AG Barr speaks out against the unconstitutional nationwide rulings by federal courts targeting Trump…

In a speech last night AG Barr took on the issue of these nationwide rulings against Trump by federal judges over the past two years, saying the courts are overstepping their constitutional authority and are wielding “unprecedented power”:

DAILY MAIL – In a speech Tuesday night, Barr took aim at the broad judicial power, arguing that federal judges who have issued the so-called nationwide injunctions are hampering Trump’s efforts on immigration, health care and other issues with ‘no clear end in sight.’

‘The legal community and the broader public should be more concerned, particularly about this trend of nationwide injunctions,’ Barr said.

There are many examples of courts issuing these nationwide rulings against Trump, going all the way back to his first Travel Ban that a federal judge stopped with a nationwide injunction.



However Barr uses DACA as his example, explaining how the nationwide ruling in the DACA case limited Trump’s ability to negotiate with Congress in 2018:

Barr highlighted the legal fights that have happened in federal courts across the country over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children but don’t have legal status to protect them from deportation.

The Justice Department, under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, argued that the Obama administration acted unlawfully when it implemented DACA. Texas and other Republican-led states eventually sued and won a partial victory in a federal court in Texas.

Civil rights groups, advocates for immigrants and Democratic-led states all have sued to prevent the end of the program. A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the administration decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious.

Barr said Trump ‘lost much of his leverage’ in negotiations with congressional Democrats, who were pushing for a permanent solution for DACA recipients, after one district court judge issued an order forcing the administration to maintain the program nationwide.

‘Unsurprisingly, those negotiations did not lead to a deal,’ Barr said.

In his speech to the American Law Institute, Barr argued it isn’t about partisanship and said the approach taken by judges who issue these nationwide rulings departs not only from the limitations of the Constitution, but also from the ‘traditional understanding of the role of courts.’ The Justice Department will continue to oppose such rulings, he said.

‘Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically,’ Barr said.

Trump has recently complained about these federal judges that have issued nationwide bans to thwart his agenda, suggesting it ‘undermines democracy and threatens the rule of law.’

Mike Pence even made news the other week when he said the Trump administration is planning to challenge the right of federal district courts to even issue these nationwide rulings.

It sounds like AG Barr is clearly on their side and intends to fight against these federal judges abusing their power.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

235 thoughts on “AG Barr speaks out against the unconstitutional nationwide rulings by federal courts targeting Trump…

  1. This is what happens when Democrats lose. They tear apart the fabric of society, destroy the rule of real law, and replace it with whatever whim appeals to them at the moment… I wish we could make them a minority party for 20 years and get this country back on the right track.

    1. We could possibly make them a minority party if we could convince most people that the fears that Dems play to are only figments of Leftist imaginations that scare people into voting for them. Most of the fear mongering (Over population, environmental disasters, global cooling/warming, white supremacy, women being turned into something from The Handmaid’s Tale, segregation returning, blah, blah, blah) that the Left has engaged in for the last 50-60 years has all turned out to be nothing burgers. Outside of fear mongering the Democrat Left have nothing of real substance to run on other than “We’re not Republicans/conservatives.

  2. In general, an executive order must be “authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” It simply cannot be based on the ambiguous notion of “powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.” (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952 is probably the best precedent for providing insight into this issue).

    The root cause of the issue is not “judicial activism” per se, but that Presidents have increasingly turned to executive actions as a substitute for imposing policy preferences that they cannot achieve through the legislative process. President Trump is far from the only President who has attempted to evade the legislative process to achieve policy short cuts where legitimate questions about an absence of statutory authority or constitutionality exist.

    1. An executive order is whatever the executive branch says it is. No other branch can make such determination. All they can do is contest it.

      1. Such orders are not immune from judicial review. They can be challenged. The criteria I cited from Youngstown concerns how the courts evaluate such orders.

    2. I haven’t read all of Trump’s orders but the big ones about travel bans, immigration and the wall do contain legal citations to show where his authority to do things come from.

      1. Presidential assertions of authority are expressions of how he/she interprets the law. Judicial review may well find that his/her interpretation (to assert authority to carry out his/her executive authority) is not correct.

        The travel ban was revised to deal with defects and the issue was adjudicated. The immigration-related executive order concerned an attempt to limit how people can seek asylum when, in fact, that process is specified under statute (meaning a change to that process–limiting it or expanding it–would need to be achieved through new legislation signed into law).

        The emergency order dealing with redirecting certain federal funds is a separation of powers matter (Congress’ Article I, Section 8 appropriations authority) that will likely be resolved by the Supreme Court.

    3. It’s an issue of use and abuse. There’s a use for the occasional nationwide injunction, even by a district judge, when a particular executive order oversteps statutory authority or separation of powers.

      But we’re seeing substantial abuse now, where someone politically opposed to the president’s nationwide policy goes shopping for a friendly federal judge in a particular district, and gets a nationwide injunction that amounts to political activism.

      What we’re seeing now are federal judges who were sympathetic to Obama’s policies using their judicial power to put blocks on President Trump’s executive orders, not because the executive orders are lawless or flawed, but because the judges don’t like the fact that the new president is changing federal policies.

      And because this kind of abuse can’t go on forever, we’re eventually going to see severe restrictions put on district courts issuing nationwide injunctions.

      The left — and you — will scream bloody murder, but it’s inevitable

      TL;DR: Short term abuse of power leads to long-term restrictions on power. It’s inevitable.

    4. You can’t make up your own definitions, that’s what this whole fight is about! The executive branch says what is executive privilege, by definition!

      1. The concept of executive privilege is a different matter from that which I referenced.

    5. This is often about judicial activism.

      All one needs to do is look at what happened with DACA. Obama implemented it without authority – even having admitted many times that he didn’t have the authority. No problem.

      Trump attempted to roll back DACA and the courts fought him.

      The program was implemented extra-Constitutionally by Obama, but couldn’t be ended by Trump, according to a few judges with an axe to grind.

      If that isn’t judicial activism, what is?

      If that’s not enough, look at the ridiculous excuses judges used to block the travel ban from terrorist-prone countries? Wasn’t the first ruling because universities needed foreign students or some bs? Then another ruling was because they ignored the wording of the EO but used Trump’s campaign rhetoric to establish a discriminatory basis for the EO?

      Insanity.

      1. No court has ruled on whether DACA is lawful, much less on its constitutionality. During the Obama Administration, a legal challenge was turned aside, because the plaintiffs lacked standing. The Trump Administration’s effort to overturn it failed on procedural grounds, because the Administration didn’t adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

        All of those are technical matters. DACA has not yet been addressed on its merits by the nation’s courts.

        1. 1. Somehow, these Obama/leftist judges always manage to pull standing out of their rears every time some leftist sues for an injunction against a Trump EO (see the case I mentioned regarding the immigration halt EO); but we can’t seem to obtain standing when attempting to stop Obama. Weird. I wonder why that is besides good ole’ activist judges on the left who are willing to imagine standing whenever they need it?

          2. Administrative Procedures Act, my behind. DACA was a pure fabrication and abuse of executive power that should have been as easy to stop as it was to start.

          The Administrative Procedures Act is so vaguely worded that there was no amount of explanation that the Trump administration could have given to get past one of these activist judges.
          http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/over-a-trump-judges-dissent-a-win-for-daca-at-the-4th-circuit/

          As Judge Albert Diaz explained for the majority, this came nowhere near an agency’s obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Without a reasoned explanation for its action, the rescission was “arbitrary and capricious” and could not be enforced.

          Yeah, a “satisfactory explanation” was always going to be a subjective requirement that wasn’t going to be met by the Trump EO.

        2. In the case of DACA, the Trump administration rescinded the law because they believe it was Constitutionally invalid. The Ninth Circuit then claimed that Constitutional concerns were “arbitrary and capricious.”

