions that fall within the President’s purview.
Judge orders HHS, CDC and FDA to restore deleted webpages with health information
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration to restore webpages and data that had been scrubbed in compliance with President Trump's executive order on gender ideology while litigation moves forward.
U.S. District Judge John Bates agreed to grant a temporary restraining order sought by the group Doctors for America, which argued that its members used the websites when treating patients and conducting research. The nonprofit organization said that the removal of the webpages by the Department of Health and Human Services and its components violated federal law.
Bates found that the challengers were likely to succeed in their claims that the Department Health and Human Services, CDC and FDA acted unlawfully when they stripped medical information from public-facing websites.
"It bears emphasizing who ultimately bears the harm of defendants' actions: everyday Americans, and most acutely, underprivileged Americans, seeking healthcare," he wrote. Citing declarations from two doctors filed in the case, Bates said if they "cannot provide these individuals the care they need (and deserve) within the scheduled and often limited time frame, there is a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe, life-threatening conditions. The public thus has a strong interest in avoiding these serious injuries to the public health."
His order directs the agencies to restore earlier versions of their websites by 11:59 p.m. Tuesday. It comes after Bates held a hearing on the matter Monday.<Source>
A Court Primer…
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the U.S. District Courts. This landmark piece of legislation, signed into law by President George Washington on September 24, 1789, established the structure of the federal judiciary, including the creation of district courts as the trial-level courts of the federal system.
The Act divided the country into judicial districts, each with a district court, and set the number of courts and their jurisdiction. These courts were designed to handle federal cases involving federal law, diversity of citizenship cases, and certain admiralty and maritime matters.
U.S. District Judges have specific limitations on their judicial power, grounded in both the Constitution and legal precedents. While their role is crucial in interpreting and applying the law, several key boundaries govern their authority:
-
Scope of Jurisdiction: District judges have limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases within specific boundaries defined by federal law. They can’t make rulings on matters outside their jurisdiction, including cases that don’t involve federal regulations, the U.S. Constitution, or citizens from different states when diverse jurisdiction is invoked.
-
Judicial Review: District judges can review executive and legislative actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution and federal law. However, their power to block or delay presidential orders is not unlimited. They must base decisions on legal principles, not personal or partisan preferences.
-
Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) and Injunctions: A judge can issue a TRO to halt an action temporarily, but only if a plaintiff demonstrates immediate harm or risk of harm. These orders are meant to preserve the status quo until further hearings occur. They are temporary and must not unduly disrupt government functions or overstep the judicial role. TROs should apply to the individual or individuals seeking relief and not the entire nation at large.
-
Separation of Powers: The U.S. Constitution establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government, and this principle also binds district judges. While they can check executive overreach, they must respect the executive branch’s authority to carry out its constitutional duties. Judges are not to make or enforce policy and must avoid overstepping into areas reserved for the executive or legislative branches.
- Precedent and Legal Principles: Judicial power is constrained by legal precedents set by higher courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. District judges must follow these precedents and cannot create new interpretations of the law that go against established rulings.
-
Appeal Process: A U.S. District Judge's decision is subject to appeal. If a party disagrees with a ruling, they can take the case to a higher court, typically a U.S. Court of Appeals. This ensures that no single judge has unchecked power over the law.
In sum, U.S. District Judges are bound by constitutional limits, their jurisdiction, and the principle of judicial restraint, which ensures they don’t exceed their role as interpreters of the law but remain within the boundaries of their judicial authority. Their power to block or delay presidential orders and other executive actions is carefully regulated, mainly to prevent judicial overreach that could disrupt the functioning of the government.
Bottom line…
While judicial checks on executive power are an essential part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, the ability of district judges to unilaterally impede or delay policy enforcement has raised alarms since many of these moves are politically motivated and constitute the use of “lawfare” (legal warfare) on behalf of progressive communist democrats.
It’s clear that district judges’ role in shaping policy is expanding, and their influence is greater than ever before. This seriously erodes the democratic process and the essential safeguards against judicial overreach.
I cannot find any authority in the U.S. Constitution that gives a federal judge the power to issue a national injunction that affects the prerogatives of the Executive Branch.
We are so screwed.
-- Steve
Many a truth is spoken in jest...
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS