Trump should not fill Alito’s seat with a ‘meh’ in robes



At the beginning of the year, one of my crystal-ball predictions for 2026 was that Samuel Alito and/or Clarence Thomas would retire so President Trump could replace them before the midterms.

Recent reporting suggests that prediction may prove correct, especially with speculation that Alito is considering stepping down. So I checked with some sources to see which names are circulating as possible replacements.

Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?

The reality is Alito is not easily replaced. He has been one of the best Supreme Court justices of this century. His successor cannot be some C-plus or B-minus judge with a fuzzy record and a habit of folding at the wrong moment. The stakes are too high.

That is why one name worries me: Judge Andrew Oldham.

Trump already passed on Oldham for the Supreme Court in 2020 and for good reason. What remains of our constitutional republic does not have time for a “meh” nominee.

Oldham, a former general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), now serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A quick look at his record shows a pattern that should alarm anyone hoping for another Alito.

Let’s start with life.

Alito authored the phenomenal majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, one of the most wicked decisions in American history. Oldham’s record points the other way. In 2000, Bill Clinton’s FDA treated pregnancy as an “illness” to justify accelerated approval of abortion drugs as the supposed “cure.” Years later, a Trump-appointed district judge rightly rejected that decision, and a Trump-appointed circuit judge backed him. Oldham, however, became the first circuit judge to side with the Clinton FDA’s position on procedural grounds.

The American Family Association called that decision “shockingly weak” at the time. The Supreme Court effectively vindicated that criticism in 2024 when it overturned Oldham by a 6-3 vote.

Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?

The concerns do not stop there.

AFA, which tracks judicial nominations as well as any group on the right, has also described Oldham as “soft” on COVID shot mandates. He earned that reputation when he wrote an opinion saying schools need not require children to wear masks, not because masks do not work, but because schools could instead adopt other COVID policies involving vaccines, plexiglass, hand sanitizer, distancing, and more.

The opinion was so weak that no other judge joined it.

Then came gender ideology. Last year, my Blaze Media colleague Daniel Horowitz reported on Oldham siding against doctors and with the Biden administration’s edict that they must perform gender-transition procedures on children by refusing even to hear their challenge. Oldham had a chance to join a Trump-appointed judge who rejected Biden’s grotesque mandate. He passed.

His immigration record raises more red flags.

RELATED: Supreme Court sides with Catholic parents against California on student gender notification — for now

Photo by Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Oldham declined to back a Trump-appointed district judge who ruled against allowing illegal aliens to receive cheaper in-state college tuition than out-of-state Americans. That alone should have disqualified him from serious consideration.

Thankfully, Trump’s Justice Department sued last year to end that practice in Texas, where Oldham’s former client is governor. Once the Justice Department sued, Texas finally conceded the point. Now left-wing groups want the courts to restore that anti-American policy. And which legal precedent are they citing? Oldham’s.

You cannot make it up.

Nor was that his only immigration failure. Oldham also ruled against Abbott when the governor declared an invasion at the southern border two years ago. Does that sound like a judge ready to overturn Plyler v. Doe, the disastrous precedent that for illegal immigration serves much the same function Roe once served for abortion?

Now sensing that his moment may have arrived, Oldham appears to be trying to retcon himself as a reliably based jurist. Even Slate has noticed the pattern — the judicial equivalent of a comb-over meant to hide an obvious weakness. The result has been embarrassing. He now gets overturned with some regularity by one of the most right-leaning Supreme Courts in recent memory.

That tends to happen when ambition outruns conviction.

Oldham once lobbied Barack Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren, of all people, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now he wants conservatives to view him as Alito’s natural heir. That kind of ideological shape-shifting should make everyone nervous. When a man’s career seems driven more by advancement than by principle, it becomes hard to know where he actually stands.

That was never a question with Alito.

Replacing a sure thing requires another sure thing. Oldham is not that. Maybe he has good explanations for parts of his record. But maybe Trump can do better.

This may be Trump’s last chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It would amount to a self-own of historic proportions for the most based president of modern times to replace Alito with someone appreciably weaker than a George W. Bush appointee turned out to be.

Media, 29 Federal Judges Freak Out Over Rude Words In Dissent Attacking Trans Child Abuse

Federal courts have done the worst damage to themselves with a century of outrageous and abusive rulings like this one from the Ninth Circuit.

Out of order: Courts shouldn’t rule based on ‘trust us’ science



A training manual for federal judges just ditched its biased chapter on climate change. Good. But the same manual still peddles quackery about how science works — and it risks teaching the judiciary to treat models and “consensus” as proof.

The “How Science Works” chapter in the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” invites judges to overvalue computer models built on unproven assumptions and to accept “consensus” as evidence even when empirical testing cuts the other way. That is not science. It is a distortion of the scientific method, which demands observation, experimentation, and results that can be challenged and falsified in the real world.

This is the posture of pseudoscience: conclusions protected by authority and repetition rather than disciplined testing against reality.

The problem runs deeper than emphasis. In defining hypothesis, theory, and scientific law, the writers omit testing, observation, and experimentation. They also fail to acknowledge that all three can be disproven — even though demonstrating falseness has long been central to scientific progress. Science advances not by protecting favored conclusions but by trying — relentlessly — to break them.

The chapter even claims that science cannot “disprove hypotheses.” That is historically indefensible. Science has disproven hypotheses repeatedly, and entire revolutions have turned on that process.

Geocentrism gave way to Copernicus’ heliocentric model. Phrenology, eugenics, spontaneous generation, and miasma theory all enjoyed “consensus” before evidence refuted them. Alfred Wegener’s plate tectonics also met decades of rejection before the evidence won. Consensus delayed the truth. It did not deliver it.

The chapter also stumbles over prediction. It says prediction is a logical consequence of a hypothesis, “not necessarily what will happen in the future.” That drains prediction of its most important feature: testable claims about what should occur under specified conditions. A hypothesis can be tested against the past as well, but the logic stays the same — it must match reality.

Then the chapter offers reassurance that reveals the posture: “The fact that there is room for improvement in the process of science does not necessitate distrust of hypotheses that have gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community and about which consensus has been achieved.” In practice, that treats consensus as a shield against contrary evidence — a common ploy among climate alarmists.

RELATED: Win for kids! Major surgeon group reverses course, comes out against child genital mutilation

Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/Boston Globe via Getty Images

In places, the chapter contradicts itself, sometimes gesturing at rigor, elsewhere diminishing falsification and redefining key terms. The result is confusion. Its length and muddled definitions do not clarify how science works; they blur it. Worse, they introduce judges to wrongheaded practices — overuse of models and consensus — as if they can settle disputed scientific questions.

That is not the empirical tradition of Isaac Newton or Marie Curie. It is the posture of pseudoscience: conclusions protected by authority and repetition rather than disciplined testing against reality.

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg removed the manual’s climate chapter after objections from state attorneys general and others. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine still hosts the manual — including “How Science Works” — on its website.

Rosenberg, as head of the Federal Judicial Center, should take the next step and remove this chapter as well. Federal judges and the public they serve deserve a guide to science that prizes evidence over consensus and observation over simulation.

Six questions Trump and conservatives can no longer dodge in ’26



For conservatives, January 2025 felt like an auspicious moment to be alive. Donald Trump sat atop the world with a bully pulpit larger than any media outlet and the power to drive virtually any narrative he chose. Yet instead of using that power, we spent the year arguing over the power the GOP supposedly lacked.

Almost no legislation was passed. Many of the most transformational policies Trump enacted through executive action now sit mired in the courts.

Where is our Mamdani?

Fast-forward to January 2026. The economy looks grim. Democrats are crushing Republicans in special elections. It feels like a different universe.

Republicans tend to operate on a familiar two-year cycle. After a victory, the first year involves explaining why campaign promises cannot be fulfilled. The second year, ending in November elections, turns into defensive posturing: As disappointed as voters may be, they must remember that Democrats represent instant political death.

The implication stays constant. Voters must dutifully back the GOP, ignore the fact that Republicans currently hold power, and politely bypass the primary process out of fear of weakening resistance to Democrats.

As we enter the new year, we have reached the “rally around the GOP to stop the Democrats” phase of the cycle once again.

But reality intrudes. No matter how faithfully the base rallies, Republicans will likely lose in November because of the economy. Absent a dramatic national reset, Democrats will retake the House, probably with a substantial majority.

That makes the present moment decisive. With trifecta control still intact for now, Republicans must use what power they have to improve daily life, enact changes harder to undo, and reinforce red-state America so the coming blue wave does not obliterate the remaining red firewall.