          A belief that a predecessor’s executive memo is unconstitutional and should be changed is the opposite of “arbitrary and capricious.” Which just goes to show that these judges are treating “arbitrary and capricious” as a pretext to assert their own opinions.

          Just to be clear, even if you accept hypothetically that DACA is Constitutionally permitted, you can’t even come close to arguing that it is Constitutionally mandated.

          The DACA example encapsulates the problem. It’s Obama that far exceeded statutory and Constitutional grounds to create his own policy, and activist judges are literally preventing the next president from changing the policy, even though he has the exact same presidential power that Obama had.

      2. @trytothink Exactly! That’s what I tried to say (albeit somewhat clumsily) above.

  3. I like Barr. He is a champion of the rule of law. Not something that is seen amongst the DC swamp crowd.

  4. Like he said, he’s not doing this to protect Trump. He’s doing it to protect the “President”. We must win this or if they win, they will tear down Everything that has managed to get done…Hopefully, a lot of people will go to jail…but likely to be let out if they win..

  5. Like he said, he’s not doing this to protect Trump. He’s doing it to protect the “President”. We must win this or if they win, they will tear down Everything that has managed to get done…Hopefully, a lot of people will go to jail…but likely to be let out if they win..

  6. :clapping: A.G., Barr’s statements further expose the marxist democrat’s nefarious and illegal use of the judicial system to undermine the Trump administration’s efforts to enact necessary and common sense solutions to the issues that have plagued this country for far too long.

    Everything the left has done to thwart this administration’s attempts to make this country a better place for all has everything to do with their intense fear of losing power and relevancy. The underlying reason for the left’s position on immigration comes down to votes. It’s a fact that ever since Trump took office the democrats have been losing voters by the hundreds of thousands, especially their decades long control over the minority vote.

  7. It is important to remember the democrats’ (and RINO’s) mantra since Trump was elected and promised to “drain the swamp.” Their only agenda is RESIST!!

    It is ALL they have and they have wasted over two years of OUR time and resources.

    WE must vote them out. If we fail to do so, we get what we deserve. Simple.

  8. So far, I am appreciative of, & very pleasantly surprised by the job that AG Barr is doing. I sincerely hope that he has a good security team keeping him safe, as if he continues operating in the unflinching, principled manner that he has been, he is going to become an object of increasing hatred by the depraved Marxist Dems in our nation.

  9. A federal district court judge has no such granted sweeping national federal constitutional power and authority to stop a Presidential Executive Order or Policy. Only the US Supreme Court has that national federal power and authority.

    I’ve never understood why and how a lone federal district court political partisan judge without direct US Constitutional granted National Authority can arbitrarily instantly stop a Presidential Executive Order or Policy, or for that matter even a Congressional Legislative Law, when they are not even authorized that kind of national sweeping power, not granted to them in and of the US Constitution.

    Hence lower federal district court judges who arbitrarily overrule, override US Presidential Executive Orders, Policies, are Unconstitutional, thus Null and Void.

    But apparently they were and are able to do so and get away with it because these federal district court judges pretended to wield this kind of national federal authority power, just because it was a court, they were-are judges, and were never directly challenged, and not just with words, but with the US Constitution.

    Pres Trump must make a Formal Doctrine – an Executive Order Decree that the Federal Govt Executive Branch Admin will no longer abide any lower district court judge decision which pertains to US Presidential Executive Orders, Policies, especially those pertaining to US National Security, the US Military.

    1. The Supreme Court most certainly does NOT have the power to institute a nationwide injunction. That power is not delegated in the constitution, not to any branch.

      The only power of the high court is to resolve issues between the states themselves, and the states and the federal government.

      A suit filed by California against the president cannot decide policy in Texas. Texas is sovereign.

  10. Stop “challenging” the courts…….in court. Just start calling their edicts unconstitutional and say they have gone rogue. Say it over and over and ignore them. Stop playing into their hands!

  11. :clapping: A.G., Barr’s statements further expose the marxist democrat’s nefarious and illegal use of the judicial system to undermine the Trump administration’s efforts to enact necessary and common sense solutions to the issues that have plagued this country for far too long.

    Everything the left has done to thwart this administration’s attempts to make this country a better place for all has everything to do with their intense fear of losing power and relevancy. The underlying reason for the left’s position on immigration comes down to votes. It’s a fact that ever since Trump took office the democrats have been losing voters by the hundreds of thousands, especially their decades long control over the minority vote.

  12. It is important to remember the democrats’ (and RINO’s) mantra since Trump was elected and promised to “drain the swamp.” Their only agenda is RESIST!!

    It is ALL they have and they have wasted over two years of OUR time and resources.

    WE must vote them out. If we fail to do so, we get what we deserve. Simple.

  13. Nancy Pelosi’s handlers at Media Matters, funded by satan-soros, has issued a new edict that all demonrats and the MSM are using.

    MEDIA MATTERS DRONE-SPEAK OF THE WEEK…all commie-socialist democrats and mainstream media are saying the same thing ad infinitum. This week’s puppetry, starting Monday, May 21, 2019: The president is guilty of “engaging in a cover-up,” yet not one news person asks for details….what exactly is the cover-up, when did it occur and how? How is what you claim Trump did against the law? :hmm:

    1. Projection… that’s what will come out soon that the whole harassment of Trump has been a cover up.

      1. @cookiebob The left’s only goal since Trump took office comes down to one word, obstruct. They have relentlessly obstructed the Trump administration’s efforts to undo the Obama/Soros administration’s goal of fundamentally transforming this country into another third world hell hole with the U.N. as the seat of power.

        The left has bastardized and weaponized the judicial system in their efforts to destroy this country. The end justifies the means to them. They intentionally distort the intended meanings and definitions of our laws to further their marxist agenda.

    1. I wouldn’t. It is made-up drivel used for emotional affect that has no usefulness to any thinking, intellectually honest person.

    2. There are entire books on this, but the simple answer is they are disciples of Trotsky. Most unwittingly.

      A Neoconservative is a moralist that believes in the noble lie: That it is acceptable to do an immoral thing to bring about a moral outcome. They are globalist conservatives.

      American Neoconservatism is centered around foreign policy, specifically regarding the protection of Israel. Neocons are interventionists. They believe that toppling “evil” regimes leads to a more stable region. This has yet to be proven true. But it certainly makes Neoconservatives wealthy.

      Most (paleo) conservatives (myself included) support the outcomes Neocons promise. We support Israel, generally speaking are moral people, usually Christians or Jews, are productive (or retired), usually intelligent, and are generous and forgiving to a fault.

      Neocons take us for suckers.

  14. I don’t know where all of this ends, but the courts have definitely overstepped their boundaries. I believe it really ramped up with Obama with some of his edicts coming from the oval office. He clearly was trying to legislate decisions from the oval and some federal judges stepped in because what he was doing was clearly unconstitutional, however, now, it’s just a free-for-all and these judges are just stepping in where they don’t belong.

    DACA was definitely unconstitutional when Obama dictated it, but when Trump tried to overturn the executive order, which is his prerogative, then judges said he could not. Since when can a President not change the executive orders from a previous president??? WTF???

    Now it’s just turned in to a left-wing circus because any time he comes up with a decision as an executive regarding immigration (which is a crisis and he is within his powers to do something), now a left wing judge stops anything he tries to do. How did we let this get so out of hand?

  15. AG Barr needs to speak out against the 15 states which are taking it upon themselves to ignore the electorate college

    1. @David Jenson This is vital. These states cannot ignore the electoral college. That will put the nail in the coffin to our Republic.

    2. If they are all Democrat states what does that mean? Trump could end up with more electoral votes if they allocate their votes by percentage… I’m not sure how they can do anything other than within their own states.

    1. I wouldn’t. It is made-up drivel used for emotional affect that has no usefulness to any thinking, intellectually honest person.

