Note: The opening paragraphs have been edited after everyone misunderstood my meaning. It’s my fault. I hope the changes clear things up.
There are likely more than two sides to this particular debate, but we’ll stick to these few to keep things in focus. One side (held by the progs, dems, libs, and marxists) is that President Trump is out of hand with all the executive orders, and thank god for district court judges (god is almost always a small g with these folks – the Big G is for Government). Without those Temporary restraining orders (TROs), their world will end.
By “their,” we mean the blue ideological bubble that is only slightly thicker than the bone over the Cro-Magnon supraorbital ridges keeping their 60 cc brain from falling out onto the Tesla they just keyed. A problem encapsulated in this tweak of an old Peanuts cartoon we shared a few weeks back.
Mr. Trump was elected to drain the swamp, and he’s trying, and despite the absolute certainty of his mandate (something they call Democracy when they win), they can’t take it. Happily for the rest of us – so far – these exhortations have been overshadowed by the antics.
The other side thinks the TROs are petty, unconstitutional, and judicial activism. The product of shopping for proglodyte judges who hate Trump enough to become nationally known household names.
In between, there are a few folks who selectively prefer some of the judgy judging but not all of it, including those of us who like local judges telling the Chief Executive and the Federal Government what he can and can’t do when they favor the outcome.
But Steve, you say you said two things, this sounds like three. Steve: Yes, it sort of, kind of does.
Into this we insert Elliott Axelman’s separated-at-birth brother, Stephen Miller.
I have difficulty not seeing this as anything other than blatant truth, even if I would like the outcome. As an example, when a judge in New Hampshire heard the pleas of the parents of the lawyers of the parents of two boys who identified as girls, they, and they alone, were allowed to continue to play on the girl’s team until the matter was resolved in court.
Not the whole state (it was a state law). This sensibility has spawned a growing fan club on the political right. There are memes, posts, and entire Substacks devoted to the problem of local judges exercising control outside their districts. Given the success the left has had, I’m curious why they haven’t asked one to stop China from building dirty coal plants ‘cuz they think it’ll save the planet.
They lack the authority. China would tell them to f off (or its Chinese equivalent). Every district outside that court should say the same thing as should the Commander in Chief, but he’s been little more than wordy about the perceived injustice and unconstitutionality.
And that’s the game, isn’t it?
Trump and his advisors feel certain they can get a favorable ruling out of the US Supreme court, ending the practice of nationwide injunctions by district judges. Ruling would presumably be limited to that court’s area of effect.
I like the idea. I like the plan. I feel confident I could support this, but is that how the ruling lands?
What if it doesn’t?
How do you feel about Trump ignoring court orders if he doesn’t get the outcome he wants? Or, how will a win for Trump at SCOTUS benefit the left when some local judge stomps on something of theirs and it only affects the relevant district or Circuit Court area?