Whether Republicans break free from their familiar cycle of election-failure theater comes down to the answers to these six questions.

1. Will the red firewall hold?

Republicans will likely lose the House and surrender residual power in battleground states such as Georgia and Arizona. Independents have abandoned the GOP, and that trend will accelerate as economic conditions worsen.

The question is whether Republicans will give their voters something worth turning out for. Base turnout alone will not flip purple territory, but it could stop the bleeding deep into red states and keep races such as the Iowa and Ohio governorships out of reach.

This past year made clear that Republicans are losing races they never should have had to defend. A deeper economic downturn would push that line even farther.

2. How toxic do AI data centers become — and will Republicans notice?

By the end of 2025, opposition to data centers surged across ideological lines. Communities worry about water use, power strain, housing values, and secondary effects.

Democrats have begun embracing that resistance as Trump elevates data centers and tech interests as pillars of his economic agenda. Will this issue fracture Republicans’ coalition or even force a break with Trump?

3. What will Republicans do with health care?

Democrats engineered a trap that forces Republicans to address health care, the single largest driver of deficits, inflation, and household pain.

Obamacare made unsubsidized insurance unaffordable for most Americans. Democrats then timed the expiration of expanded subsidies to land on Trump’s watch, ensuring that voters blame him rather than the law’s architects.

Anything Trump does — or refuses to do — will be pinned on him. That reality argues for pushing a genuinely free-market repeal-and-replace that lowers costs. History suggests that outcome remains unlikely. I’m not holding my breath, anyway.

4. Will Trump finally ignore a lawless court?

Could a powerless judge issue a ruling so egregious that it would prompt Trump to defy it at long last?

I am not holding my breath on that one, either.

RELATED: The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen

Photo by Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

5. Will Trump clear the decks on his promises dating back to 2015?

Democrats will likely control one or both chambers for the remainder of Trump’s term. Regardless of strategy, they probably win the midterms.

That means Trump has nothing to lose by executing fully on his original agenda now. Immigration moratoria, judicial reform, welfare devolution, bans on the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Antifa — these changes should be forced through every “must-pass” bill available.

An all-out approach carries policy upside and political clarity.

6. Will Trump stop making bad primary endorsements?

This year’s primaries matter far more than the general election. They will determine whether red states have leaders willing to defend their prerogatives when Democrats reclaim federal power.

If Trump continues endorsing lackluster governors and candidates such as Byron Donalds in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas, and Brad Little in Idaho, conservatives will have nowhere to retreat when figures like Zohran Mamdani dominate national politics.

RELATED: Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026

Photo by Amir Hamja-Pool/Getty Images

Mamdani’s takeover of New York and his appointment of Ramzi Kassem — a 9/11 al-Qaeda defense lawyer — as chief counsel drew outrage on the right. At his inauguration, Mamdani declared, “We’ll replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Rather than merely lamenting how Marxists consolidate power in deep-blue America, conservatives should let that example ignite action where they actually govern. If the left can floor the gas pedal in its strongholds, why can’t we?

Where is our Mamdani?

This moment demands urgency. GOP power has become a “use it or lose it” proposition. Trump must finally become the right-wing disruptor his supporters were promised.

If he cannot — or will not — then Republicans deserve to go the way of the Whigs.

The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen



One of the most consequential developments of 2025 has received far less scrutiny than it deserves: the steady surrender of executive authority to an unelected judiciary.

President Trump was elected to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, yet his administration increasingly behaves as if federal judges hold final authority over every major policy decision — including those squarely within the president’s constitutional and statutory powers.

Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.

By backing down whenever district courts issue sweeping injunctions, the administration is reinforcing a dangerous precedent: that no executive action is legitimate until the judiciary permits it. That assumption has no basis in the Constitution, but it is rapidly becoming the governing norm.

The problem became unmistakable when federal judges began granting standing to abstract plaintiffs challenging Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to protect ICE agents under attack. Many assumed such cases would collapse on appeal. Instead, the Supreme Court last week declined to lift an injunction blocking the Guard’s deployment in Illinois, signaling that the judiciary now claims authority to second-guess core commander-in-chief decisions.

Over the dissent of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, the court allowed the Seventh Circuit’s decision to stand. That ruling held that violent attacks on ICE agents in Chicago did not amount to a “danger of rebellion” sufficient to justify Guard deployment and did not “significantly impede” the execution of federal immigration law.

