President Trump’s Counter to Activist Judges, Constitutional Constraints and a Compromised Congress

ANALYSIS: On Friday, the Trump Administration published two documents detailing its counter to activist judges in an otherwise rigged Judiciary.

On Friday, the Trump Administration published two documents detailing its counter to activist judges in an otherwise rigged Judiciary: Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court and Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Prevents Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Courts.

In order to properly understand and position what is detailed in the President’s strategy to push back against historically unprecedented levels of judicial activism by a contingency of activist federal judges appointed by the generational architects of the status quo – GHW Bush, Obama, Biden, et al. – important assumptions must be made.

The first assumption is that both chambers of Congress are compromised by controllable cohorts serving as operational assets to the Intelligence Community/Pentagon/NATO/State Department conglomerate and therefore, constitutional remedies are constrained beyond the inherently constraining and vague language of the Constitution itself.

A compromised Congress directly envelops the generally and universally understood process of impeachment as the sole constitutional or otherwise legal remedy for removing a federal judge.

During impeachment proceedings, Articles of Impeachment are introduced and voted on in the House where an affirmative vote moves matters to the Senate for the trial.

Otherwise, a constitutional amendment could afford an alternative legal remedy for judicial misconduct by codifying another means to effectively remove federal judges but once again, Congress bears down fully.

In both cases, a 2/3 vote is required and that scenario is an absolute impossibility until after the 2026 midterm elections at the earliest.

Thinking that the current US Senate will vote to convict one of these federal judges in impeachment proceedings is naive and for the same reasons, so is the amendment option.

Of course, these dynamics apply to both political parties as the RINO contingency has been more stringently checked and forced further into the disinfecting sunlight by Trump’s November win, the public mandate it handed him and the agenda to make good on it.

The other assumption is this – historically unprecedented levels of judicial activism is being waged by federal judges that are compromised by their allegiance and service to something beyond their oath to uphold the Constitution and independently enforce the law.

The evidence for this is anecdotal but where Occam’s prevails to indicate how a rigged Judiciary charged with blindly assigning federal judges to cases routinely assigns judges from the Bush, Obama, Biden et al cohort identified above and where those judges deliberately intercede on clear and constitutionally protected Article II Executive authority by issuing rulings outside outside of constitutional bounds.

The historically unprecedented levels of judicial activism by federal judges is clearly spelled-out in this case tracker indicating 133 current cases including two now closed: Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions.

Moreover, there is a problematic pattern of federal judges like James Bosaberg [Obama appointee], Tanya Chuktan [Obama appointee], Beryl Howell [Obama appointee], Emmet Sullivan [Clinton appointee], et al that are routinely and redundantly assigned to critical cases where Trump or his Administration are named defendants.

By comparison, the conversation about the distinction between judicial activism targeting Trump versus all other presidents begins with a decimal point and moving it right.

This synopsis sums up the obvious nicely:

While the Constitution requires the creation of a Supreme Court, it grants Congress the power to organize the lower federal courts. Congress has established a decentralized system comprising more than 677 federal trial judges and 179 appellate judges. Challengers of Trump’s executive orders will bring suit in a district court, a system organized into 94 geographic districts, where Presidents Obama and Biden appointed a majority — or ideally all — of the sitting judges. Likewise, a plaintiff will seek to appeal in circuit courts, with the same overweighting of judges appointed by Obama and Biden.

John Yoo, American Enterprise Institute

With that synopsis, we begin to understand how a poisoned Congress poisons the well of constitutional remedies and where those remedies are already constrained by the language of the Constitution.

Consider that the Constitution is rather vague about what constitutes good behavior, judicial misconduct, criminal conduct and impeachable offenses.

For example, judicial misconduct and criminal conduct is not good behavior but it also may not be impeachable.

For another example, consider that all impeachable offenses are judicial misconduct and criminal conduct, but not all judicial misconduct and not all criminal conduct are impeachable offenses.

These dynamics produce a scenario where a sufficient amount of constitutional vagueness and constitutionally protected independence combined with lifetime appointments and Congressional control over the sole remedy to guarantee there is no remedy, provide federal activist judges with enough unrestrained working room to abuse their benches and directly intercede on the Trump Administration without restraint while enjoying absolute impunity.

In other words, it’s a constitutional crisis.

What about direct intervention by the US Supreme Court as a remedy but where John Roberts is Chief Justice and where John Roberts maintained sole oversight authority of the compromised and abused FISA/FISC crimes that constituted spying on then candidate and later President Donald J. Trump?

That’s a rhetorical question.

Constitutional crisis it is.

The documents released by the Trump Administration detailing its plans to redress Judicial activism entirely support the analysis by making one glaring omission.

What I mean by that is this – The Trump Administration’s plans to redress Judicial activism occur by targeting the attorneys and law firms bringing these politically motivated and frivolous lawsuits by sanctioning them, enforcing the discipline process, cancelling their federal contracts, revoking their security clearances, etc.

What is the one glaring omission?

In both documents, the word “JUDGE” is never used.

Imagine a fruit tree with SCOTUS at the top, federal judges in the middle and attorneys and law firms at the bottom.

Beyond the fact that all of the fruit is rotten and poisonous, the process begins at the bottom of the tree and is acted on in the middle, where no effective remedy exists to remove bad actors.

More bad actors exist at the top of the tree where SCOTUS could possibly intervene.

The worst actor is the Congressional farmer watching over all of this.

Currently, Trump has a plan for low-hanging fruit but the rest of the rotten tree and the farmer remain unrestrained.

It’s crystal clear that Trump’s design is to stem the flow into the courts of federal lawsuits opposing his agenda by targeting the attorneys and law firms filing them because there is no present available remedy – constitutional or otherwise – to control radical activist federal judges adhering to political doctrine in ways far outside constitutional boundaries.

If Trump has other cards to play, they remain up his sleeve.

With 133 lawsuits already filed and seemingly a new one filed every day; and where those lawsuits have been generally effective in interceding on the Trump Administration’s policy agenda, it’s going to be difficult to MAGA unless MAGA stands for Make America Grim Again.

It all projects to years of unending federal litigation miring the Trump Administration in delay, inefficiency and ineffectiveness in accomplishing major policy objectives by forcing it to spend all of its time, energy and resources defending itself in court.

That and the relentless propaganda backing it all.

Such a projection would see the proverbial can kicked down the road until another asset of the conglomerate could be installed into the Executive and just as it occurred in January 2021, that incoming president would undo every actual accomplishment by executive order.

I’m sure it will start with re-instituting DEI initiatives and the Federal Department of Education [indoctrination] that drives them.

We can expect them to sabotage everything they can and control the rest of it until it’s time to make a change.

Please be reminded that the last time they decided to make a change, they faked a “pandemic” and stole an “election.”

-End-