A new NY Post article illustrates the absurd arguments the right must make to try and create an imperial presidency...

::::::::

Enough's enough, Supremes -- slap down judges' delusions of grandeur

It is a dangerous game the folks on the right are playing today with the very fabric of what has kept and actually made this country great. The gamble they are making is that they can eviscerate the Constitution and simply revive it years later when they no longer have the reigns of power. Their gamble is that the Democrats will never play by the rules they play by. Maybe they are right about that in the long run but it is still a dangerous game to play. Every single day we see things that are blatantly unconstitutional and horrific from the tradition of who we were as a country for hundreds of years. Countries that have long been our friends are now issuing travel warnings to their citizens. Not in case they visit war torn countries or evil authoritarian regimes that might snatch them up - but the United States of America. Republicans do not bat an eyelash. They are so feckless because of the fear of a primary that they are willing to go along with anything King Trump wants. Pretend Ukraine invaded Russia? Sure, no problem. Pretend it is normal for someone with billions of dollars in government contracts is deciding what agencies to destroy, absolutely cool. The latest absurdity that cuts directly at the heart of this nation is the compliance with eradicating the judiciary, which is the last bulwark against an imperial presidency now that Congress has abdicated their role. The above linked article perfectly displays the depths they are will to sink to protect their king. Make no mistake about it, Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York. She is not an idiot. She knows full well that what she writes here is absurd. She just cares more about personal power than about this country. As does the New York Post. So, let's review this article to sift through the disinformation and whataboutisms that makes up the current Republican Party.

"Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge -- one of nearly 700 -- in a courthouse anywhere in the nation? The answer is obvious, and pure common sense. The president is elected by millions, empowered by the US Constitution to ensure "the laws be faithfully executed," conduct foreign policy and command the nation's armed forces. Most district court judges get there because they know somebody who knows somebody in the president's party." - NY Post

The fundamental underpinning of our entire republic is the separation of powers. It is literally, along with the rule of law, what has made this country great and thus did not need to be made great again. So, the answer to this question, which McCaughey knows full well, is neither is supposed to have more power. It is interesting that she gives up the game so quickly. This is solely about power. The president wanted to do something and the judiciary said no. It is not common sense to think that the president should have more power than the judiciary. In fact, it is unamerican. The right continues to try and pretend that because the president is elected, and the judiciary are appointed by people who are elected, that they mean less. Except that is absurd. It is true that the president needs to ensure the laws are faithfully executed but it is the judiciary's role to decide if those laws are actually legal. This prevents what is now occurring. When a president goes rogue and just starts doing whatever he wants with no oversight or correction. Make no mistake. This smearing of the judiciary to make it sound like they only got their jobs because of someone they know, is the same tactic they used to destroy DEI. The underlying assumption of course is stupid. The question at hand here is the rounding up of hundreds of people and shipping them off to an El Salvador prison without due process. The literal ghosting of people is not "foreign policy." It is illegal and dangerous, especially now that we know that many of these people never actually did anything wrong. Imagine if you honestly came to this country seeking asylum because of atrocities in your home country and while you are preparing for your day in court to decide your claim you are whisked away in the middle of the night by jack booted thugs and flown to a different country than the one you are from, and thrown into a notoriously evil prison system. Is that who we have been for two hundred plus years?

"Their role on the bench is generally limited to deciding the case before them based on existing law. Yet across the country, highly partisan district judges are using legal ploys to bulldoze Trump, stymie his agenda -- and set national, even international, policy. In dozens of cases since Jan. 20, federal district judges -- the lowest on the ladder -- have issued nationwide injunctions halting Trump's suspension of foreign aid, his deportation of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members, his layoffs and spending cuts in federal departments and agencies, his prohibitions on discriminatory diversity programs in higher education and government hiring, and more." - NY Post

Checks and balances are not legal ploys. Never lose sight that what they are arguing is for unchecked power. The suspension of foreign aid cut off money that had already been appropriated by Congress. Remember that faithfully execute thing? It is congress that gets to decide what needs to be faithfully executed, not the president. The problem with the deportations is far more sinister and disturbing. Even if some of these people were actually part of this gang, doesn't the administration have to prove that first? Their answer to everything is just trust us and the reality is that have not earned that trust. It may seem like it doesn't matter to you but it will when they come for you with no due process. As for the chain saw cuts to the federal workforce, they violated the laws governing such employees. Again, with all of these issues it is not that they can never do what they want. It is just that they need to do it within the confines of our system. You want to remove funding - go to Congress! You want to deport people you think are gang members, prove that they are and get a legally binding deportation order. Your opinion that DEI programs is "discriminatory" to white people is just your opinion.

"On Tuesday, US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, DC, issued a nationwide injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump's Jan. 27 executive order excluding transgender individuals from the military. Reyes said she foresees a "heated public debate" and appeals.

But Emperor Reyes is taking it upon herself to decide the issue for the entire nation, in defiance of the commander-in-chief who actually heads the military -- before any evidence is heard.

