Judge Shopping Ends
Even before Donald J. Trump was reelected president, Democrat leaders began judge shopping in search of a magistrate they hoped would destroy him.
Once he was reelected, the shopping intensified. Local federal judges literally made hundreds of rulings producing injunctions against whatever he was doing. The goal was to gum up the works to the point where he wouldn’t have time to complete his program during his four years in office. He tried to close down a couple of ineffective or redundant agencies. He was told he couldn’t do so. He tried to fire unnecessary or flawed government workers.
He was enjoined against doing so, even though he was their boss, and the right to fire them was clearly part of his job description. He moved to deport illegal aliens. Ditto. Time after time he had to go through an appeals process in order to be able to do what he should have been able to do on day one.
Democrat judges ruled to stop his activities more than any collection of judges had ever acted against a sitting president. In fact, Trump had more such rulings against him than any group of five presidents in recent memory. These actions essentially gave regional judges the power to thwart national policy and essentially nullify a president’s constitutional powers. As a result, the Trump administration filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court, of course, is not obligated to hear such an appeal, even if it originates with the President. In this case, however, it chose to do so. As is usually the case, it’s initial concern was primarily with precedent. Had county-wide judges been bringing such cases throughout the 250 year history of the United States? The answer turned out to be a resounding NO. In fact, during the first few decades of our nation’s history there wasn’t a single instance in which such a case was brought. That made sense since the policy of allowing such suits would have essentially destroyed the power of the President.
The Court ruled last week, therefore, that any judgments made by a federal magistrate were limited in their scope to the geographical area covered by that regional court. If the court covered a single county, then the ruling only applied to that county. If it applied to two or three counties, than that was the limit of the ruling. Liberal lawyers recoiled in horror! What about civil rights laws passed by district judges? What about rulings that covered statewide federal elections? Would each district now have to hold separate court cases in order to deal with such problems?
The answer, apparently, is YES. It’s going to be messy. It could well prove expensive. It’s going to keep a lot of people very busy. It’s the result of Democrats twisting the actions of biased judges. This ruling never would have been given if Democrat leaders hadn’t weaponized district court actions.
What this means now is that if a district judge rules against the deportation of someone living in that district, the action can’t affect anyone not living in that district. The gentleman can rule against deportation of a hundred people, but they all have to reside in his district. He can rule against the firing of a hundred government workers, but they all have to be employed in his district. He can rule against the bombing of boats carrying narcotics, but they all have to be doing so on a river or lake in his district.
The President, on the other hand, is free to deport, fire, or bomb at will. He is only limited by the Legislature and the Constitution. That’s why he is free to conduct foreign policy without fear that he will be contravened by the actions of some judge in Detroit. Anyone who opposes his capture of Maduro (for example), simply has to take the matter up with the House and Senate.