FEDERAL JUDGES: JUDICIAL ACTIVIST OVERREACH OR NECESSARY SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER?
Once again, a lower federal court appears to overstep its constitutional bounds and usurp powers that should belong to the executive branch.
|
Judge blocks funding freeze for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty A U.S. district judge blocked Kari Lake and the Trump administration from terminating Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s federal funding on Tuesday, granting the news organization a temporary win in its fight against the administration’s efforts to close its doors. In a court filing, Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted RFE/RL’s request for a temporary restraining order against Lake, who oversees the U.S. Agency for Global Media, asserting that terminating the organization’s federal grant would violate the congressionally mandated flow of funding to the news outlet. [OCS: Royce Lamberth, a senior judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, is known to be a hyper-partisan judicial activist preoccupied with limiting presidential powers and challenging government actions related to national security. Lamberth has been known to issue injunctions and restraining orders that have blocked or limited specific executive branch actions with controversial rulings that interfere with presidential powers or legislative mandates, particularly regarding executive orders, executive branch decisions, or actions taken by law enforcement agencies. Lamberth’s rulings consistently align with what appears to be his particular progressive political viewpoint. He seems to use his judicial position to influence policy in a way that goes beyond neutral legal interpretation. As a senior judge on the FISA court, he was tasked with overseeing the false FISA warrant applications that were part of the Russia Collusion Hoax, where he exerted no effort to hold the parties accountable for perpetrating a fraud on the court.] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is funded by Congress with the mission to promote the free flow of news and democracy globally. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were initially created to deliver news across the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. [OCS: These were Cold War propaganda outlets to create distrust and dissent in their respective broadcast areas and now pump out what can be construed as leftist propaganda damaging to the United States. These are aging entities with little or no relevance in the Internet Age, when most individuals turn to streaming platforms for news and commentary.] According to Lamberth, the news organization “has, for decades, operated as one of the organizations that Congress has statutorily designated to carry out this policy,” and “the leadership of USAGM cannot, with one sentence of reasoning offering virtually no explanation, force RFE/RL to shut down — even if the President has told them to do so.” <Source> |
Judicial review—the power of courts to assess the constitutionality of laws and executive actions—is a principle established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which solidified the judiciary’s role in reviewing the constitutionality of executive and legislative actions.
The vast gulf between judicial restraint and judicial activism.
The courts should exercise restraint and avoid stepping into areas that are best handled by the executive or legislative branches, mainly when a judge issues an injunction or restraining order that may block an executive action that applies to multi-jurisdictional matters or provides relief to entities beyond those appearing before the court.
When judges take it upon themselves to make decisions that go beyond the proper interpretation of the law and issue judicial rulings that challenge or block the actions of elected officials, especially the President, it is little more than an undemocratic power grab.
While the judiciary’s role in checking the actions of the other branches of government is essential to protecting individual rights and ensuring that actions align with the Constitution, it is not a substitute for the powers vested in the President of the United States.
Bottom line…
The judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution is part of the system of checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. The tension between the branches is inherent in the design of the U.S. government. The judiciary’s role in interpreting the law and checking the powers of the executive is a fundamental part of the system of checks and balances.
However, the unchecked multi-district jurisdiction and the time for cases to reach the appellate and Supreme Courts often render the issue moot, as the damage to the Country has already been done.
In the present instance, it's not about the law; it's about stopping Donald Trump from destroying the funding for leftist institutions.
We are so screwed.
-- Steve
“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