You’re watching nothing less than a judicial coup take place against Donald Trump’s administration and, by extension, the voters who supported him. To suppress a populist movement like those that won at the ballot box in 2016 and 2024, political operatives rely on institutions not directly accountable to the people.
During Trump’s first term, unelected intelligence officials, long-serving bureaucrats, and nanny-staters with decades-old security clearances became conduits for leaks between the special counsel’s office and the media.
Trump’s presidency is once again on the line. And here we are, stuck on the same ride. Anyone ready to get off?
When Attorney General Bill Barr moved to shut down the Russia collusion hoax, a new group stepped in. Unelected public health “experts” took the lead in shoving COVID-19 down our throats as the kept media amplified their every word.
Caving to that narrative ultimately led to Trump’s defeat in 2020. Now, another wave of unelected bureaucrats appear to be working to derail his triumphant second term — this time using a familiar line from the left: “The courts have spoken.”
For years, Republican leaders have largely accepted such proclamations without pushback. One example of this passive approach is the removal of prayer from public schools — a significant moment in the broader trend. But how did that happen?
It wasn’t the result of a policy from the Department of Education, which didn’t exist for another two decades. Instead, the shift began with the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Engel v. Vitale. The ruling applied what later became known as the Lemon test, which broadly interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment. According to the spirit of the age, that meant nearly any expression of religion not rooted in secularism faced constitutional challenges.
No American generation before ours would have signed off on these rulings at the ballot box. But once the courts handed them down, the public was expected to fall in line. In 1973, the Supreme Court delivered Roe v. Wade, effectively legalizing abortion nationwide — without a single vote cast by the people. It was a sweeping mandate, imposed from the bench.
In 1982, the court went farther. In Plyler v. Doe, justices declared that states must use taxpayer money to fund public education for children of illegal immigrants. Again, no vote, no debate — just a ruling.
Then came 2005. In Kelo v. New London, the court ruled that the government could seize private homes and farms, not for public roads or schools, but to hand over to private developers in the name of “economic development.” Would voters have approved that kind of land-grab? Of course not. That’s why the court stepped in and did it for them.
For decades, the courts laid the groundwork. Then came the breaking point: same-sex marriage. In United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court overruled the will of tens of millions of voters. I was involved in those battles before Windsor — and I remember them clearly. We won 31 consecutive state referendums defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California alone, over 8 million voters backed biblical marriage — on the same day Barack Obama won 60% of the statewide vote.
But the courts didn’t care. They stepped in and handed Democrats legal victories they could never have achieved through Congress or at the ballot box. Again and again, the judiciary gave Democratic causes the stamp of legitimacy, even as public support wavered.
If Democrats had been forced to legislate these changes, they would have paid the price. In fact, they did. After ramming through Obamacare, Democrats lost more than 1,000 federal, state, and local elections over the next three cycles.
Remember, the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House after the 2016 election — yet Obamacare survived untouched. Why? Because some on the political right prefer having issues to campaign on rather than solving them. It’s easier to grift off outrage than to govern with principle.
Which brings us to today: Trump’s presidency is once again on the line. And here we are, stuck on the same ride. Anyone ready to get off?
With a feckless, do-nothing Congress, real change will only come from Trump and his administration. Like it or not, he’s become our Abraham Lincoln — whether or not you want to see him on Mount Rushmore. And just as Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Trump may need to deliver his own version to free the public from the judicial class that continues to rule without consent.
Venezuelan drug lords have more of a right to step on the soil of America than an unborn baby right now. We cannot sustain a civilization like that, nor do we deserve to.
You can’t litigate your way out of an invasion.
Removal is not considered a criminal punishment but an administrative consequence of sovereignty. If it were treated as a form of punishment, it would require due process and could take months to remove even the worst offenders. We see that happening now, and we can no longer afford these delays.
President Donald Trump should challenge overreaching court rulings and use resources more effectively to maximize the number of removals.
Imagine you are a liberal judge on the federal bench. You know the political system — including all three branches of government and both major parties — grants you sweeping authority to dictate policy through an injunction. Regardless of legal precedents, constitutional constraints, rules of standing, or national security concerns, you can issue an opinion that instantly becomes “the law of the land.” Why wouldn’t you exploit that power like a judicial version of Kim Jong Un?
By cutting through the legal obstacles, ICE could apprehend and remove individuals in a single step.
At some point, we must stop blaming judges for legislating with impunity and start holding the other branches accountable for not just relinquishing their own power but for enabling judges to usurp the law. As St. George Tucker wrote in his commentaries on the Constitution, “If we consider the nature of the judicial authority, and the manner in which it operates, we shall discover that it cannot, of itself, oppress any individual; for the executive authority must lend its aid in every instance where oppression can ensue from its decisions.”
If President Trump is unwilling to simply ignore these lawless rulings, he should at least insist that Congress include a provision in a must-pass bill to eliminate all judicial review for deportations. At a minimum, lower courts should be removed from the process entirely. Unless a plaintiff files a habeas petition claiming the individual is actually a citizen or has been misidentified, all removals should be final.
We already have several million immigrants with criminal convictions living in this country, at least eight million who entered during Joe Biden’s term, and many others who arrived earlier. If we continue to extend this level of due process — whether through administrative courts or Article III courts — we risk undermining our sovereignty. This explains why Trump is averaging only a few hundred thousand removals annually at the current pace.
How did President Dwight D. Eisenhower manage to remove more than one million illegal aliens in just a few months in 1954 — after the passage of the modern Immigration and Nationality Act — without facing endless lawsuits? Today, every deportation becomes a legal battle.
Eisenhower’s administration had fewer resources, just 800 Border Patrol agents, and primitive technology. Still, they got the job done because they believed in themselves and in the nation. They also understood that you don’t repel an invasion through litigation. Our immigration system was never designed to grant full due process to individuals here illegally, and that principle should be clarified in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
When court proceedings — even in administrative courts — are required, Immigration and Customs Enforcement currently must provide detention space for each person it apprehends rather than taking them directly to the point of removal. By cutting through the legal obstacles, ICE could apprehend and remove individuals in a single step.
But how?
Trump is currently using military and commercial flights to remove illegal aliens. Most flights carry only 100 to 200 passengers and are difficult to secure against potential unrest. They also cost more, rely on airports in potentially hostile countries, and require additional personnel.
A better option might be to use Navy and Coast Guard vessels from ports in Florida and Texas, which sit along the Gulf Coast toward Latin America. The president could also call on the Department of Transportation’s National Defense Reserve Fleet. This force of about 100 ships receives nearly $1 billion in annual appropriations and can be activated within 20 to 120 days for emergency sealift operations during wartime or in response to disasters.
The NDRF includes mostly cargo ships and tankers. Its Ready Reserve Force — comprised of 41 vessels — provides extra shipping capacity or rapid deployment for U.S. military forces. These ships are stationed at 18 ports, including three in Texas and one in Florida.
This fleet features National Security Multi-Mission Vessels, each able to carry 1,000 people — far more than the roughly 100-person capacity of a C-17 plane or the 150 to 200 seats on most commercial aircraft. These ships can stay at sea for 14 days without resupply and include medical facilities, enough space for 60 cargo containers, a helicopter landing pad, and roll-on/roll-off vehicle capacity. They could be activated immediately and based at a designated port along the Gulf of America.
By using these vessels, President Donald Trump could transport far more unauthorized immigrants for removal at a lower cost than air travel.
One major obstacle to large-scale deportations is a lack of detention space. Shifting to maritime operations would shorten the time illegal aliens spend in custody by reducing reliance on deportation flights. Newly apprehended people would enter detention as those previously held depart.
Yet, Trump doesn’t need hundreds of billions of dollars to build new detention facilities. During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. forces suddenly found themselves guarding 65,000 Iraqi prisoners of war who surrendered en masse. The military constructed temporary detention sites practically overnight. Trump could replicate this approach by ordering the National Guard to set up outdoor facilities near Gulf Coast “deportation ports.” It’s an inexpensive, efficient way to get the job done.
Trump will have only one shot to get mass deportations done right. If he deports just a few hundred thousand people each year despite a mandate to address the crisis, critics will say mass deportations are unworkable and push for amnesty. Now is the time for Trump to use every tool and resource at hand to meet that mandate.
Upon assuming the bench, all new federal judges take an oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me … under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” So, why is Massachusetts-based District Court Judge Indira Talwani flouting that pledge? On Monday, the Obama appointee (and Democrat donor) issued […]
If you thought the judicial coup against the Trump administration couldn’t get any more egregious than it already is, think again. On Monday, District Judge Indira Talwani took it upon herself to try and unilaterally block a provision from legislation passed by Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. Through the use of a temporary restraining order, […]
'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.'
A federal judge issued an order late Monday night claiming an earlier ruling from the Supreme Court that permitted deportations to continue is irrelevant. Six months after Judge Brian E. Murphy was nominated by then-President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate during the last few weeks of Democrats’ control, he issued an order stating […]
If the judicial branch won't adhere to the Constitution, then Trump must.
Did Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor forget that it’s generally frowned upon for judges to display their political partisanship? It’s a question worth asking given that the Obama appointee appeared to do just that in her recent public remarks. On Thursday night, Sotomayor attended an event hosted by the notoriously left-wing American Bar Association (ABA), […]
If courts can 'strike down' the other branches' actions, as Roberts claims, then that isn't 'co-equal.' It's judicial supremacism.
Roberts fails to understand that SCOTUS's continued allowance of leftists' judicial coup is undermining Americans' faith in the judiciary.
www.theblaze.com