It didn’t take long for President Trump to run smack dab into the progressives’ weapon of mass destruction, and trust me this is only their opening salvo.
On Friday, a federal judge in Seattle decided he somehow had the authority to determine our immigration policy, despite the fact the Constitution grants him no such authority. Nonetheless, his stay against Trump’s ban of importing foreigners from seven countries dominated by Islamic radicalism was upheld by the Department of Homeland Security, which immediately ceased implementing the president’s instructions. Essentially nullifying one of the key issues that determined the 2016 election.
Because that’s what the American Revolution was all about, rebelling against “no taxation without representation” so we could have “societal transformation without representation” in its place.
Thus begins what is likely to be a reoccurring theme. Rest assured every time Trump is serious about keeping his promise to change the status quo in our government, the Left is going to find a federal judge somewhere to say that’s verboten, whether he/she has jurisdiction to say so or not.
You really can’t blame the progressives from playing their “trump card” against Trump already, because it’s worked for them for a generation. To wit:
- When courts invented a right to kill your own kid, and then demanded it decreed nationwide, we took it.
- When courts invented a new definition of the Establishment Clause and shredded the First Amendment, and then decreed it nationwide, we took it.
- When courts invented a right for illegal aliens to have access to taxpayers’ money, and then decreed it nationwide, we took it.
- When courts invented a right to confiscate private property not just for eminent domain but economic development, and then decreed it nationwide, we took it.
- When courts invented a new definition of marriage, and then decreed it nationwide, we took it.
- When courts invented a new definition for words like “mandate” and “state exchanges,” and then decreed it nationwide, we took it.
- Currently courts are inventing a new definition of gender, decreeing it nationwide, and we’re taking it.
Soon — very soon mark my words — courts will invent a right to immigrate to America. And my guess is, unless Trump truly is the reincarnation of Andrew Jackson his supporters claim/hope he is, we’re just going to take that, too.
Begging the question exactly what insidious and ridiculous attack upon our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness could the courts conjure up that would cause us to reject the progressive canard of judicial supremacy? Before the last syllable of our Constitution is erased by the courts for good, might there be some cause for us to once and for all say “you’re welcome to your opinion, but you’re not welcome to your own jurisdiction.”
And no, Mr. President, the courts aren’t going to wilt at the threat of being blasted on your Twitter account the way the elected political class has been prone to do. This is going to require a true reassertion of constitutionalism, separation of powers, and political courage that has been sorely lacking on the Right for decades now.
However, Mr. President, you can rest assured that if you’re not up to such a task you will eventually see your entire agenda — no matter how righteous and/or popular it may be — completely undone by what the Founding Fathers intended to be the weakest of the three branches. And now is not only the strongest, but the superior branch of government all others bow the knee to — including the will of the people.
Rendered moot is the 214-year argument we’ve been having about Marbury v. Madison. For judicial review has evolved to judicial overview in our time. With the courts now not just advising and consenting on what is or isn’t constitutional, but acting as an unelected perpetual constitutional convention instead. And the ordering of their political preferences to be installed as the substitute public policy in wanton disregard of the democratic voting process will be included, of course.
“Independent judiciary” used to mean independent of the other two branches to interpret the Constitution. It now means independent of the will of the people and the natural law to rewrite, redact, and revise the Constitution itself. Rendering a thumb up or down like Commodus in the arena on every single piece of decent legislation that comes from the duly elected branches of government —jurisdiction and original intent be damned. Heck, federal judges now even believe they have jurisdiction to determine if an individual state has to fund Planned Parenthood, for goodness sake.
Hence, despite his dominant personality, Trump officially became just another Republican president this week. Handcuffed from doing the people’s will by a pernicious lie whose bluff should’ve been called a long time ago.
It simply won’t matter if you can play the press like a fiddle if you won’t stand up to the courts. The courts being permitted to trample all over their constitutionally-imposed limits are going to determine whether President Trump is truly a force of nature, or a novelty act. Many of you reading this tried to convince me during the election that despite his ideological and moral peccadilloes I should vote for Trump, because he had the chutzpah to call the system on its own horse puckey.
Here’s his chance to prove you right. And if he punts here, don’t worry, the courts will keep giving him others.