Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, the federal judiciary has shown an increased tendency to let political positions influence their verdicts. Often, district court judges at the lowest level of the federal system have sought to command various components of the national and international purview – from financial matters to discriminatory ideologies. According to the Constitution, these areas are the president’s responsibilities.
Interestingly, these judges have been voicing displeasure about the Supreme Court’s perceived lack of support for their political biases. Traditionally, a judge’s role demands neutrality in evaluating both matters and persons involved in court proceedings. Thus, it has been surprising to observe these attempts to sidestep the president’s administration.
A statement revealing this internal dissent explained that ‘a number of undisclosed federal judges have raised questions about the Supreme Court’s inclination to side with the Trump administration and overrule lower court rulings without thorough explanation.’ This dissatisfaction is linked to a series of sudden overturns of inferior court verdicts by the nation’s highest court.
Officials from the Trump administration have also expressed criticism of such rulings. They argue that judges have overstepped their authority in making these rulings. These opinions were corroborated by a group of ten judges who argued that the Supreme Court should provide more explanation when reversing decisions from district courts.
In a rather direct manner, a judge lamented, ‘The Supreme Court fails to support us.’ Another judge even reported facing threats to their life due to rulings that were contrary to the president’s agenda. These instances only underscore the unconventional situation where political bias seems rampant within the judiciary system.
The Trump administration, while combating these unceremonious situations, has pointed out these aberrations. They particularly highlighted a skirmish as being a reactionary ‘judicial coup’. A judge, expressing their distaste for the Supreme Court’s behavior, dramatically suggested a potential loss of life due to criticism from Trump’s administration.
Interestingly, an opposing view came from a lone dissenter, who acknowledged the troubling situation where judges have allowed their political biases to cloud their decisions against the president. This judge quoted the pervasive ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ as a tangible issue. The term referred to instances where judges’ disagreement with Trump’s methods led them to unexpectedly overstep their professional boundaries.
A recent case that exemplified this type of judicial overreach occurred when a woman was arrested for posting threatening statements about President Trump on social media. Despite her violent declarations, a judge argued for her release under certain monitored conditions, including a psychiatric evaluation. This order displayed a clear deviation from conventional judicial reasoning.
On another occasion, a judge sought to hinder Trump’s initiative to safeguard the American borders and deport individuals with criminal records who were residing in the country illegally. The judge went as far as ordering two deportation flights, already in international airspace, to turn around and bring back the passengers without considering logistical challenges such as fuel limitations.
In cases like these, unbiased judicial actions are replaced with personal beliefs and agendas. It undermines the trust people have in the justice system, and in this case, it directly interferes with the president’s attempts to protect national security.
This trend of overt interference by the judiciary has been proven by the lenient handling and subsequent release of the woman who declared her intent to harm the President. The same judge previously stalled deportation efforts, indicating a clear pattern of bias.
In a troubling incident, the judge unabashedly hinted at a judicial convention that President Trump would inaugurate a constitutional crisis by defying court orders. The Attorney General took cognizance of such blatant misconduct and filed a complaint regarding the inappropriate public remarks about the President and his administration.
The Department of Justice official endorsed the complaint, saying, ‘The judge first tried to convince Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that despite no supportive evidence, the administration would disregard court orders. He then continued to act on this groundless belief in several litigations over which he presided. Such conduct disregards the Canons of Judicial Ethics, thus eroding public trust and confidence in the judiciary system.’
This malpractice was further emphasized when a progressive publication gained access to disdainful remarks made at a recent judicial conference against President Trump. Notwithstanding the imperative judicial neutrality in court matters, it became apparent that bias was present where the president was a defendant in several cases filed by activists seeking to undermine his American-first agenda.
This conduct was later labeled as a ‘threat to the rule of law’ because of the judge’s disregard for judicial principals in an attempt to exert control over Executive authority. Implementing personal agendas in court rulings blatantly and perilously undermines established law and order precedents.
Taken together, these cases highlight a disturbing trend of political bias creeping into what should be a neutral and impartial judiciary. As guardians of law, judges must respect the boundaries of their authority so as not to interfere with the constitutional responsibilities of the Executive branch.
The post President Trump’s Second Term: Exposing Judiciary Overreach appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