That conclusion alone should alarm anyone who still believes in separation of powers.

No individual plaintiff alleged personal injury by a Guardsman. No constitutional rights were violated. The plaintiff was the state of Illinois itself, objecting to a political determination made by the president under statutory authority granted by Congress. Courts are not empowered to adjudicate such abstract disputes over executive judgment.

Even if judges disagree with the president’s assessment of the threat environment, their opinion carries no greater constitutional weight than his. The commander in chief is charged with executing the laws and protecting federal personnel. Courts are not.

If judges can decide who has standing, define the scope of their own authority, and then determine the limits of executive power, constitutional separation of powers collapses entirely. What remains is not judicial review but judicial supremacy.

And that is precisely what we are witnessing.

Courts now routinely insert themselves into immigration enforcement, national security decisions, tariff policy, federal grants, personnel disputes, and even the content of government websites. The unelected, life-tenured branch increasingly functions as a super-legislature and shadow executive, vetoing or mandating policy at will.

RELATED: Judges break the law to stop Trump from enforcing it

Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty Images

What, then, remains for the people acting through elections?

If judges control immigration, spending, enforcement priorities, and foreign policy, why bother holding congressional or presidential elections at all? The Constitution’s framers never intended courts to serve as the ultimate policymakers. They were designed to be the weakest branch, confined to resolving concrete cases involving actual injuries.

Trump’s defenders often argue that patience and compliance will eventually produce favorable rulings. That belief is not only naïve — it is destructive.

For every narrow win Trump secures on appeal, the so-called institutionalist bloc on the court — Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — uses it to justify adverse outcomes elsewhere. Worse, because lower courts enjoin nearly every significant action, the administration rarely reaches the Supreme Court on clean constitutional grounds. The damage is done long before review occurs.

Consider the clearest example of all: the power of the purse.

Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill explicitly defunding Planned Parenthood. The bill cleared both chambers and was signed into law. Under the Constitution, appropriations decisions belong exclusively to Congress.

Yet multiple federal judges have enjoined that provision, effectively ordering the executive branch to continue sending taxpayer dollars to abortion providers in defiance of enacted law. Courts have not merely interpreted the statute; they have overridden it.

That raises an unavoidable question: Does the president have a duty to enforce the laws of Congress — or to obey judicial demands that contradict them?

Continuing to fund Planned Parenthood after Congress prohibited it is not neutrality. It is executive acquiescence to judicial nullification of legislative power.

The same pattern appears elsewhere.

Security clearances fall squarely within executive authority, yet the first Muslim federal judge recently attempted to block the president from denying clearance to a politically connected lawyer. Immigration, long recognized as a sovereign prerogative, has been transformed by courts into a maze of invented rights for noncitizens — including a supposed First Amendment right to remain in the country while promoting Hamas.

States fare no better. When West Virginia sought to ban artificial dyes from its food supply, an Obama-appointed federal judge intervened. When states enact laws complementing federal immigration enforcement, courts strike them down. But sanctuary laws that obstruct federal authority often receive judicial protection.

Heads, illegal aliens win. Tails, the people lose.

RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

What we are witnessing is adverse possession — squatter’s rights — of constitutional power. As Congress passes fewer laws and the executive hesitates to assert its authority, courts eagerly fill the vacuum. In 2025, Congress enacted fewer laws than in any year since at least 1989. Meanwhile, judges effectively “passed” nationwide policies affecting millions of Americans.

This did not happen overnight. Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.

It is not.

Trump cannot comply his way out of this crisis. No president can. A system in which courts claim final authority over every function of government is incompatible with republican self-rule.

The Constitution does not enforce itself. Separation of powers exists only if each branch is willing to defend its role.

Right now, the presidency is failing that test.

Who checks the judges? No one — and that’s the problem.



One would think a federal judge trying to block the president from deploying the National Guard to protect federal agents would mark the breaking point for judicial supremacism. Yet the Trump administration still behaves as if the Supreme Court can rescue it from judicial overreach. It cannot. You can’t comply your way out of judicial tyranny, appoint your way past it, or count on the high court to stop it. The judiciary must be delegitimized completely.

Congress passed by overwhelming margins a law banning Chinese-owned TikTok in the United States. President Trump ignored it. He ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to keep the app online, and no one in Washington blinked. The president defied a duly enacted law, extended TikTok’s life beyond the 90-day limit, and still allows just under 20% Chinese ownership. Yet the same Washington class insists that any judge can command the president on immigration, national security, or even his use of the National Guard — and that such rulings are the word of God.

