From halting deportation flights of violent Venezuelan gang members to blocking key energy policies and even interfering with education reform initiatives, unelected judges are substituting their personal political preferences for the will of We the American voters.
This from thepatriotjournal.com.
When liberals are unable to win elections, they engage in judicial obstruction. Just look at the spectacle of Judge James Boasberg blocking Trump’s border enforcement initiatives, or activist judges across the country issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions against the administration’s energy policies. These “resistance judges” are not interpreting the law—they are legislating from the bench.
But now, Senate and House Republicans are fighting back with a coordinated strategy to rein in judicial overreach and restore constitutional balance to our government. Finally, yes?
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced a hearing set for April 2 that will examine federal judges’ abuse of nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration.
From Fox News:
‘District judges’ abuse of nationwide injunctions has hobbled the executive branch and raised serious questions regarding the lower courts’ appropriate jurisdictional realm,’ he explained. ‘Since the courts and the executive branch are on an unsustainable collision course, Congress must step in and provide clarity.’
The Senate hearing will take place just one day after the House Judiciary Committee holds its own hearing on the same issue. This coordinated approach shows Republicans are serious about addressing what they see as a constitutional crisis that directly affects the ability to pass the policies for which We the People voted.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) told reporters he had personally briefed President Trump about the hearings and legislative plans to address judicial overreach. Jordan said:
The country instinctively knows there’s been this aggressive push against the president for policies he campaigned on that he was elected to implement. That’s a problem.
Multiple Republican lawmakers have already introduced bills in both chambers designed to restrict the ability of individual district judges to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions. One such proposal from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has reportedly caught President Trump’s attention. According to sources familiar with discussions between the White House and Capitol Hill, “the president wants this” legislation and believes time is of the essence.
The House plans to vote on Issa’s bill as early as next week. This legislative approach represents a more measured response than calls for judicial impeachment that have emerged from some corners of the Republican Party. While Trump himself has expressed frustration with judges like Boasberg, whom he labeled a “radical left lunatic of a judge,” Republican congressional leaders appear to prefer structural reforms that would limit judicial overreach rather than targeting individual judges.
Grassley’s committee has invited expert witnesses, including Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor who specializes in nationwide injunctions, and Jesse Panuccio, a former acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice. These witnesses will likely discuss how a single district judge in one jurisdiction can effectively dictate national policy through sweeping injunctions.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) declared in a floor speech:
When partisan, unelected district court judges try to micromanage the president of the United States, it isn’t judicial review. It isn’t checks and balances. It is purely partisan politics—and it is wrong.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has taken an even stronger position, questioning why Republicans weren’t better prepared for this judicial obstruction.
DeSantis argued on social media:
Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place.
Further:
The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by ‘resistance’ judges was predictable—why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee’d up at the onset of this Congress?
While congressional Republicans might not go as far as DeSantis suggests, clearly they view judicial activism as a serious threat to Trump’s ability to implement the agenda American voters supported in the election. By targeting the practice of nationwide injunctions rather than individual judges, Republicans hope to create lasting structural reforms that would benefit any president facing similar judicial obstruction.
Final thoughts, two questions: Were the Republicans performing any obstruction during the eight years of Obama and the four years of Obama-Biden? And if not, rhetorically, why not?
