Updated: Jan 1, 2019
An Informative Essay by John M Jones III (12/19/18)
Judicial activism is nothing new. In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation, “Judicial review has really been three different sorts of power, during three distinct eras of American judicial history. The first or "traditional" period, from the birth of the Constitution until the end of the 19th century, embraced a notion of interpretation based on the "fair reading" of the document and a moderate form of judicial review. The second or "transitional" period, from the end of the 19th century until 1937, maintained the theory of the traditional era while in practice giving birth to a more activist form of judicial review. The third or "modern" period, from 1937 until the present, developed new activist theories of constitutional interpretation and judicial review. (1)
Quite recently this modern period of judicial activist has exploded causing many of these politically biased jurists to treacherously injunct the national government. Extreme left-wing activist judges from Podunk, California nor from ANY state should NOT have the right to create nationwide injunctions for a government that’s not only thousands of miles away, but one ruled by their political adversaries. The US Constitution states:
Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives….
Article. II. Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Article III. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
I believe that our founders intended the congress to pass the laws, the executive to enforce the laws and the courts to review the laws. Thanks, though, to the radicals in both political parties we now have a congress that refuses to enact laws, and an executive trying to enforce the laws while democrat extremists suing the executive for trying to legally enforce the duly ratified laws by using the liberal judicial branch injunct the president at every turn. A simple internet search will reveal the reality of the swamp and just how deep it goes!
Justice John Roberts recently opined, “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them..(and)..That (an) independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for." (2) If the judicial system was so independent and unbiased as Justice Roberts says there would be no need to defend it because it’d be clearly evident, right?
Ruthe Bader Ginsburg openly pontificated: “I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.” (3) In 2016, she also Donald Trump called a “Faker” (4) Is this part of the independent judiciary Justice Roberts was talking about?
“Sotomayor told an audience (This Month) at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh that the justices do not belong to a political cause or a president but to something very different, and much more important to us, and that is to the rule of law.” So if the rule of law is so important to them why are they allowing themselves and their lower courts to write laws instead of allowing the US Congress to do it? (4a)
In 2014 the Supreme Court and Mr. Independent Justice Roberts took the completely unconstitutional law of Obama care rewrote it and then magically declared it legal. This was a law that not only the allowed the arbitrary punishment of Americans for not buying a product, but it made all non-obama “style” health care plans illegal causing tens of millions of people to lose their health insurance. Is this an example of Justice Roberts ‘independent judiciary?’ (4b)
Again, if it’s the task of congress to write the laws and the executive to enforce the laws then why that it’s the supreme court and its lower courts writing the laws these days? The answer is they consider themselves above the law. They are traitors and should be dragged from office, tried and convicted of treason, thrown in a cell, and have the key thrown away! Here’s more examples:
U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly restored CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s White House press pass on Friday, finding that the government had likely revoked his credentials without due process. (5) Due Process? I wonder where this mysterious due process was when this happened:
In 2009, the Obama White House intentionally excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from participating in a round of interviews pertaining to the president’s push for healthcare reform. Later that same year, the administration officials tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House initially lied about this, and many in the press went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that the public learned the truth of the Feinberg episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009, showed the White House director of broadcast media told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d prefer if you skip Fox please.” (6)
In 2012, Obama via executive order gave so called “dreamers” quasilegal status even though NO law on the books gave him the authority to do this. “In October 2010 (in response) to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works." (7)
Now when a new president rightfully ends this illegal practice cue liberal activist judge U.S. District Court Judge John Bates! He said, “that the Department of Homeland Security’s legal explanation for the decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, was too flimsy and, ultimately, unpersuasive.” (8) Guess what, even cnn recognizes that President Trump can cancel ANY executive order that Obama signed (9) and do you think he should have go to a court to justify his decision? No? So maybe THIS is an example of the independent judiciary Justice Roberts preached to President Trump about?
Many judges like swamp politicians have forgotten that they work for the US, the people of America, not themselves, not their political party and not their fellow judges. These judges that have no fear of the people thus they also have no fear of the law or of the consequences of their actions. Therefore, all lifetime judicial appointments should be rescinded, and reasonable term limits instituted to reign in the judiciary and their liberal judges STARTING with the supreme court then the lower courts. If we continue to allow these liberal activist judges to make their own laws why even have the congress or the executive when we can just allow a few dozen unelected liberal sycophants (like the ones in the 9th circuit and others) make and enforce the laws for us! WHY? Let me know if you find an answer!
More Examples of Justice Robert’s so-called Independent judiciary: