It was no coincidence that the Dems decided to remove filibustering judges in order to pack the DC Circuit Court. They saw it as key to keeping their boot on the nation via the regulatory state, and they would have been right if Ginsburg hadn't croaked a bit too soon.
I'm starting to think that TROs inherently unconstitutional. We've learned lately (if we didn't already know) that TROs can be issued against a party without that party being represented in the hearing, or without that party even being aware that a hearing is taking place. We've all seen how TROs are widely abused in divorce cases. And now the meaning of the word "restraining" seems to have been lost; not only can a TRO bar someone from doing something, it can also apparently *command* someone to do whatever the judge wants them to do. Where is the due process in any of this? Yes, I know that TROs are temporary, but often the cost of a lost opportunity due to having to comply with a TRO, while waiting for a chance to appeal an injunction, causes permanent harm to the enjoined party.
It is absolutely vital that the USSC rule that an individual district judge CANNOT issue a national injunction staying executive policy implementation. They can do so for one specific case in their own district but now we have unelected life time appointees to lower courts issuing rulings that affect the entire country. No.
Some great ideas on how to bring rogue judges under control, but anything that relies on congressional action is going to take way too long. Right now I think the only answer is for SCOTUS to make a definitive ruling on the power of district judges. I also think Trump is taking the right tack here. What I think most are missing is that democrats are hoping for Trump to take the bait and give them something they can use as grounds for (another) impeachment if they take back the house in 2026. So far he has been smart enough not to give it to them, which has them foaming at the mouth even more than usual.
Perfessor - I agree with your musings as to what Congress *could* do, but, looking at the last 30-60 years of congressional "action", the likelihood of them acting is practically nil.
Thus, I think Trump's only option until SCOTUS steps in to resolve this, is simply to ignore these judicial over-reaches as uncomstitutional. I mean, how many divisions do these courts have?
Lots of great ideas here. Clearly the second Trump term is going to be a revolutionary and transformative four years. Trump and his team have a sense of mission and vision, and a willingness to transcend the limits and boundaries arbitrarily set by the Left. In the drive to Make America Great Again, everything is on the table, within the boundaries of the Constitution. I’m getting more optimistic by the day.
I’ve been concerned about the recent actions of the courts. I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I don’t know all of the legal issues, but I can see the damage being inflicted. The courts know that Trump faces a 2026 deadline, and their actions are obvious polical meddling.
Any effective legislation will need 60 votes (filibuster), save for defunding some courts using reconciliation. So I don't see any of those other ideas working. Do I have this wrong?
There is also the method to investigate and try judges for criminal actions. It seems apparent that at least some judges may be drinking deeply at the corruption trough, given their family and friends participation in the agencies and NGOs that they are making rulings. Boasberg seems especially vulnerable in this regard, given his wife's, sisters' and daughter's role in some NGOs and other organizations that have been affected by some of the administrations actions.
Several points: (1) The courts can discipline judges themselves, with reprimands, suspensions, etc.; that they don't do it is indicative of a lack of will or animus towards certain parties or individuals and demonstrate political bias; (2) Roberts is so worried about protecting the courts' dignity and his own legacy that he is unable to see he is destroying both, along with the Constitutional order; (3) the lack of court self-discipline shows that the courts are willing to expand and increase their judicial power relative to and at the expense of the other two branches, again, at expense to the US; and (4) as with Musk and DOGE forcing reform on the bureaucracy, an external change agent is required for court reform, as the courts are unwilling or unable to do it themselves. At this point, and with the established order, the judicial branch will have to be disassembled and rebuilt, with greater oversight and control for the inferior courts by the legislative and executive branches.
Requiring 3 judges for any TRO seems the best single step, and all who wish to avoid impeachment should be supporting that step. To Do Something, soon, Now.
All the other steps should also be done, like one every month.
Impeachment might fail, and make the judge stronger, but requires Senators to publicly vote on the merits of the case. Senators would try to spin away from supporting illegal aliens who are criminal gang members, but that’s the clear effect of their vote against impeachment. The huge PR circus has pluses and minuses, including taking up Senate time which can’t be used to confirm more judges, for instance, or any other Senate reform business.
Better to get 80% success in 1000 reforms than 95% success in 100, or 100% in 10 reforms. If impeachment, wait 6-12 months. Plan for one 4 months before 2026 Nov elections.
I would approve of televising proceedings as fitting the Trump drive to increase government accountability to the citizenry.
The Trump administration should emphasize transparency across the government. Require A/V recording of FBI interviews. Put teeth in the FOI act (penalties for refusals and redactions that don't meet criteria). Require all government agencies to maintain an updated log of activities similar to the DOGE reports.
One big vote for eliminating the DC District Courts.
Wouldn't mind if they did away with home rule as well.
The Capitol City is currently an embarrassment to the country!
I agree. It seems to have the worst of the worst judge wise recently.
It was no coincidence that the Dems decided to remove filibustering judges in order to pack the DC Circuit Court. They saw it as key to keeping their boot on the nation via the regulatory state, and they would have been right if Ginsburg hadn't croaked a bit too soon.
