Header Ads

ad

Federal Judges Are Becoming A Form Of Tyranny

November 29, 2025 ,

“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” – Antonin Scalia

As a litigator in the uber-left San Francisco Bay Area for three decades, I routinely witnessed left-leaning judges make up the law as they went along. One went so far as to say, “I know what the law is, but I think...” What constrained them a little was the fact that it was considered humiliating to be reversed by a higher court. Today’s leftist judges no longer operate under that constraint. Their goal isn’t justice; it’s to interfere in the political process, precisely as Judge Robert Yates predicted in 1787.

Eleven months into the second Trump presidency, it’s become old news that leftist federal judges at the district court level (that is, judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution) are blocking every single administrative initiative. My guesstimate is that roughly 80% of them have been reversed at the appellate or Supreme Court level. Significantly, these reversals haven’t been over subtle legal points. They’ve come about for gross errors that first-year law students wouldn’t make.

In the first half of 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly batted down rogue rulings that don’t even reach the merits of a case but are simply intended to run out the clock. Three examples will suffice:

In normal times, these Supreme Court rulings would have caused other district court judges to reconsider reflexively ruling against Trump, but that hasn’t been the case. Instead, they’ve increased the pace of rulings that effectively nullify the Executive branch’s authority.

Earlier this month, a federal judge issued an order telling Trump that he must remove the National Guard from Washington D.C. Also this month, a Rhode Island judge ordered Trump to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown, even though the existing law prevented the administration from doing so. The judge didn’t care about the law.

And then, of course, there’s infamous Judge Boasberg and his endless rulings blocking Trump from deporting violent illegal immigrants. Politico has noticed the judicial trend to protect illegal aliens. It’s reported that over 100 judges have ruled against Trump’s efforts to deport these people.

In the new reign of judges, America is now controlled by unelected, often foreign-born judges who have effectively usurped the president’s executive authority. This is a worldwide phenomenon. In Israel, a radical left judiciary will do anything to stop Benjamin Netanyahu. In Brazil, a radical left judiciary ensured that a leftist “won” the last election, and sent the actual winner, Jair Bolsonaro, to prison for 27 years—which is what the Democrats had hoped would happen to Trump after 2020. And in England, the Labour Party, at the direction of a man who is both a British and Guyanese citizen, plans to end the jury system in most criminal cases, a system that has been in place since the Magna Carta of 1215.

But how could this happen in America? What about the Constitution and the “balance of powers” between the three branches? How can the judiciary contend that it is the final arbiter of all Executive branch actions? As it happens, in 1787, looking at the Founders’ ideas for the judiciary—ideas that were then incorporated into the Constitution—Judge Robert Yates had the answer:

The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.

[snip]

The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. he framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.

[snip]

1st. There is no power above them that can correct their errors or control their decisions. The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no court above them to which appeals can lie, either in error or on the merits.

[snip]

2nd. They cannot be removed from office or suffer a diminution of their salaries, for any error in judgment [due] to want of capacity.

[snip]

3rd. The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature.

Yates was deeply concerned about the power of unelected judges to control the people’s elected representatives. Even he did not foresee that the judges would one day arrogate to themselves the authority of the entire executive branch.

When Nayib Bukele became president of El Salvador, he took the reins of a completely broken country, one wracked by crime and dysfunction. He turned it around with remarkable speed, based on two principles: The first is that you can make your country safer by incarcerating criminals, even if that means mass incarcerations. The bad guys are in prison, and the law-abiding citizens live safe, happy, and productive lives.

The second is that you must have an honest judiciary. If you don’t, your country will become a kritarchy—that is, a dictatorship of judges:




Post a Comment