Arrogance of the Judiciary
I have often written about the importance of the judicial branch of government. Never, except perhaps during the COVID pandemic, has the impact of the judiciary been more front and center than it is now.
In the midst of an aggressive first 100 days in office President Donald Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders designed to fulfill the promises he made on the campaign trail last year – and which resulted in a sweeping electoral vote victory.
Lacking majorities in either house of congress the Left has turned to the judiciary in an effort to block, or at least slow down, implementation of the Trump agenda.
They successfully throw up road blocks by venue shopping. That is a tactic whereby the plaintiff scouts around to find an activist judge predisposed to rule in their favor. The most egregious example was Judge Juan Merchan who presided over Trump’s “trial” on bogus charges of, well nobody knows exactly what the charges were, but he was nonetheless found guilty largely due to the highly questionable rulings of the judge.
Now, the safety of American citizens is at risk because U.S. District Judge James Boasberg – an Obama appointee who sits on the ultra-Left U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia – is blocking the deportation of violent members of the El Salvador-based terrorist gang Tren de Aragua. Other federal judges have placed restraining orders or blocked everything from the firing of excess bureaucrats to the cutting of wasteful government spending.
Exacerbating the problem is a single district judge’s order can go into effect nationwide, not just in the district in which he or she serves. Thus by venue shopping for a clearly biased jurist the impact can grind to a halt the implementation of executive policy nationwide.
The Left has become violently obsessed with Elon Musk screaming (literally) that he wasn’t elected to anything but is wielding significant power. The same can be said for the federal judiciary. They are an unelected branch of the government appointed by the president, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The difference between federal judges and Musk is the president cannot fire a federal judge.
All of this brings us to the core of the problem. The U.S. Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government. The judiciary, however, holds itself to be above reproach. This arrogance of the judiciary also permeates at the state level where judges and justices somehow think they are untouchable. Hence you have John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States saying it is improper to impeach a judge because you disagree with their ruling.
Well, you can vote a president, U.S. Senator or congressman out of office if you disagree with the job they are doing. You cannot do that with the federal judiciary because they serve lifetime appointments. Thus, the only avenue available to toss a judge or justice is via the impeachment process.
The arrogance of the judiciary is manifested at the state level as well where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has become populated by activist justices who are apparently aspiring lawmakers because they frequently legislative from the bench. They were active co-conspirators with former Governor Tom Wolf in trampling on our personal freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. They even went so far as to kick the state constitution to the curb and steal from the legislature the power to draw congressional district lines.
Unlike the federal judiciary, however, appellate court judges and justices in Pennsylvania do not serve lifetime terms. They do serve excessively long ten year terms, but then must stand for a retention vote if they wish to continue on the bench. A retention vote is a simple yes, the jurist gets another ten years or no, he or she is immediately removed.
In the history of retention elections only one time has a state Supreme Court Justice been denied retention. That came amid a massive scandal over the court’s involvement in a middle-of-the night pay grab that also resulted in a number of legislators being swept out of office.
Due to other scandals three seats on the state Supreme Court were up for election in 2015. With the backing of powerful special interests three Democrat justices were elected. They now face a yes or no retention vote. Thus, Pennsylvania will once again become a national battleground with outside money expected to pour into the state.
The three justices who may be retained this year will have an outsized impact on congressional redistricting in 2032. With an almost evenly divided congress they will be poised to have a significant impact on which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives.
This is the only opportunity Pennsylvania voters will have to weigh in on the court. It is a decision that should not be taken lightly.
(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly American Radio Journal and Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is [email protected].)
Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.
