Judicial Insurrection: Is Impeachment The Solution To Radical Left-Wing Judges Forcing Their Agendas On Trump?
Too many decide cases 'on their personal preferences rather than what is stated in the Constitution, statutes, and applicable precedent'
Mostly leftists across America have flooded the nation’s court system in their rage over the election of President Donald Trump.
He is doing, in office, exactly what he promised during the election: clean out the Deep State in Washington, cut federal waste, fraud and crime, and purge the government of activists who are profiting from their manipulation of taxpayers’ money.
Polls show vast majorities approving.
But those 119 lawsuits already have been advanced with frivolous injunctions that cost taxpayers millions, even billions of dollars, from activist judges trying to maintain the power the left has wielded under presidents like Joe Biden and Barack Obama. One analyst called the movement and agenda a “judicial insurrection.”
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
For example, one judge said Trump cannot fire a member of the executive branch’s National Labor Relations Board. Another ordered other fired employees back on the public payroll. Still another ordered the president to disburse two billion dollars of tax money he had withheld.
And much more.
Now a column in the Washington Examiner by Tom Fitton, of government watchdog Judicial Watch, explains there is a solution.
“Many are asking if federal judges can be impeached as a consequence of judicial activism,  deciding a case based on their personal preferences rather than what is stated in the Constitution, statutes, and applicable precedent and in usurpation of legislative and executive power. The answer is yes,” he wrote.
“A series of extreme and activist decisions against President Donald Trump’s constitutional authority exercised through the Department of Government Efficiency and his appointees such as Elon Musk have brought the question to the fore.”
He cited Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, who explained, “The threat to democracy — indeed, the existential threat to democracy — is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime, tenured civil servants who believe they answer to no one, who believe they can do whatever they want without consequence, who believe they can set their own agenda no matter what Americans vote for.”
Fitton continued, “So, you can see why conservatives are disturbed several judges went beyond their constitutional powers in constraining Trump and other executive branch officials from exercising legitimate constitutional powers, such as firing bureaucrats and making sure tax money isn’t being spent corruptly.”
Fitton cited Amy Jackson, a Washington judge who ordered Trump to restore Hampton Dellinger to his job in the Office of Special County.
That was reversed and Dellinger himself gave up.
But that order from Jackson “outrageously” had demanded Trump not “recognize the authority of any other person as Special Counsel.”
Fitton cited, however, the “complete security” the founders gave Americans when they provided for impeachment of the judiciary based on cause.
“The use of the impeachment power to restrain judicial department usurpations has essentially lain dormant in Congress since 1804, when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House for, among other alleged misconduct, ‘tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan,'” Fitton noted.
“That dormancy may end in the coming days. House members led by Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) filed a bill in February to impeach Southern District of New York Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee who last month issued an order blocking DOGE access (and even the treasury secretary’s access!) to the Treasury Department system for government payments.”
Trump himself, meanwhile, as WND reported, has instructed government entities to start asking courts to require that bonds be posted when injunctions are issued.
Those bonds would cover the cost to taxpayers of those injunctions should the government ultimately prevail.
That’s already allowed, but seldom has been used, in federal law.
But it will be now, under orders from President Donald Trump, who explained in a new order Thursday, “In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process.”
Those cases include challenges to Trump’s decisions to fire executive branch employees, to cut off inappropriate funding and to eliminate fraudulent activities in the federal spending.
“This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail. Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for government policies they voted for. Moreover, this situation results in the Department of Justice, the nation’s chief law enforcement agency, dedicating substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits instead of defending public safety,” Trump said.
He said a key to fighting such abuse is “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)).”
That mandates “that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued,” Trump explained.
He said enforcement of that provision “is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice.”
He then ordered that it now is the “policy” of the U.S. to demand that parties seeking injunctions “cover the costs and damages incurred if the government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”
***
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
Related:
- Courage: Federal Judge Resigns from Federal Judges Association
- Trump Administration Continues To Fight For The People As Activist Judges Block Him On Immigration And Demand Billions For Foreign Aid
- Federal Judges Selling Out the People are Moving to Block President Trump’s America First Priorities
- ‘Judicial Coup Against The Sitting President’: Democrats Now Using Activist Judges To Subvert Constitution, Fight Trump (Video)
- Treasury Secretary Blocked From Treasury Payment Systems By Activist Judge. What’s Next? The Commander-In-Chief Can’t Direct The Military?
Make social media great again! After years of government-sanctioned, taxpayer-subsidized censorship, free speech and a free press are coming back, much to the chagrin of freedom-hating totalitarian leftists everywhere. Progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. Follow our NEW Facebook page here and help spread the word. You can also check out our MeWe page here, follow us on Gab, Truth Social, Twitter, and at the social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.
Bookmark this site, sign up for our newsletter, and check back often.
While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!
And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views:
