Injunctions are a fierce battle and often don’t win – unless you appear to be trying to handcuff the Trump administration from fulfilling its constitutional obligations under Article 2.
Senator Chuck Grassley invoice – Clarification of Judicial Relief – Aiming to quell the flames. He wrote that these injunctions have “become favorite tools for those trying to sabotage Trump’s agenda,” and the numbers prove that.
The left, unable to secure agenda in the ballot box, has been transformed into a national injunction as a weapon to design outcomes that were democratically unachievable.
They mask their actions in the language of “check and balance,” which ignores the basic truth. Our system only works when separation of power is respected. (Related: Congress has tools to stop fraudulent judges from nullifying Trump’s agenda – without reaching for each ammo)
When an unelected judge takes away the authority of the executives, they cannot balance their powers – they overturn it. The left cannot argue that it respects democracy, but it is undermining it through the judicial fiat, while putting national security at risk.
After an overwhelming defeat in the ballot box that gave the Trump administration a clear mission to change, it is baffling that the left has targeted some of his most popular policies with injunctions – deporting illegal aliens, including gang members, and reducing waste, fraud and abuse, appears to be like money legalized through government funding. NGO There is no proper monitoring.
Senator John Kennedy on the recent Senate Judiciary Committee HearingGet through the noise: There is no legal basis for a national injunction or Supreme Court precedent. none. This is not a gray area. It is a judicial invention that is not based on the law. Worse, the Supreme Court flies in the face of the structure of our court system, which settles land laws.
But here we post a decree that stops national policy by low-level district judges (that rulings don’t even bind their circuits). This is not justice. It is a glove of power that threatens the Republic.
Think about what you need to obtain injunctive relief. First, you need to stand – proof that you are directly hurt. Next, you must demonstrate your chances of winning the merit without benefiting from a fully developed court record.
But that’s not your only legal hurdle. The criteria for preliminary injunctions are steep: irreparable harm, the balance of stocks in favour of the plaintiff, and clear public interest.
These are hibers by design – the courts are not intended to casually overturn executive action. However, these hurdles seem to have faded against Trump.
“The Trump Justice Department has filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice Roberts ordered a briefing and the court will govern in the next few days. It was written. “If Roberts refuses to sort out the judicial home by suppressing these judicial obstruction, Congress will do it for him.”
This data confirms this. Grassley emphasizes, “In the last two months alone, judges have issued at least 15 universal injunctions against the administration, promoting the 14 presidents that President Biden faced throughout his four-year term.”
This should not require laws like Grassley’s Clarification of Judicial Relief Act to amend. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts was able to curb these runaway lower courts. This is blatantly legislating from the bench without fragments of election accountability.
However, Roberts appears to be obsessed with protecting the image of justice, and he forgets to do his job. “Article 3 of the Constitution resolves “cidents” and “disputes” in the judicial division, but does not develop any policies,” Grassley reminds me. He is right – the judge is not chosen to govern.
The American founder did not bleed into a country where an unelected judge could reject people’s will in one pen stroke. Grassley’s Clarification of Judicial Relief Act short for its dystopia, a request for the court to cease and cease Congress.
The left may be clung to their robbed proxy, but voters spoke – and their mission is not negotiable. Let’s end this judicial tyranny now or watch the republic disappear into a footnote in history.
Frank Rich was the principal plaintiff in Landmark Supreme Court case Rich v DeStefano. He retired as Chief of the Battalion at New Haven CT. He testified before Congress and is the author of the book, Command Presence.
The opinions and opinions expressed in this commentary are the views of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan newswire service that is free to use for legitimate news publishers that can provide large audiences. All republished articles must include logos, reporter signatures and DCNF affiliation. For questions regarding our guidelines or partnerships with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