The proper response is not to plead for Supreme Court review — it’s to ignore such rulings outright.

Late Saturday night, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, ruled that the president lacked authority to deploy the Oregon National Guard to Portland to protect ICE facilities. The same judiciary that called a few hours of chaos on Jan. 6, 2021, an “insurrection” now dismisses eight months of rioting, doxxing, and targeted attacks on ICE agents as “lawful protest.”

On Sunday, Immergut extended her injunction to every state’s National Guard units, even those like Texas, whose governors had granted Trump permission to federalize.

The merits of her decision aren’t the core issue. The problem is structural: Federal courts claim abstract standing to decide national-security questions that belong to elected branches. Judicial power was never meant to work this way.

If a citizen suffers injury, he can seek damages in court. But no judge has constitutional authority to referee political disputes as if she were deciding some sort of civil case between Microsoft and Amazon. The proper response is not to plead for Supreme Court review — it’s to ignore such rulings outright.

If the judiciary holds the final say in every political or constitutional conflict, checks and balances collapse. When judges alone define their own powers and the limits of the other branches, we cease to be a republic and become an unelected oligarchy. Abraham Lincoln, citing Thomas Jefferson, warned that once a free people submits absolutely to any department of government, liberty is lost.

When one branch violates the Constitution, the others — and the people — must push back. The founders never vested final authority in any single branch, least of all the one insulated from elections. Presidents come and go; judges remain for decades, accountable to no voter.

I don’t like that Trump sets tariff rates and hands out exemptions by executive order. He even granted Qatar de facto NATO protection without Senate approval. Those moves deserve political resistance — but not judicial vetoes. Questions of national policy belong to voters and legislators, not to courts hunting for imaginary plaintiffs.

Immergut granted standing to Oregon and Portland to challenge Trump’s finding of a “violent domestic insurrection,” claiming there were only four clashes with federal officers in the prior month. Even if that number were correct, no judge has the power to second-guess an executive’s determination of an uprising. Governments cannot sue one another over political facts. We are either a constitutional republic or a dictatorship of robes.

The founders understood this. James Madison originally proposed that the Supreme Court share a “council of revision” with the president to veto legislation. Once the Constitution created an independent executive with its own veto, no serious thinker imagined adding a judicial one. In 1789, Madison made clear that while courts interpret law in specific cases, no branch “draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the several departments.”

RELATED: Americans didn’t elect a Boston judge president

Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty Images

When branches clash, each uses its own powers to persuade the public. Madison wrote that differences between the legislative and executive “may be an inconvenience not entirely to be avoided.” That friction, he said, reflects the “concurrent right to expound the Constitution.” In other words, conflict is not a crisis — it’s republican government at work.

Today’s judicial supremacy replaces that rough balance with North Korean-style obedience to unelected authority. What’s next? Will judges write the 2026 federal budget while the president and Senate argue?

Waiting for the Supreme Court to reverse rogue lower-court rulings is a fool’s errand. As Justice Samuel Alito warned in Trump v. CASA, class-action suits and nationwide injunctions make such limits meaningless. Even if the high court eventually reverses Immergut, the administration will have wasted precious time and capital — while worse precedents, like birthright citizenship rulings, remain untouched.

How far must this usurpation go before the executive reasserts its authority? Until the presidency and Congress together reject the judiciary’s false supremacy, the United States will remain trapped in a system unworthy of a free people.

Peter Navarro’s book is a warning: If they can jail me, they can jail you



Blaze News readers know the script: agencies weaponized, media complicit, ordinary people crushed in the gears. “I Went to Prison So You Won’t Have To” follows that script with raw detail and a court docket.

Peter Navarro, once a senior economic adviser to President Trump, begins his account with a boarding-gate arrest worthy of a thriller: five armed agents, leg irons, and a cell once used for John Hinckley. He ends with a defiant claim — that a man can emerge unbroken after 120 days in what he calls a “lawfare gulag.”

The new gulag is not only a place. It is a habit. Navarro’s account shows how to break it.

Navarro doesn’t argue that America has become the USSR. His point is sharper: Bureaucratic impunity and political prosecutions can turn any free nation into a maze of petty tyrannies.

Kafka behind razor wire

The book’s middle chapters read like Kafka with a side of commissary ramen. Navarro describes a prison “camp” wrapped in razor wire, a dentist prescribing sunscreen the commissary didn’t sell, and commissary prices triple those at Target. He recounts a sudden Special Investigative Services raid that smashed showers, flooded the dorm, and locked inmates down. A First Step Act loophole denied him time credits because his sentence included no supervised release.

Absurdities pile up, but the lesson is deadly serious. Systems that multiply rules and shrug at conflicts breed injustice.

Executive privilege on trial

Navarro anchors his refusal to testify in claims of executive privilege and Department of Justice-recognized testimonial immunity for senior presidential advisers. He dismisses the Jan. 6 committee as a political theater project designed to “expose for exposure’s sake.” A White House letter, he says, purported to waive a predecessor’s privilege — something he insists an incumbent president should not have the power to do.

Skeptics may doubt Navarro’s reading. But the incentive structure he highlights cannot be ignored. If an incumbent president can extinguish a former president’s privilege at will, and if Congress can punish disputes it should legislate, then the machinery exists to criminalize losing an election.

That is not a conspiracy theory — it is a theory of incentives. And it is what Navarro says happened to him after the Biden administration took power.

Survival notes

Blaze News readers will recognize the moral of Navarro’s ordeal. He refused to plead the Fifth — not because it wouldn’t have helped, but because, as he writes, he would not validate a process he viewed as punitive. He catalogs the system’s manipulations: “Potemkin” cleanups before the media arrived, choreographed delays that wiped out visiting hours, petty flexes of power designed to make people small.

RELATED: The ‘normie conquest’: Millions just joined the right overnight

Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

Americans long believed political imprisonment couldn’t happen here. Navarro insists it already has.

Why the book matters

Why should “I Went To Prison So You Won’t Have To” sit on every Blaze News reader’s shelf? Because it doubles as a manual. It maps how citizens can be dragged through the gears: investigations framed as oversight but prosecuted like warfare, constitutional disputes treated as crimes, prison terms leveraged as warnings to Trump and the MAGA movement.

The book’s title is both a promise and a dare. Learn the tactics. Resist them peacefully, locally, lawfully. Read it. Argue with it. Mark the pages that disturb you. And above all — stay awake.

The new gulag is not only a place. It is a habit. Navarro’s account shows how to break it.

The Atlantic: Why, Yes, The Point Of Lawfare Is To Overturn Any Elections Republicans Win

The Atlantic reports the avalanche of leftist lawsuits are cut-and-paste operations designed to overturn election results Democrats don't like.

Why pro-life Americans can’t trust the courts any more



Americans love to blame politicians — and often with good reason. But the real power in this country doesn’t rest with the people we elect. It rests with the ones we don’t. Unelected judges now govern America. They don’t interpret laws. They rewrite them.

Activist judges have become the unelected elite now running our country, handing down rulings that override the will of voters, defy elected legislatures, and erase laws they don’t like.

One state is trying to protect life; the other is trying to shield those who end it. And a single judge gets to pick which law counts.

They employ manipulative language to justify their overreach. If you don’t comply, blood is on your hands. Whether it’s the environment, vaccine mandates, border control, or abortion access, the refrain is always the same: Submit to the ruling, or people will die.

The irony couldn’t be more blatant.

In many cases involving abortion policy, it is in fact judges’ rulings that cost lives — lives of the unborn babies impacted by their rogue, dangerous decisions.

Take the recent case in Tennessee, where a federal judge blocked a law that protected minors from being trafficked across state lines for secret abortions. The law didn’t punish women. It didn’t outlaw abortion. It simply required parental involvement, something the majority of Americans support. But for activist judges, parental rights are optional if abortion is the end goal.

In New York, another judge defied federal authority and openly refused to cooperate with Texas law enforcement to hold a doctor accountable for illegally prescribing abortion pills. One state is trying to protect life; the other is trying to shield those who end it. And a single judge gets to pick which law counts.

Meanwhile, a federal judge overturned efforts to defund Planned Parenthood nationwide, even after Congress passed clear budget restrictions. The elected branches — chosen by the people — made a decision. But it didn’t matter. The judge didn’t like it, so the ruling class overruled the people and prioritized its holy grail: abortion.

Judicial activism has turned the courts into abortion war rooms. Judges now see themselves not as interpreters of law but as defenders of an ideology that elevates abortion above the democratic process. Their rulings don’t reflect any laws. They reflect a commitment to abortion at any cost.

It’s not just dangerous. It’s undemocratic.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court is beginning to push back. In a recent ruling, the court clarified that district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions and block federal policies. It’s a necessary and overdue correction. But it’s only the beginning.

RELATED: Judicial activism strikes again in 14th Amendment decision

Photo by Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and gave power back to the people. In many states across the country, Americans responded by electing leaders and passing laws to protect the unborn. But today, activist judges are overriding those efforts, blocking pro-life laws and shielding abortionists from accountability.

We need judges who apply the law, not rewrite it. Until that happens, every unborn child, every woman in danger of being exploited by the abortion industry, and every citizen fighting for life will remain at the mercy of unelected rulers.

The Dobbs decision was only the beginning. Now we must press forward to ensure that the will of the people is honored and the most vulnerable among us are finally protected.

Americans didn’t elect a Boston judge president



How much longer will Congress and the executive branch keep bowing to rogue judges?

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ordered the federal government to continue reimbursing Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. She warned that cutting funding could cause women to “suffer adverse health consequences,” face more unintended pregnancies, and go without treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power.

Congress had already voted to end the funding. The law is on the books. It went through the full legislative process and was signed by the president. But Judge Talwani believes her opinion overrides all of that. She not only reinterpreted the law, she ordered the appropriation of funds to a private abortion business.

That crosses a major constitutional line.

Judges don’t have the power of the purse. They can’t spend money. They can’t fund private organizations. Only Congress can do that. Yet that core principle of the separation of powers now seems optional. We are left with a system where unelected judges act as legislators, executives, and arbiters — and no one challenges them.

Too many conservatives hesitate to confront this reality. They’ll cheer when Trump ignores Congress on TikTok but wring their hands when he considers defying an unlawful court ruling. But judicial opinions don’t carry binding force simply because a judge wrote them. Presidents and lawmakers swear the same oath to the Constitution as judges do. They don’t swear loyalty to the judiciary.

If a court orders the government to fund Planned Parenthood in direct defiance of a law passed by Congress, and the executive branch complies, then we no longer have a functioning constitutional system. We have a judiciary with a veto power over the other branches.

This didn’t start with Talwani’s ruling, and it won’t end here. Judges now routinely issue sweeping decisions that affect the entire country, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that supposedly reined in nationwide injunctions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito warned that lower courts would continue to defy precedent unless checked. They were right.

The time for deference is over. If Trump continues to honor every lawless edict from every federal judge, he only encourages more of the same. He entrenches the notion that judges make law and everyone else must obey.

RELATED: Democrats created this court monster — now it’s eating them

Prasong Maulae via iStock/Getty Images

Imagine Congress passes and Trump signs a reconciliation bill that strips federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or Planned Parenthood funding. Under Judge Talwani’s logic, the courts could simply declare the law unconstitutional and order the executive branch to act against it — up to and including spending money Congress never appropriated. That’s not judicial review. That’s a judge acting like a one-woman super-legislature with a gavel and a god complex. Where does it end?

It never ends. Earlier this month, a judge in California ruled that ICE cannot carry out “roving” immigration enforcement in parts of the state’s Central Valley. The ruling lacked any constitutional basis. The judge simply decided too many illegal immigrants were being arrested and declared the enforcement itself a violation of rights — despite no evidence that a single American citizen had been wrongfully detained.

Rather than overturn the decision, the Ninth Circuit grilled government attorneys about whether ICE had an arrest quota. The implication was clear: Immigration enforcement itself is now suspect.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power. Congress holds the purse strings. The executive enforces the law. Judges interpret the law in individual cases. That’s the constitutional design.

Abraham Lincoln, in his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858, warned against treating court opinions as absolute. If citizens and lawmakers accept every ruling without question, Lincoln said, they prepare themselves to accept the next decision “without any inquiry.”

That mindset leads to tyranny. Not suddenly, but step by step.

The judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch. It was designed that way. It has no army. It has no budget. Its legitimacy depends on its restraint. When judges cast that aside, the other branches must respond.

Otherwise, we will find ourselves governed not by the Constitution but by the whims of unelected lawyers with lifetime tenure.

If Trump does not confront the courts, we will be obliged to implement any rule from any judge who shares the same beliefs as Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’d hate to see what the next decision looks like.