We Still Have An Imperial Judiciary, Yet Trump Continues To Exercise Extreme Restraint
What the judges have yet to appreciate is that their own lawlessness is destroying the reputation of the courts.What the judges have yet to appreciate is that their own lawlessness is destroying the reputation of the courts.John Roberts Is The Face Of Leftists’ Judicial Coup
There has never been a figure in modern U.S. history who has done more to destroy the judiciary's credibility than John Roberts.Runaway judges, rogue rulings — and JD Vance is having none of it
Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel recently launched an unexpectedly harsh attack on Vice President JD Vance in her piece, “Vance Courts Trouble for Trump.” Strassel took issue with Vance’s criticism of the Supreme Court — specifically Chief Justice John Roberts — for refusing to rein in lower courts that continue to block the president’s immigration enforcement efforts. Vance had condemned what he called the “profoundly wrong sentiment” that the judiciary exists to “check the excesses of the executive.” Strassel responded by warning Vance to stop bad-mouthing “Trump’s greatest legacy and biggest asset — the Supreme Court.”
But why should Trump muzzle his vice president? Why should he sit quietly while the very judges he fought tooth and nail to confirm — despite often violent opposition from the Democrats — now obstruct his efforts to secure the border and deport criminal aliens?
Yes, the Wall Street Journal prefers to cast itself as a centrist paper taking aim at both sides. But that posture doesn’t match the moment we’re in.
If Vance’s criticisms count as “political malpractice,” then so did the actions of several American presidents. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, pushed through the Judiciary Acts of 1801 and 1802, which cut the number of Supreme Court justices and stripped them of their circuit-riding duties. Jefferson acted to dismantle the Federalist “Midnight Appointments” rushed through by outgoing President John Adams.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court claimed the power of judicial review — something not granted by Article III of the Constitution, by the way. Even then, Chief Justice John Marshall, a staunch Federalist, stopped short of challenging Jefferson directly. He didn’t try to compel the president to seat William Marbury, the would-be justice of the peace Adams had appointed in his final hours. Marshall asserted the court’s authority but avoided provoking a constitutional crisis.
Today’s activist judges show no such restraint. Unlike Marshall, they challenge the executive branch at every turn — and always in one direction. Vance’s criticism doesn’t reflect political malpractice. It’s an overdue reality check.
We’re now dealing with a runaway judiciary. Democrat-appointed federal district judges continue to block lawful presidential functions for openly partisan reasons. It’s unclear what authority these judges claim when they prohibit Trump from deporting even violent criminal aliens — many of whom Democrats welcomed in to inflate future voter rolls.
Vance’s expectation — that the Supreme Court, especially the justices Trump fought to confirm, would step in to curb the excesses of lower courts — makes perfect sense. Contrary to Strassel’s framing, Vance isn’t succumbing to some reckless “temptation” by criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts and his Republican colleagues. He’s stating the obvious: The court’s failure to rein in rogue judges undermines the president’s constitutional authority.
Strassel’s shrug-it-off mentality — “win some, lose some” — won’t cut it here. This fight matters. Trump cannot afford to lose.
Consider the hypocrisy. Presidents Clinton and Obama removed removed multitudes of illegal aliens when doing so served their political interests. Back then, Democrats still courted blue-collar workers and didn’t want unskilled illegal labor undercutting their base. They didn’t insist on due process or invite obstruction from the courts. They acted decisively.
RELATED: Trump must defy rogue judges or risk a failed presidency
Now, Strassel insists that Trump must accept lengthy hearings before removing even the most dangerous illegal aliens. That’s a formula for paralysis, not justice. Meanwhile, Democrat judges didn’t blink when the Biden administration opened the floodgates and allowed 10 to 20 million illegals to pour into the country. Trump has every right to expect that the Supreme Court — not least the justices he carried over the finish line — would finally restore order and let him carry out the mission he was elected to complete.
And enough with the double standard. The populist right gets lectured about decorum while the left ignores every rule with impunity. Democrats tried to pack the courts with ideologues, launched smear campaigns against nominees, and encouraged mobs to hound justices who ruled against them. Their media allies cheered them on and still call for removing conservative justices like Clarence Thomas any time the court hands down an opinion they dislike.
This isn’t a fair fight. The right is battling from behind, and Strassel’s call for restraint sounds almost unserious in this context. Yes, the Wall Street Journal prefers to cast itself as a centrist paper taking aim at both sides. But that posture doesn’t match the moment we’re in. Vance’s criticism didn’t go too far — it didn’t go far enough. His comments were mild, measured, and overdue. And if they rattled Strassel’s sensibilities, that says more about her perspective than his.
For Playing Political Games With Trump’s Deportations, Judge Ho Gives SCOTUS The Smackdown It Deserves
'I worry that the disrespect they have been shown will not inspire continued respect for the judiciary, without which we cannot long function.'Only SCOTUS Can Rein In The Judicial Coup
Nationwide injunctions essentially undo the results of the last election by keeping in place Biden's policies that more than 77 million voters rejected in 2024.Supreme Court Stands By While Lower Courts Carry On Ripping Up The Constitution
Until the Supreme Court acts, an unconstitutional supremacy will continue to infect even the furthest limbs of the judicial branch.Justice Thomas Exposes The Absurdity Of Nationwide Injunctions With One Simple Question
On Thursday Associate Justice Clarence Thomas injected a healthy dose of reality into Supreme Court oral arguments over the issue of nationwide injunctions on President Trump’s birthright citizenship order. The moment came during an exchange between Thomas and U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer on the history of nationwide injunctions. Such orders seek to prohibit the […]John Roberts doesn’t deserve your deference
The first 100 days of Trump’s presidency marked a well-earned honeymoon. But the next 100 days will test whether the marriage can survive — especially with unruly offspring like judicial overreach and intra-MAGA infighting threatening the union.
Take Chief Justice John Roberts, for example. In a recent interview, he claimed the judiciary is “independent” from the other branches, yet also insisted it has the authority to “strike down” both laws and executive actions. So which is it? Are judges independent arbiters — or unaccountable gods?
Every movement walks a fine line between selling its soul and learning to take ‘yes’ for an answer.
Roberts may not understand what “independent” actually means. How can the judiciary call itself independent when it relies entirely on the other two branches for its power? Judges don’t appoint or confirm themselves. They don’t fund their own operations. They can’t enforce their own rulings or impose new policies. They act only through the political structures that created them.
‘Neither force nor will’
The judiciary is, by design, the most dependent of the three branches. The Constitution’s framers structured it that way to protect the rights they believed came from God, not government. Want proof? Run a full-text search of the Constitution for “strike down” or “struck down.” Those words don’t appear — because that power was never explicitly granted or even implied. Read Federalist 78 and 81. Hamilton makes it plain.
He also made clear that courts have no authority to tax, spend, or raise armies. Why did he highlight those powers? Because they are the most sweeping and dangerous. Governments that can conscript citizens and debase the currency can do real harm. But the political branches exercise those powers — and voters can hold them accountable. The judiciary, with its lifetime appointments, cannot be removed when it abuses its role. That’s why, as Hamilton wrote, courts were designed to possess “neither force nor will.”
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier shows exactly what’s at stake. He’s openly defying a federal judge’s order on immigration. So why hasn’t anyone arrested him for contempt? Who would enforce the order? The U.S. Marshals? Not without Trump’s OK. Local sheriffs? Only if Gov. Ron DeSantis agrees.
The chief justice is betting you won’t notice. He’s counting on your silence while the courts expand their own power unchecked. But a republic cannot survive if one branch decides its own jurisdiction. Power flows where it’s permitted to go. And the so-called moral majority — the people John Adams believed would hold the republic together — have surrendered too many battles to keep “We the People” alive in more than name. We’ve never truly been a nation of laws. We’ve always been a nation of political will.
Maligning MAHA?
That political will must now be exercised — boldly — against both the judiciary and the emerging fractures inside the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. While it’s true that MAGA 2.0 wouldn’t exist without MAHA, the movement faces internal risks just as dangerous as external enemies. If MAHA lets infighting fester, it will rot from the inside — just as Anthony Fauci’s unchecked power eroded trust during COVID.
I first heard of Casey Means through Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. Now, I’m being asked to believe — by MAHA stalwarts I deeply respect — that Trump’s nominee for surgeon general is some kind of psyop designed to block real accountability. Seriously? If Rogan and Carlson are now launch platforms for deep-state mind control, then it might be time to pack it in and let the judges run wild. Eat, drink, and brace for booster number 666.
When you’ve lived on the margins as long as the MAHA crowd has, it’s natural to view new arrivals — alleged “bandwagon jumpers” like Means and her brother Callie — with suspicion. But every successful team needs bandwagon fans. Have you ever noticed how stadiums only fill when a team wins? That’s no coincidence. MAHA has gained traction and credibility, and now people want in. That’s a good thing. But if MAHA wants to become the new status quo, it must learn to govern.
Every movement walks a fine line between selling its soul and learning to take “yes” for an answer.
At some point, you have to move past the constant sense of betrayal and start making real compromises. That’s how things get done. Whether in marriage, business, or politics — risk always comes with meaning. It’s just math.
Pulling the COVID shot off the market would take guts. So will getting a Republican Congress to accept its mandate from the people, rather than punting to unelected judges while cashing in on K Street.
The next 100 days must restore order. The path forward looks clear. What’s uncertain is whether we have the courage and conviction to walk it. Were we made to be ruled by John Roberts and Anthony Fauci? Or will we step up and govern like citizens? Yes, governing is hard. But letting medical and judicial “experts” run our lives is far worse.
Right?
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com