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.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.Justice Alito issues reminder of what SCOTUS must do, even if unpopular
Unlike certain recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito has consistently delivered for God-fearing conservatives and constitutionalists.
This consistency and Alito's resistance to the fads of the day have made him a popular target for Democratic lawmakers and other radical leftists, along with their fellow travelers in the liberal media.
Democrats including Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) have, for instance, pressured Alito to recuse himself from cases of consequence. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), have painted a target on his back, calling him a "threat to our democracy." Liberal publications such as the New York Times and ProPublica have pushed false narratives framing him as an extremist or at the very least as unethical. A false-flagger who helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 futilely tried to catch Alito saying something damning on tape. A radical even allegedly threatened to assassinate him last year.
Alito underscored in his recent interview with Peter Robinson, host of the Hoover Institution's "Uncommon Knowledge," that the judiciary has a responsibility to resist possession by the zeitgeist and to do what is right, even if unpopular.
In 2022, Alito gave a speech in Rome at a religious liberty summit convened by the Religious Liberty Initiative of the University of Notre Dame's law school, where he underscored that religious liberty is far more than just "freedom of worship."
'Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.'
"Freedom of worship means freedom to do these things that you like to do in the privacy of your home, or in your church or your synagogue or your mosque or your temple. But when you step outside into the public square, in the light of day, you had better behave yourself like a good secular citizen," said the conservative justice. "That's the problem that we face."
RELATED: American de-Christianization: Why it's happening and what it will mean for the republic
When asked in the interview published Wednesday to expound on his suggestion in the Rome speech, Alito told Robinson, "I think it is the problem that we face because support for religious liberty, unfortunately, has cratered in the last 20, 25 years."
After Alito raised the matter of how the U.S. Constitution singles out religion and gives it protection that is not similarly afforded to views that are not religiously based, Robinson said, "I can't remember who it was who said that it's fair to expect the judicial system to ignore the politics of the day but naive to expect the judicial system to remain unaffected by the politics of the era — something like that. And if public support for religion, public practice of religion — if the support, as you just said, is 'cratering' — what can the court do over the long term?"
Alito indicated that the Constitution wouldn't turn on a faithful minority just because the majority turned on faith.
"There's a reason why we're not elected. We are not supposed to do what is popular. We're supposed to do what is right," said Alito. "We're supposed to interpret the Constitution and figure out what it means, and then apply the Constitution. That's the purpose of this institution, the core purpose of this institution."
RELATED: Secularists think they won at the Supreme Court — but they’ll lose in the end
While suggesting that America is "basically a democratic country," Alito noted that the Framers, wary of the mob and its impulses, applied "some restraint on things that people might do."
James Madison was among the Founding Fathers aware of the need for checks on the mob, noting in Federalist No. 55 that "passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."
In Federalist No. 51, Madison discussed how the republican government could serve as a check on the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the "rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority."
"We have to stand firm on this, and I think we have done a pretty good job on it," said Alito, "but we have to keep it up because challenges ... will continue to come."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Here Are 8 Killer Quotes From Justice Alito’s Latest Sit-Down Interview
'We are not supposed to do what is popular, we're supposed to do what is right,' said Justice Samuel Alito.New York Times’ Hypocritical ‘Tale Of Two Flags’ Coverage Encapsulates Media’s Seething Bias
To the media a flag is just a flag, after all — unless it can be used to destroy a conservative.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.
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com