  16. I don’t know where all of this ends, but the courts have definitely overstepped their boundaries. I believe it really ramped up with Obama with some of his edicts coming from the oval office. He clearly was trying to legislate decisions from the oval and some federal judges stepped in because what he was doing was clearly unconstitutional, however, now, it’s just a free-for-all and these judges are just stepping in where they don’t belong.

    DACA was definitely unconstitutional when Obama dictated it, but when Trump tried to overturn the executive order, which is his prerogative, then judges said he could not. Since when can a President not change the executive orders from a previous president??? WTF???

    Now it’s just turned in to a left-wing circus because any time he comes up with a decision as an executive regarding immigration (which is a crisis and he is within his powers to do something), now a left wing judge stops anything he tries to do. How did we let this get so out of hand?

  17. I don’t know what’s worse. Not knowing the problem or knowing it and watching nothing being done to change it

  18. Isn’t it John Roberts responsibility to oversee these Federal Judges and those terrible and illegal injunctions they are rendering.

    1. He is responsible for the FISA judges and courts. Not sure about the regular federal judges.

      1. The Chief Justice appoints the judges to the FISA court.

        It is reported that ten of the court’s 11 current judges, all selected by Chief Justice John G. Roberts were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents, as were 86 percent of all Roberts’ designees to the court.

          1. not even if the injunctions are probably part of a conspiracy against this President.Many years prior to this President a little over 27 injunctions issued, This President has well over a hundred Injunction issued against his decisions in less than two year and all the injunctions issued by Obama appointed judges,but Obama appears to still have still has control over his appointed judges.No doubt about that.

          2. I believe all the Judges that have issued the injunctions against this President are Obama appointees and the AG Barr is aware of this and the AG is putting them on notice that if there is a conspiracy they will be in trouble.

            1. They haven’t all been Obama appointees. They’ve run the gamut from Reagan to Trump.

              1. let me check on that I believe I read somewhere that all the injunctions were ordered by Obama appointees.Thanks I appreciate the comments

              2. I believe we were discussing Injunctions.I could find only 5 rulings by other Judges ruling against the President.four by G.W, Bush ,one being getting Jim Acosta back into the White house Briefing room.The other rulings were minor and nothing to do with Injunctions.

            2. The notion of “Obama judges” or “Bush judges” is a bit problematic because often, even when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by one party, concessions to the other party are made in the choices of judges – in the interest of compromising with the party not in power.

              So there are some “Obama judges” who are actually right-leaning. There are “Bush judges” who are left-leaning.

  19. AG Barr needs to speak out against the 15 states which are taking it upon themselves to ignore the electorate college

  20. About time someone with legal expertise in the administration stood up and said how screwed up the judiciary is. This legislating from the bench crap has been going on for decades as well as intentionally misconstruing and ignoring the laws on the books. The judiciary needs a good housecleaning, and about 20 good flushes.

  21. “Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch — that’s more than one a month,” Barr said during a Tuesday evening speech to the American Law Institute.

    “According to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century,” he added, before bristling at the notion that the disparity is a function of the president’s “lawlessness.”

    😯 😡

    1. That needs to be a headline.

      2000-2016: 27 Injunctions
      2017-2019: 37 Injunctions

      That’s not just overreach, that’s abuse.

  22. There is unrest in the forest,
    There is trouble with the trees.
    For the maples want more sunlight,
    And the oaks ignore their pleas.

    The trouble with the maples,
    And they’re quite convinced they’re right.
    They say the oaks are just too lofty,
    And they grab up all the light.
    But the oaks can’t help their feelings,
    If they like the way they’re made.
    And they wonder why the maples,
    Can’t be happy in their shade?

    There is trouble in the forest,
    And the creatures all have fled.
    As the maples scream ‘oppression!’,
    And the oaks, just shake their heads.

    So the maples formed a union,
    And demanded equal rights.
    ‘The oaks are just too greedy,
    We will make them give us light.
    Now there’s no more oak oppression,
    For they passed a noble law.
    And the trees are all kept equal
    By hatchet…
    Axe…
    And saw.

