Staff Reports
The situation surrounding the judiciary’s treatment of President Trump has reached a new level of absurdity that could make even the most seasoned political satirist raise an eyebrow. Recent statistics reveal a staggering trend: out of a grand total of just 127 nationwide injunctions issued by federal courts over the last sixty years, a jaw-dropping 64 of those were aimed squarely at Trump during his first term. In a plot twist that surely surprises no one, within the first two months of his second term, judges–likely handpicked from a radical left-wing judging pool–have already managed to slap 37 more injunctions on the President. It’s hard not to see this as a well-orchestrated effort to incapacitate the engine of Trump’s presidency.
What’s even more eye-opening is the blatant partisanship behind this judicial assault. Research shows that a staggering 92.2% of injunctions against Trump came from judges appointed by Democrats. Out of the entire roster, only a mere handful of five Republican-appointed judges participated in this judicial “lollapalooza.” It’s as if a consortium of Democrat judges is throwing a giant tantrum, desperately seeking out “friendly” judges who will happily issue rulings that reflect their own biases rather than uphold the law. Talk about a dysfunctional legal system.
Senator Ted Cruz recently shed light on this disturbing trend. It seems that these judges aren’t just taking their gavel-wielding duties lightly; they’re actively searching for judges who share their vendetta against the President. This “forum shopping” is turning the courts into a sporting event, where the prize is the ability to stymie the executive branch’s actions with an injunction. What’s next, a reality TV show where judges outbid each other for the opportunity to take down the President?
Notably, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, has been in the news for trying to obstruct Trump’s attempts to rid the country of dangerous Venezuelan gang members. This case exemplifies the modern-day judicial reality where left-wing judges fabricate legal obstacles to block the President’s every move, all while sipping lattes and pretending their actions are in the service of justice.
The looming question then becomes: what, if anything, can be done? Impeachment proceedings against judges with questionable rulings may sound enticing, but Cruz highlights the harsh truth that such actions are unlikely to succeed in today’s politically charged atmosphere. With a snowball’s chance in hell of mustering the necessary votes in the Senate, it seems like a long shot.
Fortunately, some glimmers of hope exist for reigning in this rampant judicial activism. Congress holds the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, and a radical idea has emerged: abolishing district courts altogether, since only the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated. Cruz proposed a much more pragmatic solution: reinstating a three-judge panel system for constitutional challenges. This could significantly diminish the outrageous misuse of power currently rampant in the judicial domain.
Moreover, the appeals process offers another ray of hope. Cruz pointed out that the Supreme Court has the chance to address the rampant issue of nationwide injunctions. The Trump administration has signaled its intent to have the Court review these injunctions, specifically calling for them to be limited to the litigants involved rather than applying blanket restrictions nationwide. If the Court agrees to take on this issue, it could herald a shift in the legal landscape that would bring some sanity back to a judiciary drowning in partisanship.
