Well, Duh

During the first 100 days of the second term of the Trump administration, an unusually high number of nationwide injunctions (25) have been placed on actions by the administration by federal district court judges. These injunctions have been used to stall or prevent the President’s policy objectives in U.S. courts. The quantity of injunctions issued is significantly greater than in the cases of recent U.S. presidents. Federal judges have hindered the administration’s efforts to deport illegal immigrants and supporters of terrorism, cut funding for government programs, and lay off federal employees.

This situation should not come as a surprise. The claims made by Democrats that Donald Trump is an authoritarian figure akin to Hitler, perpetuated extensively through mainstream media to those who rely on it for information, including many federal court judges, have led to these outcomes. The federal district court judges are acting inappropriately because, contrary to common belief, judges are not impartial arbiters of the law but regular individuals who can also be influenced like anyone else. These judges are against Donald Trump because most of them were appointed by Democrats, along with some Republican judges who have become part of the Washington establishment – meaning they follow mainstream media, have liberal acquaintances, and attend elite liberal gatherings – and now believe that Donald Trump is overstepping his presidential powers and are working against him.

This is despite the actual facts surrounding each of the President’s actions. President Thomas Jefferson had foreseen this danger when the Supreme Court established the authority to judge the constitutionality of laws or actions by the president in the Marbury v. Madison case. Jefferson, along with other presidents like James Madison and Andrew Jackson, believed that the judiciary should not have ultimate authority, as it could lead to despotism. The Constitution was designed to have all branches of government equal and sovereign within their respective domains.

The issue of bias in judges became apparent to me when I worked in the U.S. Senate, covering contentious topics such as Islamist detainees, habeas rights, and military commissions. Precedential judicial cases, such as the Quirin case during World War II, and later cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld during the Bush administration, showcased the influence of bias on court decisions. Justices in the Supreme Court, influenced by “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” made decisions based on their dislike for President Bush, rather than legal principles, as observed in those cases.

It is essential to recognize these patterns and biases in the judiciary. Many federal judges issuing injunctions may have their flaws, as highlighted by various procedural issues. It’s crucial to remain vigilant and informed about these matters.