‘Blatant Viewpoint Discrimination’: Alito Slams Colorado For Telling Therapists They Can’t Affirm Kids’ Natural Sex
Associate Justice Samuel Alito exposed the absurdity of a Colorado law prohibiting so-called “conversion therapy” for minors during a high-profile case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The moment came during oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case focused on a legal challenge brought by Colorado resident Kaley Chiles. A licensed therapist who provides […]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
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.
Democrats created this court monster — now it’s eating them
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling greenlighting mass layoffs at the Department of Education sends a clear message: The courts no longer belong to the Democrats.
For decades, Democrats relied on judges to impose policies they couldn’t pass through Congress. But that strategy has collapsed. With a conservative majority now on the bench, the judicial workaround has given way to constitutional limits — and the left is losing.
Every time Democrats sue to block Trump’s orders, they hand him another opportunity — and this court is more than ready to lock in conservative victories for a generation.
In the final week of its 2024-2025 term, the high court:
- Curbed federal courts’ ability to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions.
- Affirmed the right of parents to opt their children out of school lessons that violate their religious beliefs.
- Allowed South Carolina to deny Planned Parenthood Medicaid funding for non-abortion services.
- Approved mass layoffs across the government — at least temporarily.
In high-stakes emergency cases, Trump keeps winning — notching victories in nearly all 18 Supreme Court petitions. That includes greenlights to deport migrants to third countries and enforce the transgender military ban.
Short-term gains, long-term pains
Democrats thought they could run out the clock with courtroom delay tactics. Instead, they handed Trump a fast pass to the one branch he dominates.
Only one branch of government speaks with a single, constitutionally defined voice — the executive. And right now, that voice belongs to the president, no matter how loudly the deep state screams.
Unlike the executive, Congress isn’t built for speed. It’s a fractured, slow-moving body by design — hundreds of voices split by region, party, and ego. The judiciary can splinter, too, with power scattered across lower courts nationwide.
But the Supreme Court? That’s a different story.
With a 6-3 conservative majority, Trump holds a 2-to-1 advantage. Imagine if Republicans had that kind of dominance in Congress.
Trump wouldn’t be scraping by with a razor-thin 220-212 majority in the House. His agenda would cruise through. In the Senate, forget the 60-vote filibuster firewall — Trump’s bills would pass outright.
Reconciliation wouldn’t be a high-wire act. It would be routine. No more watching the Senate parliamentarian gut key provisions from his One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Granted, the Supreme Court can’t launch policy offensives like Congress or the White House. It waits for cases to land.
But thanks to Democrats, those cases keep coming. Every time they sue to block Trump’s executive orders, they hand him another opportunity — and this court is more than ready to lock in conservative victories for a generation.
Dems’ Achilles’ heel
For decades, Democrats treated the courts as a shortcut to power. When they couldn’t pass laws, they let judges do the work. Roe v. Wade was the crown jewel — a sweeping federal abortion mandate they never could have gotten through Congress. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted the legal reasoning was flimsy.
They used the same playbook to expand the welfare state and rewrite social policy from the bench. Judicial activism became the norm, and both sides played the game. But Democrats played it harder — and now the rules are turning against them.
What once looked like a string of permanent victories has turned into a pipeline of defeats. Every lawsuit they file hands Trump’s Supreme Court another shot at affirming his agenda. Even when he technically loses, the rulings often leave behind a roadmap showing exactly how to win the next round.
RELATED: Supreme Court grants massive victory to Trump administration on cutting down Department of Education
Democrats’ Supreme Court problem could get a lot worse. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s oldest liberal at 71, has Type 1 diabetes and a history of health problems. If she steps down during Trump’s term, he could lock in a 7-2 conservative majority.
And if either Clarence Thomas, 77, or Samuel Alito, 75, decides to retire, Trump could replace them with younger conservatives — extending the court’s rightward tilt for decades.
Securing a conservative legacy
Trump has every incentive to issue bold executive orders. Each lawsuit the left files creates another opening for the Court to back him — and turn temporary wins into permanent precedent.
By chasing headlines and placating the base with short-term court fights, Democrats are handing Trump the long game. Their decades of judicial overreach have backfired. The courts they once controlled now serve as Trump’s most powerful weapon.
If Justice Kagan Wants Respect From Lower Courts, She Should Shut Down Their Judicial Coup
Kagan's refusal to shut down the tyrannical behavior of the lower judiciary has emboldened rogue judges to usurp SCOTUS's power.Supreme Court Ruling Is A Greenlight For Parents Who Want To Take Back Public Education
Whether through Supreme Court precedent, statutes, or even constitutional amendments, ours is a parental rights moment that demands action to allow parents the right to do their duty and raise their children.SCOTUS Ruling Against Universal Injunctions Didn’t Go Far Enough
Unless the Supreme Court reins in lower-court judges or Congress asserts its power over the courts it established, judicial tyranny may persist.Judge Blocks Another Trump Order, Proving Alito Was Right About Loopholes In SCOTUS Injunction Ruling
Days after Justice Samuel Alito warned that a recent Supreme Court ruling had two glaring holes that could be exploited, an Obama-appointed judge appears to have done just that. U.S. District Judge Randolph Daniel Moss sided with the left-wing ACLU and several other activists organizations when he ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority […]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.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com