Congress left town last week on Wednesday afternoon. In just a few days, the federal courts have accomplished for the Left more than what Republicans have accomplished for conservatives since they assumed control of the House in 1995. Judicial supremacy is the biggest threat to the foundation of our republic, and unless Congress awakens from its slumber to immediately address its role in politics, all politics will remain in the judiciary.
Here is what the courts accomplished for the Left just last week on such important issues as immigration, environmental regulations, and abortion.
What does this all demonstrate? That almost every circuit is irremediably broken, and many GOP appointees go along with the most insane decisions on broadly political issues that should never be litigated in a court of law but worked out in a legislature. Even if Trump serves for two terms, he won’t be able to flush out the left-wing super-majority on most circuits.
The difference between judicial and legislative powers
Congress might be done with its work for the year even though it’s only April, but the judiciary has just begun its legislative agenda.
There are hundreds of other lawsuits pending that deal with broad political issues and litigation from criminal aliens instead of clear individualized personal grievances from U.S. citizens. Just this week, the Supreme Court will decide whether the president can protect America’s security and follow immigration law to keep out people from specific countries. The court will also preside over the redistricting of Texas. Every deportation and now even denial of entry to a foreign national is litigated in court. Foreign nationals and third-party organizations can sue general political practices and laws, and the courts get to assume the power of all three branches to set national policy.
We can’t go on much longer living in a judicial autocracy and pretending it’s a constitutional republic. When will Congress wake up and understand its own powers? As we’ve noted many times, even if you believe in a robust form of judicial review, that only applies to a legitimate case with valid standing before a court, and the ruling is not meant to set broad national policy over an ongoing political issue.
Just like John Marshall felt that a judge must abide by his oath to the Constitution when studying a law, the other two branches must follow that same oath of office. And when they know that a particular ruling is unconstitutional, they have a duty to use their powers to ensure that the erroneous judgement is not used to create a broadly consequential political rule throughout the country. The entire foundation for the prerogative of judicial review repudiates strongly the very idea of judicial supremacy. The Constitution is the law of the land.
As Lincoln chided Douglas, “Each man was bound to support the Constitution as he understood it. Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in which I understand it.”
If modern Republicans fail to interpret the Constitution the way they understand it, we will no longer have borders left, and the only thing remaining unregulated by government will be abortion on demand.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.