When we think of political corruption, we think about corrupt politicians pandering to special interests. It is time to think about corrupt judges pandering to a partisan political agenda.

The Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said the quiet part out loud…

Federal Judges -- unaccountable to voters become the de facto policymakers.

In recent years, the power of federal judges in the United States has grown significantly. These appointed officials wield the authority to shape policy, interpret laws, and even challenge elected representatives’ decisions. However, this concentrated power has led to rogue, out-of-control activist judges who overstep their judicial boundaries, making decisions that align more with personal ideology than constitutional interpretation.

The One-Man Rule: Federal Judges and Their Dominance.

The “one-man rule” refers to the power of a single federal judge to make far-reaching decisions that can override laws passed by Congress or executive actions taken by the President. This has been observed in various contentious issues, from immigration policies to environmental regulations, where individual judges, often with lifetime appointments, can halt or alter policies for entire regions or the nation.

A case in point is the proliferation of district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions that block or alter federal policies. These decisions, while legally binding in the context of the particular case, can set a dangerous precedent when a single judge disrupts a national policy, leaving the issue to be determined by appeals courts or, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Remedies for Judicial Overreach.

Several practical remedies must be put in place to counterbalance the rise of rogue judges and restore a fair balance of power. Here are some key strategies:

1. Limiting Injunctions by Federal Judges

One of the most controversial practices in recent years is federal judges’ frequent use of nationwide injunctions. These injunctions are often issued at the district court level, with the potential to halt or modify sweeping national policies. A reform to limit the scope of these injunctions could be a significant step toward curbing the overreach of individual judges.

Proposals to restrict nationwide injunctions and ensure that their application is only for the direct parties involved—rather than applying broadly across the nation—could help prevent judicial rulings from becoming de facto law. This reform would prevent a single judge from derailing policies carefully debated and approved by elected representatives.

2. Term Limits for Judges

Another controversial suggestion is the introduction of term limits for federal judges. Judges, especially those in the federal system, are appointed for life, leading to an entrenched judiciary that may become more ideologically driven over time. Term limits would reduce the concentration of power in the hands of unelected officials and allow for a more regular turnover of judicial power. A potential solution could involve imposing a fixed tenure, such as 18 years for Supreme Court justices, ensuring a balanced opportunity for Presidents to appoint judges.

3. Greater Judicial Accountability

While judges are meant to interpret laws impartially, accountability mechanisms could be strengthened to address concerns about over-litigating partisan regulations. Introducing mechanisms for greater transparency in decision-making could ensure that judges remain committed to interpreting the law rather than making policy through judicial activism.

One such safeguard might involve more robust ethical oversight, including a review process for judicial decisions with significant political implications. Judges who consistently exhibit overreach or partisan tendencies could be subject to an independent review board to assess their actions and consider possible remedies for judicial misconduct.

4. Congressional Oversight

While the judiciary is intended to remain independent, it is still an arm of government that must serve the interests of the public and the Constitution. Congress could pass laws to limit judicial overreach, set more explicit boundaries on federal judicial authority, and prevent the judicial system from being used for partisan litigation. Congress already has the power to impeach judges, which is rarely used.

Stronger oversight could include congressional hearings to review the judicial impact on laws and policies, especially when cases involve contentious issues like abortion, climate change, or executive authority. Additionally, more oversight of judicial nominations, including more explicit standards on judicial philosophy, could reduce partisan influence in the appointment process.

5. Streamlining and Limiting Legal Challenges

The growing influence of activist legal organizations has contributed to the rise of over-litigating partisan issues. Judges have become the final arbiter of issues that might have been better settled through democratic processes or legislative compromise. Introducing reforms to limit the number of times cases can be brought forward on the same issue (reducing forum shopping) or requiring stronger standing requirements for plaintiffs could mitigate unnecessary or partisan-driven lawsuits.

Primer on Impeaching a Federal Judge

Since Congress created the federal court system, Congress has the power to reform the rules, which creates an artificial imbalance of power in our legal system.

The framework for the federal judiciary, established by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, provides the structure and authority for the judicial branch of the U.S. government, outlining the powers and duties of the federal courts.

More specifically, Section 1 establishes the judicial branch and vests the “judicial power” of the United States in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. While the Constitution established the structure of the federal judiciary, the Judiciary Act of 1789 implemented the specifics and set up the federal court system in practice.

The Act’s provisions also created 13 district courts (one for each state at the time) and 3 circuit courts, which were designed to handle cases in smaller regions before they were appealed to the Supreme Court, along with defining the jurisdiction of the courts, the process for selecting federal judges, and other aspects such as the structure of the court system.

As of 2024, the United States has 94 federal district courts. These courts serve as the general trial courts of the federal system.

The issue is that a district judge may issue a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) or injunction to block a federal regulation, executive order, or practice that affects people across the country, especially when the issue involves constitutional rights or federal policy. The matter stands until it is nullified by the issuing judge or reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the most serious cases are handled by the manifestly corrupt D.C. Circuit, which handles cases related to federal administrative agencies, among other matters.

Bottom line….

I am positive that when our Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution and created co-equal branches of government, they did not anticipate Congress creating an all-powerful federal judiciary that could defeat the will of the people, albeit temporarily, based on one man’s rulings have seen the politicians, especially the progressive communist democrats, weaponize our justice system and the effects of lawfare. 

The balance between the branches of government is critical for a thriving democracy. The current concentration of power in the hands of federal judges can skew this balance, threatening to undermine the principles of democratic representation. By enacting reforms to limit the power of rogue judges, introduce term limits, strengthen accountability, and streamline litigation, the United States can ensure that the judicial branch serves its constitutional role without becoming an unchecked force for partisan activism.

Ultimately, the antidotes to rogue judges and over-litigating partisan rules lie in restoring a system where elected officials and voters maintain greater control over the political process. Only then can we achieve a system of governance that genuinely reflects the will of the people.

As of now, we are so screwed as the Judiciary usurps the role of Congress, much like a lazy and corrupt Congress has ceded lawmaking to federal agencies in the Executive Branch.

-- Steve