The steady assault on President Donald Trump’s authority by leftwing district court judges, reminds me of President Thomas Jefferson’s strong opposition to judicial supremacy.
Jefferson wrote that making judges the ultimate deciders of law would “place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jefferson’s fears are now coming to fruition.
President Trump has campaigned for 10 years – and was re-elected – to replace a corrupt national establishment, root out corruption, and return power to the American people.
Now, left-wing trial judges are working to protect the corrupt establishment from the President’s authority. From the bench, they are imposing their own prejudices and partisan ideas in clear violation of the Constitution and the rule of law.
When I assert that the current government is corrupt, I am simply reporting what the American people believe. In a recent America’s New Majority poll, there were a startling number of condemnations of the current system.
84 percent agreed we have a corrupt political system.
81 percent said this corruption is a major obstacle to getting America on the right track.
68 percent said the bureaucracy is a major or significant part of that corruption.
57 percent said the bureaucracy needs a major overhaul (35 percent who said it needs a few targeted fixes).
58 percent agree it is better to move quickly and correct mistakes along the way than to move too slowly to make a difference (32 percent disagree).
The leftwing district court judges are rapidly making themselves part of the corruption. When relatively low-level appointed judges assert that they have more power than the President of the United States – who was elected by the people – there is something wrong.
There are currently more than 126 lawsuits trying to block President Trump from exercising his constitutional role as chief executive.
In what may be the most bizarre example of judicial arrogance, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg quickly ordered the Trump administration to stop removing illegal immigrant members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang after President Trump invoked a 1798 law. The judge even ordered planes already in flight to be turned around to bring the gang members back to America. This led Attorney General Pam Bondi to call Judge Boasberg “a DC trial judge [who] supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans.”
Judge Boasberg is the most recent example of judicial absurdity, but he certainly isn’t alone. In the last month, 15 judgements have been issued by district court judges who decided they knew better than the elected President of the United States how to run the executive branch.
This continuing increase in judicial arrogance and dictatorial behavior by district court judges is nothing new.
In 2018, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned that this trend is dangerous. He wrote:
“I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their Legality.”
The Founding Fathers never thought the judiciary branch could wield this kind of power. In fact, they thought the House of Representatives, because it directly represented the will of the people, would have the greatest power.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay made it clear that the judicial branch is the weakest – not the strongest – of the three branches.
The Federalists tried to strengthen their grip on the judicial system after losing the election of 1800. They created a wave of new judges which were pejoratively called “midnight judges.” The move was hated by the Jeffersonians. Anyone who is curious about how an angered Congress and President can remind the judiciary of its limits should read the Judiciary Act of 1802. The Jeffersonians repudiated the Federalist efforts to stack the judgeships.
In this tradition, the House and Senate should launch two parallel sets of hearings.
First, they should bring in historians and legal experts to walk the Congress and the country through the views of the founding fathers – and how they would have dealt with runaway judges.
Second, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees should bring in the most overreaching district judges and demand that they explain their reasoning.
Minor federal judges cannot be allowed to override the President and the Congress. We have a Supreme Court for a reason.
Lower court judges must operate within the framework of the Constitution. They are not superior to the two elected branches.
There are a variety of remedies available to correct this problem. Congress should explore them all.
For more commentary from Newt Gingrich, visit Gingrich360.com. Also, subscribe to the Newt’s World podcast.