The judges who would be kings
President Donald Trump is in a public wrestling match with Chief Justice John Roberts and some of the federal judiciary.
Along with congressional lawmakers, Mr. Trump has called for impeaching several U.S. district judges who have issued orders blocking his administration from carrying out key policies.
Mr. Roberts says this imperils the independence of the judiciary, without which abuses of power could become routine.
Mr. Trump says that this is nonsense, that these judges have gone well beyond their authority to hear cases and are trying to dictate national policy.
Mr. Roberts says the proper way to address these claims is in the appellate courts.
That’s fine, except that it could take years unless the Supreme Court issues a sweeping opinion stifling the madness. They have already booted at least one opportunity to do just that.
In Mr. Trump’s first 60 days, Democrats have filed more than 125 lawsuits challenging his policies, many of which involve downsizing government under the aegis of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Two of Mr. Trump’s most popular executive orders – banning transgenders from military service and denying federal funds to hospitals that subject minors to chemical or surgical sexual mutilation – were put on hold by federal judges.
Likewise, federal judges temporarily have blocked Mr. Trump’s orders ending birthright citizenship and firing federal employees who run diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
One judge ordered payment of much of the $2 billion in grants that Mr. Trump froze on Jan. 20 from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Another judge put a hold on Mr. Trump’s suspension of certain refugee programs that are part of his strikingly successful border security effort.
Democrats charge that anything Mr. Trump does constitutes a “constitutional crisis.” But the real crisis is allowing any of more than 677 unelected district judges around the country canceling the policies of a nationally elected president.
The judicial system’s reputation was badly damaged by the Biden administration’s lawfare against political opponents aided by willing judges.
Much of it was aimed at jailing Mr. Trump and preventing his return to the White House. Mr. Trump promised that upon being elected he would pursue justice, not retribution, and return the justice system to defending constitutional norms.
However, what’s happening now in the federal courts is anything but normal. Democrats are hoping that hundreds of legal bee stings will bring down the elephant.
\
For now, the public seems to be strongly siding with Mr. Trump. They like his expelling 250 members of Venezuela’s deadly Tren de Aragua gang in the face of a federal judge’s order to turn the planes around and bring them back to U.S. soil.
They think his new Treasury secretary, as well as other directors, should have access to their agencies’ data. In fact, they like the way DOGE is taking a scythe to federal departments that have misspent trillions of dollars while running up a $36 trillion national debt.
Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Lee Zeldin, with help from DOGE, has uncovered enormous evidence that the green lobby may be the most lucrative criminal enterprise in history. He canceled $20 billion in green project grants, triggering outcries and lawsuits.
The Biden administration’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was created by the Inflation Reduction Act, has functioned as an enormous cash cow for Democratic Party affiliated groups.
For example, the fund’s director, Jahi Wise, orchestrated a $5 billion grant to his former employer, Coalition for Green Capital, according to the Wall Street Journal.
A group called Power Forward Communities got $2 billion, some of which went to a nonprofit managed by Arabella Advisors, which the Wall Street Journal describes as a “liberal dark money group.”
This is clearly more about bankrolling the left with tax dollars than saving the planet, and it’s why liberal groups have run to the courts to keep the green pork flowing.
Federal judges are not just presiding as kings over national policy.
In Indiana, U.S. District Judge Richard Young, a Clinton appointee, has ordered the state to pay for sex change surgery for a man who was convicted of murder for strangling his 11-month-old stepdaughter.
Naturally, the ACLU is representing the inmate, saying that Indiana’s refusal to castrate him and give him falsies violates the Eighth Amendment.
The state’s taxpayers have already provided the killer with “panties, makeup, and form-fitting clothing” while in prison, Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky wrote in a recent column at the Daily Wire.
He added, “If this wasn’t a real order from a real federal judge, you’d think it was something written for The Babylon Bee or Mad magazine.”
In 2014, Mr. Young wrote the opinion striking down Indiana’s constitutional provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He wrote of same-sex pairs, “These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street.”
That’s like saying, “Except for the dress and high heels, this guy is just like Dad!”
From a purely political perspective, out-of-control federal judges are making the GOP’s case that Democrats have gone off the rails and should never be trusted again with power.
Except for the damage they’re doing to our country, it might be tempting to give them a long leash.
This column was first published at the Washington Times.