I'm starting to think that TROs inherently unconstitutional. We've learned lately (if we didn't already know) that TROs can be issued against a party without that party being represented in the hearing, or without that party even being aware that a hearing is taking place. We've all seen how TROs are widely abused in divorce cases. And now the meaning of the word "restraining" seems to have been lost; not only can a TRO bar someone from doing something, it can also apparently *command* someone to do whatever the judge wants them to do. Where is the due process in any of this? Yes, I know that TROs are temporary, but often the cost of a lost opportunity due to having to comply with a TRO, while waiting for a chance to appeal an injunction, causes permanent harm to the enjoined party.
It is absolutely vital that the USSC rule that an individual district judge CANNOT issue a national injunction staying executive policy implementation. They can do so for one specific case in their own district but now we have unelected life time appointees to lower courts issuing rulings that affect the entire country. No.
Some great ideas on how to bring rogue judges under control, but anything that relies on congressional action is going to take way too long. Right now I think the only answer is for SCOTUS to make a definitive ruling on the power of district judges. I also think Trump is taking the right tack here. What I think most are missing is that democrats are hoping for Trump to take the bait and give them something they can use as grounds for (another) impeachment if they take back the house in 2026. So far he has been smart enough not to give it to them, which has them foaming at the mouth even more than usual.
A judge is simply a lawyer and a politician combined.
What about lawyers who are also politicians, but not judges, what are they?
"What about lawyers who are also politicians, but not judges, what are they?"
A mistake?
Well, true I guess my point (if there is one) is a bit semantic.
No offense Glen, seriously.
Perfessor - I agree with your musings as to what Congress *could* do, but, looking at the last 30-60 years of congressional "action", the likelihood of them acting is practically nil.
Thus, I think Trump's only option until SCOTUS steps in to resolve this, is simply to ignore these judicial over-reaches as uncomstitutional. I mean, how many divisions do these courts have?
Lots of great ideas here. Clearly the second Trump term is going to be a revolutionary and transformative four years. Trump and his team have a sense of mission and vision, and a willingness to transcend the limits and boundaries arbitrarily set by the Left. In the drive to Make America Great Again, everything is on the table, within the boundaries of the Constitution. I’m getting more optimistic by the day.
I’ve been concerned about the recent actions of the courts. I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I don’t know all of the legal issues, but I can see the damage being inflicted. The courts know that Trump faces a 2026 deadline, and their actions are obvious polical meddling.
The key is whether certain Supremes are listening to this sort of critique. /:
Short answer: NO. Longer answer: Roberts just doesn't care what the plebs think.
I suppose sending some of these judges to Gitmo is out of the question...?
Any effective legislation will need 60 votes (filibuster), save for defunding some courts using reconciliation. So I don't see any of those other ideas working. Do I have this wrong?
There is also the method to investigate and try judges for criminal actions. It seems apparent that at least some judges may be drinking deeply at the corruption trough, given their family and friends participation in the agencies and NGOs that they are making rulings. Boasberg seems especially vulnerable in this regard, given his wife's, sisters' and daughter's role in some NGOs and other organizations that have been affected by some of the administrations actions.
Several points: (1) The courts can discipline judges themselves, with reprimands, suspensions, etc.; that they don't do it is indicative of a lack of will or animus towards certain parties or individuals and demonstrate political bias; (2) Roberts is so worried about protecting the courts' dignity and his own legacy that he is unable to see he is destroying both, along with the Constitutional order; (3) the lack of court self-discipline shows that the courts are willing to expand and increase their judicial power relative to and at the expense of the other two branches, again, at expense to the US; and (4) as with Musk and DOGE forcing reform on the bureaucracy, an external change agent is required for court reform, as the courts are unwilling or unable to do it themselves. At this point, and with the established order, the judicial branch will have to be disassembled and rebuilt, with greater oversight and control for the inferior courts by the legislative and executive branches.
Requiring 3 judges for any TRO seems the best single step, and all who wish to avoid impeachment should be supporting that step. To Do Something, soon, Now.
All the other steps should also be done, like one every month.
Impeachment might fail, and make the judge stronger, but requires Senators to publicly vote on the merits of the case. Senators would try to spin away from supporting illegal aliens who are criminal gang members, but that’s the clear effect of their vote against impeachment. The huge PR circus has pluses and minuses, including taking up Senate time which can’t be used to confirm more judges, for instance, or any other Senate reform business.
Better to get 80% success in 1000 reforms than 95% success in 100, or 100% in 10 reforms. If impeachment, wait 6-12 months. Plan for one 4 months before 2026 Nov elections.
Good thoughts. Thank you.
I would approve of televising proceedings as fitting the Trump drive to increase government accountability to the citizenry.
The Trump administration should emphasize transparency across the government. Require A/V recording of FBI interviews. Put teeth in the FOI act (penalties for refusals and redactions that don't meet criteria). Require all government agencies to maintain an updated log of activities similar to the DOGE reports.