She is freezing in place a policy the president opposes, for all the months and years it may take for the lawsuit to be decided and for appeals to be made, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. Ridiculous." - NY Post

No. What is ridiculous is a former lieutenant Governor not understanding how the country she lives is operates. The emperor here is not the district court judge, who can be then checked by the appeals court and even further by the Supreme Court, but a president who thinks no one should be allowed to check him at all. The Commander in Chief has every right to make decisions involving the military but it is the specific role of the courts to decide if those decisions are legal. What if the Commander in Chief decides to ban black people from serving in the military? Under the logic here, that should be completely up to him, no questions asked. That is ridiculous. This is not defiance; it is a check. The evidence will be heard. The injunction stops the questionable action so that evidence can be heard. McCaughey knows this. By the way, if she is saying the judicial process takes too long in this country, I am sure we all would agree that is correct. Then fix that, do not use it to eradicate how the country is designed to operate.

"The misuse of national injunctions by politically motivated federal judges is not an entirely new problem, nor is it 100% one-sided. During Trump's first term, they were used 64 times to delay his initiatives. They were also used 14 times against the Biden administration, per a Harvard Law Review survey. All the more reason the Supreme Court should crack down without delay.

Justice Elena Kagan has sharply criticized this abuse. "It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process," she told a Northwestern University Law School audience in 2022. During the first Trump administration, Kagan observed, activist groups "used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years they go to Texas" -- "shopping" for a judge willing to issue a national injunction in line with the plaintiff's wishes. Her comments came as a district judge for the Northern District of Texas imposed a nationwide injunction ordering the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval of mifepristone, an abortion drug. How can a single judge in a small courthouse in Amarillo have such power? Angry abortion activists demanded. Good question." - NY Post

Once again, this is not "misuse." It is just decisions they do not like so they are trying to change the rules. McCaughey tries to pull of a little sleight of hand here with this whataboutism. Without getting too far in the weeds, the mifepristone issue ended up at the Supreme Court and they decided that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It also was not just Kagan, singled out here by McCaughey here because she is on the left. It was a 9-0 decision. In the deportation case, we have a president trying to pretend an old law designed for literal war, can be just used as he decides. It cannot. He might win with his compromised Supreme Court but it has to get there first. That is our system. By the way, if everyone dislikes the judge shopping that occurs in both parties then fix that. Do not use it as an excuse to create an imperial presidency.

"Until the Supreme Court acts, Trump is caught in an arduous game of whack-a-mole, pleading with federal appeals courts all over the nation to overturn the endless injunctions and get his stalled policy initiatives up and running again. It's one victory at a time: Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the freeze on Trump's executive order ending discriminatory DEI rules in government contracting, grant-making and hiring. But lefty district court judges are still waging lawfare against Trump -- and the high court isn't doing its job." - NY Post

It of course, is not "lawfare." It is our system behaving exactly as designed. This is not a game, and it is not arduous. It is exactly what was created by our founding fathers. It is in fact the most crucial check on the power of an uncontrolled president. It has three very simple steps. The district judge decides. If you do not like that decision, you go to an appeals court. If either side does not like that decision they can appeal to the Supreme Court, who decides if the appeals court ruling holds or if they wish to take up the case. It is quite telling that the Republican Party now thinks it is arduous to have to go through the designed checks and balances system that has existed since this country was founded. They believe their king should decide by presidential fiat and everyone just needs to bow the knee. Not in this country Betsy.

,On March 5, a divided Supreme Court turned down Trump's request to lift a district court order compelling the State Department and the US Agency for International Development to pay $2 billion in foreign aid, in defiance of the president's policies. Justice Samuel Alito issued a blistering dissent. "Does a single district-court judge . . . have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?" he thundered. "The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No'." Trump's Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris is undeterred. On March 13, she made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, warning these injunctions have reached "epidemic proportions."

This brand of lawfare "stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions," she argued. Harris made her request within the context of the birthright-citizenship cases now before the court -- yet another Trump choice that's been judicially handcuffed. But the court needs to do more than weigh in on Trump's policies on children born to illegal residents. It's time -- past time -- to restrain these district court judges who act like kings. Harris called it a "modest" request, but in fact the progress of Trump's entire agenda -- and the hopes of Americans who voted for him -- depend on it. As Harris told the court, "Enough is enough."' - NY Post

Alito disagreed with the majority ruling of his own court. That happens. That is how our system works. I might add that the current court is 6-3 in Alito's favor so for them to rule against the president probably means Alito's on the wrong side of this. The precedent that would be set otherwise is that it would no longer matter what Congress actually authorizes money for because the president can choose to do what he wants. No. He has to go back to Congress. This is a congress that is completely subservient to him anyway and that is how we can know that this is really not about the individual issues. This is about stretching the powers of the executive branch so that there are no more checks and balances. The hubris to make the argument that obeying the Constitution would stop the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions is chilling. The birthright citizenship case is a perfect example of what is afoot here. The president does not have the power to overturn an amendment to the Constitution. Now, I know the right is pretending that what we all know to be true since 1868 is somehow now incorrect because of King Trump. That is why the courts exist. They get to make their arguments and the other side gets to make theirs. That is what this is really about. The Betsy McCaughey's of the world feel they should not be put upon to make the arguments. They should just be left alone to rule. So what if some innocent people end up dead in some Salvadorian hellhole? So what if people who have only known themselves to be citizens of this country are suddenly not? Who cares?

Thank God the courts still care.

Authors Bio:

Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 53-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess, regardless of party.


Anthony Wade?s Archive:


http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm