Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play



“Sovereignty” may have won the Kentucky Derby. But if it’s going to win in Washington, Republicans need to stop stalling and start delivering.

Many of us backed Donald Trump in 2024 with a clear, urgent checklist of national priorities. None matter more than mass deportations. Only one real legislative vehicle remains to force the issue: budget reconciliation.

If Republicans won’t use the reconciliation bill to cut inflation, they should at least use it to shut down the invasion.

Let’s be blunt. Republicans have no plan to cut spending. The only debate is how much debt they’ll add. That leaves mass deportations as the last major policy goal still backed by both the White House and much of the GOP.

Yet under current judicial norms, each of the 20 million deportations could require a court fight. At this pace, Trump would remove fewer than 1 million people by the end of his term — only to be followed by a radical Democrat ready to usher in 20 million more.

What’s the solution?

The House Judiciary Committee earmarked $81.4 billion for ICE and deportation-related activities in its reconciliation bill. But that money means nothing — worse, it only inflates the debt — if we don’t fix the lawfare loopholes and end the legal incentives that fuel this invasion.

This isn’t just about funding. It’s a matter of policy. The final reconciliation bill must include structural legal reforms. Otherwise, the invasion continues — with billions wasted in the process.

According to sources, congressional allies plan to attach an amendment to upcoming legislation that would put an end to immigration-related lawfare once and for all.

The proposal would bar anyone who isn’t a green card holder — including all illegal aliens and temporary visa holders — from gaining standing in Article III courts to challenge their deportation. In other words, rulings by immigration judges would be final. Unless the government seeks to imprison someone on criminal charges, no foreign national has a due-process right to remain in the country against the national will. The bill simply reaffirms long-standing principles that activist judges have chipped away at for years.

The amendment also tackles lawfare targeting red states trying to enforce immigration laws. Once Trump leaves office, a legal backstop must be in place to prevent a fresh wave of illegal immigration from overrunning states like Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Idaho.

Federal judges have repeatedly blocked these states from criminalizing illegal presence. This bill would strip federal courts of jurisdiction in such cases. Any legal challenge would go through state courts instead, making state supreme court rulings final and beyond the reach of federal review.

Unless Trump starts ignoring rogue judicial rulings, this legislation is his only realistic path to carrying out mass deportations.

He must go all in and make it clear to Congress that he won’t accept procedural excuses about the Byrd Rule or Senate parliamentarian objections. The Senate majority can overrule the parliamentarian — something they already plan to do to pass tax cuts.

This is Trump’s moment to force the issue. No more delays. No more legal sabotage. No more excuses.

The House Judiciary Committee’s draft of the major spending bill includes a provision aimed at curbing judicial abuse — but it doesn’t go far enough.

The measure would require judges to collect a bond from plaintiffs seeking injunctions against the federal government. If they fail to collect it, their rulings would be void under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

But the reform is too narrow to matter. The NGOs suing to block immigration enforcement have deep pockets. Judges can easily set token bond amounts that do nothing to deter meritless lawsuits.

Still, the provision proves a vital point: Republican leadership is willing to include policy-related language in a reconciliation bill when it suits them. That means nothing prevents them from going further and defunding litigation aimed at sabotaging deportations.

This is Trump’s last real chance to salvage his immigration agenda. Reconciliation offers his clearest shot at using party control to pursue an objective he can’t afford to lose.

If Republicans won’t use the reconciliation bill to cut inflation, they should at least use it to shut down the invasion.

DC Courts Are Such A Mess Because Leftist Judges, Not POTUS, Pick Their Colleagues

Fixing the broken D.C. judicial appointment process is straightforward: Replace it with the process that already exists for nominating, confirming, and appointing every Article III federal judge.

ACLU sues to prevent Trump admin from deporting alien enemies in wake of SCOTUS decision



The U.S. Supreme Court sided Monday with President Donald Trump, lifting an Obama judge's order that temporarily blocked the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected terrorists who have stolen into the homeland.

While Trump called it a "great day for justice in America!" and Attorney General Pam Bondi said the decision was "a landmark victory for the rule of law," the fight was apparently not over. The high court afforded alien enemies and their leftist champions another opportunity to challenge removals under the act by the Trump administration, explaining that their lawsuits must be brought where they are being held — not in Washington, D.C.

The American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union seized upon that opportunity on Tuesday, filing a lawsuit in a Democratic enclave on behalf of a pair of military-age Venezuelan nationals fit for removal under the Alien Enemies Act.

One of the illegal aliens is a supposedly non-straight 21-year-old Venezuelan national who entered the U.S. in May 2024 and was subsequently identified by the Department of Homeland Security as an "associate/affiliate of Tren de Aragua." The other is a 32-year-old Venezuelan who stole into the U.S. in 2022, allegedly because his political activism back home jeopardized his safety. Both illegal aliens were parties to the ACLU's original lawsuit targeting the administration's use of the AEA.

The Trump administration is targeting Venezuelan nationals who are members of the terrorist organization, 'are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.'

The ACLU has asked a Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein, to assume jurisdiction, to block the Trump administration from removing the illegal aliens under the act, and to certify the Venezuelan duo as representatives of a class of illegal aliens.

A judge ordered the Trump administration to refrain from ousting the two men before a hearing Wednesday morning, as it had with hundreds of others under the AEA in March, reported The Hill.

The lawsuit claims that Trump's proclamation "contorts the plain language" of the 1798 law; the AEA "plainly only applies to warlike actions"; Venezuelan nationals are not invading the U.S.; Venezuela "has not launched a predatory incursion" into the country; "'mass illegal immigration' or criminal activities, as described in the Proclamation, plainly do not fall within the statutory boundaries"; and the use of the AEA has caused and will continue to cause the apparent alien enemies harm.

In his March 15 proclamation titled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua," Trump stated that Tren de Aragua — which his administration has designated as a foreign terrorist organization — "is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."

"TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela," added the president.

Contrary to the suggestion in the lawsuit, the Trump administration is targeting Venezuelan nationals who are members of the terrorist organization, "are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."

The ACLU is, therefore, pushing for a class action lawsuit against the administration on behalf of suspected foreign terrorists.

The New York Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on the liberal X knockoff Bluesky, "No one should face the horrifying prospect of lifelong imprisonment without a fair hearing, let alone in another country."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judicial impeachment is a remedy — not a rebellion



Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement last week declaring that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” His remarks come amid renewed debate over the scope of judicial accountability, as some conservatives, including President Trump, have called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg over his handling of cases related to deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Roberts’ assertion, while reflective of modern norms, oversimplifies history. The reality is more complicated: Judicial impeachment has, at times, been driven by judicial decisions and the conduct surrounding them. While impeachment should not be a routine mechanism for challenging case outcomes, history shows it has been used when a judge’s rulings indicate persistent bias, a disregard for legal constraints, or an abuse of judicial authority.

If a judge consistently rules in a manner that defies constitutional limits, impeachment is not a rejection of judicial independence — it is a safeguard against judicial tyranny.

The clearest rebuttal to Roberts’ statement is the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. Chase, a staunch Federalist, was accused of allowing his political views to shape his rulings, particularly in cases related to the Sedition Act. The House of Representatives impeached him for what was effectively a judicial philosophy that his opponents found intolerable.

The Senate ultimately acquitted Chase, but the very fact that he was impeached — explicitly for his conduct on the bench — undermines the claim that judicial decisions have never been a basis for impeachment.

Chase’s case is not an outlier. In 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and removed, partially for erratic behavior but also for making decisions Congress viewed as improper and politically motivated. Judge West Humphreys, a Confederate sympathizer, was removed in 1862 in part because his rulings reflected active opposition to federal law. These cases show that, historically, judicial decisions and their consequences have been central to impeachment discussions.

The constitutional framework

Roberts’ statement implies a rigid wall between impeachment and judicial decision-making, but the Constitution draws no such line.

Article III, Section 1 provides that judges hold office “during good Behaviour,” a standard distinct from the more lenient protections given to elected officials. Article II, Section 4 allows impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That last phrase, historically interpreted to include abuses of power, opens the door to judicial decisions being relevant — not as mere policy disagreements, but as evidence of a judge’s failure to uphold his duties impartially.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 81 acknowledged that judicial misconduct, including decisions reflecting personal bias or disregard for the law, could be grounds for impeachment. The notion that impeachment exists only for personal corruption, rather than judicial overreach or defiance of legal norms, is a modern interpretation rather than an ironclad constitutional principle.

When does a ruling become impeachable?

The key distinction between a bad decision and an impeachable ruling is that the latter falls into a pattern of rulings that indicate a judge is abandoning his role as a neutral arbiter. A single controversial opinion does not justify impeachment, but if a judge repeatedly defies precedent, injects personal ideology into his decisions, or rules in ways that ignore constitutional limits, impeachment could be an appropriate remedy.

Consider the executive branch: A president is not impeached simply for enacting an unpopular policy, but if he abuses his authority, Congress has the power to remove him. The same reasoning applies to the judiciary. If a judge consistently rules in a manner that defies constitutional limits, impeachment is not a rejection of judicial independence — it is a safeguard against judicial tyranny.

A guardrail, not a weapon

None of this is to say that impeachment should be a routine check on judicial power. Judicial independence requires that courts be protected from political retaliation.

But the absolutist claim that impeachment is never an appropriate response to judicial decisions erases historical precedent and ignores the Constitution’s broader framework. Impeachment is not a tool for re-litigating every case, but neither is it an untouchable relic of the past.

Whether or not Congress agrees with Trump that Judge Boasberg should be impeached, it is essential that both judges and lawmakers recognize impeachment as a legitimate constitutional mechanism when a judge is no longer upholding his duty. The debate should not be about whether judicial decisions can ever warrant impeachment — they have before, and they will again — but about where the line is drawn between bad rulings and a true abandonment of judicial responsibility.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Republicans Hustle To Mobilize Early Voters Ahead Of Critical Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

Fresh off the presidential election, Wisconsin voters are again enduring political ads vigorous get-out-the-vote efforts.

With Each Injunction, The Courts Become An Unelected Ruling Class

This obstruction is far from what the framers intended.

Obama judges say suspected terrorists must be allowed to fight Alien Enemies Act deportations



An Obama judge doubled down Monday on his ruling preventing President Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected terrorists who have stolen into the homeland.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — who critics claim is not just overstepping his bounds but "usurping the power of the president" — stated in his 37-page opinion that suspected members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist organization have a right to individualized hearings before they may be deported.

Later Monday, another Obama judge — this time on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — heard the government's arguments for lifting Boasberg's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett echoed her fellow traveler, claiming that the suspected terrorists dwelling in the country illegally who had been targeted for deportation were not given the due process supposedly owed them and that "Nazis got better treatment."

Background

Weeks after the State Department designated Tren de Aragua a terrorist group, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, proclaiming that all Venezuelan citizens "14 years of age or older who are members of TDA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."

'The judge's order was patently unlawful.'

A pair of leftist activist groups immediately filed a lawsuit on behalf of several illegal aliens in an effort to prevent Trump from using the law, which was passed by the generation that drafted the Constitution.

Boasberg granted the leftist groups their temporary restraining order, thereby preventing the Trump administration from sending more suspected terrorists packing — besides, of course, the hundreds of illegal aliens the administration loaded into planes destined for El Salvador and Honduras hours earlier.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, stated, "The judge's order was patently unlawful. Beyond unlawful, it was an outrageous assault on the Constitution, an outrageous assault on the sovereignty of the nation and on democracy itself."

Miller later told CNN that Trump's authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States with the aid of the Alien Enemies Act "is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way."

"There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review," added Miller.

Trump noted on Truth Social, "If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!"

Tren de Aragua's judicial safety net

Boasberg suggested that the language of the Alien Enemies Act — particularly the terms "nation," "government," "invasion," and "predatory incursion" — was open for his interpretation and insinuated that a court could potentially be "empowered to decide if the characteristics of Tren de Aragua qualify it as a 'nation' or 'government,' or if its conducts constitutes a 'perpetrated, attempted, or threatened' 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion.'"

'Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings.'

Despite his apparent interest in tailoring the definitions of key terms to suit leftist activists and illegal aliens, Boasberg indicated that such a provocative course of action was likely unnecessary as the plaintiffs "have established a likelihood of succeeding on a more discrete claim that justifies retaining the TROs."

The Obama judge claimed that even if Trump's invocation of the act is valid, suspected enemies in the country illegally are still to be afforded the chance to contest their deportation or voluntarily self-deport.

"Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all," wrote Boasberg. "The awesome power granted by the Act may be brought to bear only on those who are, in fact, 'alien enemies.' And the Supreme Court and this Circuit have long maintained that federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such."

The judge stressed that the illegal aliens targeted by the act "must be given the opportunity, if they so choose, to contest that they are 'Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States."

Different Obama judge, same story

The Trump administration has appealed Boasberg's hearing and argued its case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Monday. Based on their reception by an Obama-appointed judge on the panel, the Alien Enemies Act may not ultimately be a reliable arrow in the administration's quiver when it comes to dispatching with illegally imported terrorists.

Judge Patricia Millett complained that the hundreds of criminal noncitizens whom Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed were flown to El Salvador and Honduras on March 15 were not given notice or provided an opportunity to contest their ouster, reported ABC News.

"There's no regulations, and nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this. They [sic] people weren't given notice," said Millett. "They weren't told where they were going. They were given those people on those planes on that Saturday and had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA."

'We cannot allow rogue, activist judges to conduct our foreign policy.'

According to Millett, "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act," referencing previously identified enemy aliens' ability to challenge their removal from the country during World War II.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign reportedly suggested Millett was wrong about her Nazi comparison, noting that some of the suspected terrorists were able to file habeas petitions.

Whereas Boasberg repeatedly cast doubt on the validity of the law, Millett was at least willing to acknowledge the law was constitutional.

Millett's responses were tempered by another judge on the panel, Trump-appointee Justin Walker, who appeared wise to the plaintiffs' game. Walker reportedly questioned why the activist groups decided to bring their case in Washington, D.C., rather than in Texas, where the deportees were being detained.

Of limits and ousters

Republican Rep. Brandon Gill (Texas), among those frustrated with judicial overreach and Democrat-appointed judges' apparent efforts to thwart the will of the democratically elected president, has filed a resolution to impeach Boasberg — a largely symbolic gesture granted it will reportedly require 14 Senate Democrats to convict.

Gill, who deemed Boasberg's latest ruling a "judicial insurrection," told Fox Business, "I hope that the Supreme Court steps in and expedites this appeals process, but absent that, I think Congress needs to jump in here. We cannot allow rogue, activist judges to conduct our foreign policy or to usurp the president's authority."

A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports found that voters favor impeaching Boasberg by a 2-to-1 margin — something Trump has expressed support for — and that voters majoritively support Trump's deportation of Venezuelan terrorists.

Critics of judicial overreach might ultimately have better luck reining in activist judges with legislation.

On Monday, California Rep. Darrell Issa (R) introduced a bill titled the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would prohibit U.S. district courts from issuing any order providing for injunctive relief "except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court."

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan indicated that his committee will also hold hearings on efforts by Democrat-appointed judges to undermine the Trump administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

FACT CHECK: No, The Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals Has Not Reassigned Judge Tanya Chutkan

An image shared on Facebook claims the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has purportedly removed Judge Tanya Chutkan from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and reassigned her to a lower court. Verdict: False The claim is false and originally stems from a March 23 post shared by “America’s Last Line […]

Obstructing Trump’s Agenda Via Injunction Is The New Russia Collusion Hoax

Just as the Russia hoax was weaponized to hamstring the first Trump presidency, the flurry of injunctions is designed to hamstring his second one.

Trump’s war against the deep state starts with the courts



We are not a nation of laws, and we never have been. We are a nation of political will, and we always will be.

For more than a generation, the right has either failed or refused to acknowledge this essential truth. Meanwhile, the left has embraced it with unwavering commitment. As a result, it was on the verge of fulfilling Antonio Gramsci’s vision of a “long march through the institutions” — until the 2024 election stopped the left just short of the goal line.

Trump has an opportunity to turn the left’s misuse of the courts against it. He has already set the stage for a second term that could make him a once-in-a-century leader.

The good news is that after the 2024 election, we’re still in the fight. The bad news? We have 99 yards to march in the opposite direction. Here’s how we got here.

The left understands that politics is ultimately about power — acquiring it and using it — not about process. Leftists start with the policy outcome they want, no matter how extreme or destructive, and then fabricate a process to make it appear “legal.” That’s how judges, with no constitutional authority to do so, can decide that Venezuelan drug lords have a greater right to live in America than unborn babies have to be born.

Meanwhile, the right has typically responded by meticulously adhering to every subsection of every constitutional doctrine in its desperate, fleeting attempts to preserve what remains of sanity. And the right has done so at a glacial pace — while the left sprints toward Gomorrah.

Aggression on many fronts

Enter Donald Trump.

Unconventional quarterbacks rarely score 99-yard touchdowns, but they change the game. The right’s shift in leadership last decade introduced a wild card that made the left feel genuinely threatened for the first time. Instead of a predictable, by-the-book leader — akin to a classic drop-back passer — Trump operates best outside the pocket, forcing opponents to react to him.

His administration shattered the traditional “first 100 days” playbook, which typically focuses on one major campaign promise at a time. Instead, from day one, Trump aggressively took on the left across multiple fronts simultaneously.

This unpredictability has sent the left into a panic, driving leftists to act in ways previously confined to their most fevered fantasies. That’s why Trump faced two coup attempts in his first term. The Russian collusion hoax, orchestrated through the intelligence community, was nothing more than a psychological operation designed to nullify the 2016 election.

The second coup attempt came in the form of COVID-19 — a manufactured crisis weaponized by the bureaucratic swamp, with Anthony Fauci leading the charge. This psyop wasn’t about public health. It was designed to ensure Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.

When that failed, leftists tried to imprison him, hoping to prevent his return. When that, too, didn’t work, they even attempted to assassinate him. That, by sheer providence, also failed.

Now, with its back against the wall, the ruling class has deployed its ultimate weapon — the most powerful psyop of all. The one that, for decades, has made Republicans surrender without a fight the moment they hear four dreaded words: “The courts have spoken.”

Injunctions as weapons

Trump has served as president for just 18% of the 21st century, yet he has been the target of nearly 70% of all federal injunctions issued against a sitting president in that time. An overwhelming 92% of those rulings came from Democrat-appointed judges. In February alone, Trump faced more federal injunctions than Joe Biden has during his entire presidency.

The same Biden who opened the borders to drug cartels and human traffickers, mandated controversial COVID-19 vaccines as a condition for employment, and pressured Big Tech to suppress dissenting views. In a just and rational world, such corruption would be unthinkable — but it was where we lived until just a couple of months ago.

Trump has thrown the Democratic Party into chaos, but the swamp’s power structures remain intact. The intelligence community, the administrative state, and activist judges continue their work, shielding the establishment from accountability. Hardly a day passes without a leftist judge fabricating authority the Constitution never granted, imposing new “rights” and obligations as phony as a country called “Palestine.”

Just as the Russia collusion hoax and Fauci-funded COVID hysteria were used to derail Trump’s first term, the judiciary is now the left’s weapon of choice against his second. Leftists will not stop unless they are forced to stop.

Beat the system

The right has little experience — let alone success — challenging judicial supremacy. For too long, conservatives have played by the left’s rules, expecting fair outcomes in a system rigged against them.

But one example proves it can be done. I know it well because it wouldn’t have happened without me.

In 2010, Iowa made history as the first state to remove state supreme court justices through a retention election, holding them accountable for their rulings. I was one of the movement’s leaders. No one expected us to succeed. The Republican Party wanted no part of it. We had no support from GOP candidates for governor or Senate. Republican-aligned trial lawyers stayed out of it. We were an underdog coalition taking on a judicial leviathan.

On election night, we won by 10 points. All three justices we targeted received higher percentages of “no” votes than the Republican gubernatorial nominee — who had refused to support us.

We accomplished this with just $1 million, a small sum for a modern statewide campaign. Not only did we convince voters to take a stand, but we also got them to turn over their ballots and vote in a way they never had before.

For months, my three-hour radio show — broadcast on the state’s largest media platform — focused on the retention vote, providing invaluable in-kind support. After the victory, key backers of our campaign approached me with an offer to fund a national expansion of my show. They knew we wouldn’t have won without that messaging effort, and that’s how I ended up where I am today.

Opportunity of the century

That campaign taught us several lessons — lessons the Trump administration would do well to apply now.

First, this is not a debate over legal theory or constitutional interpretation. It’s a battle over authority — not just between branches of government but over whether we still have a government that operates with the consent of the governed. Who is truly sovereign in America? The people or the judges? No branch of government — especially an unelected one — should be above the will of the people.

Second, the foundation of this fight is the source of law itself. Democrat-appointed judges reject “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” acting as if they are a law unto themselves. They do not see themselves as just a Supreme Court but as supreme beings. Whatever they decree must be enforced, with no questions asked, despite their lack of any inherent enforcement power. This is the essence of dictatorship.

Third, exposing this reality is crucial. These judges must be drawn into open confrontation where they admit their unchecked power. Voters — particularly those even remotely sympathetic to us — will be infuriated by their smug entitlement.

Finally, the people need a galvanizing issue that forces them to reject the myth of judicial supremacy. Their current outrage over an urgent cause must outweigh their long-standing deference to the courts.

We haven’t had a president challenge judicial overreach since Abraham Lincoln defied the Supreme Court’s heinous Dred Scott decision by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote America’s mission statement, spent much of his public life warning about the dangers of an unchecked judiciary. He feared that if left unrestrained, corrupt judges would twist the Constitution into “a mere thing of wax.” He argued that the other branches must do their duty to prevent judicial usurpation.

Trump has an opportunity to turn the left’s misuse of the courts against it. He has already set the stage for a second term that could make him a once-in-a-century leader. Now, he faces a moment that could define his presidency. Stripping illegitimate power from unelected judges and returning it to the people who rightfully govern stands as the ultimate act of populism.

For the last 50 years, the left has imposed its most destructive policies on the country by judicial fiat. If Trump takes bold action now, he has a chance to cement his place in history alongside Lincoln and Jefferson.