  23. This is what happens when Democrats lose. They tear apart the fabric of society, destroy the rule of real law, and replace it with whatever whim appeals to them at the moment… I wish we could make them a minority party for 20 years and get this country back on the right track.

    1. We could possibly make them a minority party if we could convince most people that the fears that Dems play to are only figments of Leftist imaginations that scare people into voting for them. Most of the fear mongering (Over population, environmental disasters, global cooling/warming, white supremacy, women being turned into something from The Handmaid’s Tale, segregation returning, blah, blah, blah) that the Left has engaged in for the last 50-60 years has all turned out to be nothing burgers. Outside of fear mongering the Democrat Left have nothing of real substance to run on other than “We’re not Republicans/conservatives.

  24. In general, an executive order must be “authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” It simply cannot be based on the ambiguous notion of “powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.” (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952 is probably the best precedent for providing insight into this issue).

    The root cause of the issue is not “judicial activism” per se, but that Presidents have increasingly turned to executive actions as a substitute for imposing policy preferences that they cannot achieve through the legislative process. President Trump is far from the only President who has attempted to evade the legislative process to achieve policy short cuts where legitimate questions about an absence of statutory authority or constitutionality exist.

    1. An executive order is whatever the executive branch says it is. No other branch can make such determination. All they can do is contest it.

      1. Such orders are not immune from judicial review. They can be challenged. The criteria I cited from Youngstown concerns how the courts evaluate such orders.

        1. @don-sutherland Challenge away. That’s how the Constitution works. But courts are not the last word. Each branch gets to have a say. So do the people.

          1. Challenges are being launched. That’s exactly what’s happening. The Constitutional framework is working.

            That the substantive effect of the courts’ actions is to push Presidents’ pursuit of their desired statutory changes to the legislative process is a good thing. That lawmaking takes place within the legislative branch is consistent with the principle representative government.

          2. @k-bob

            The executive’s say in the matter is the order itself. The judiciary’s say in the matter is whether the order is legal.

            How do you envision this working?

            1. @slantry The way it always has. Not this new, ultra-judiciary crap that’s been happening.

    2. You can’t make up your own definitions, that’s what this whole fight is about! The executive branch says what is executive privilege, by definition!

      1. The concept of executive privilege is a different matter from that which I referenced.

    3. I haven’t read all of Trump’s orders but the big ones about travel bans, immigration and the wall do contain legal citations to show where his authority to do things come from.

      1. Presidential assertions of authority are expressions of how he/she interprets the law. Judicial review may well find that his/her interpretation (to assert authority to carry out his/her executive authority) is not correct.

        The travel ban was revised to deal with defects and the issue was adjudicated. The immigration-related executive order concerned an attempt to limit how people can seek asylum when, in fact, that process is specified under statute (meaning a change to that process–limiting it or expanding it–would need to be achieved through new legislation signed into law).

        The emergency order dealing with redirecting certain federal funds is a separation of powers matter (Congress’ Article I, Section 8 appropriations authority) that will likely be resolved by the Supreme Court.

    4. This is often about judicial activism.

      All one needs to do is look at what happened with DACA. Obama implemented it without authority – even having admitted many times that he didn’t have the authority. No problem.

      Trump attempted to roll back DACA and the courts fought him.

      The program was implemented extra-Constitutionally by Obama, but couldn’t be ended by Trump, according to a few judges with an axe to grind.

      If that isn’t judicial activism, what is?

      If that’s not enough, look at the ridiculous excuses judges used to block the travel ban from terrorist-prone countries? Wasn’t the first ruling because universities needed foreign students or some bs? Then another ruling was because they ignored the wording of the EO but used Trump’s campaign rhetoric to establish a discriminatory basis for the EO?

      Insanity.

      1. No court has ruled on whether DACA is lawful, much less on its constitutionality. During the Obama Administration, a legal challenge was turned aside, because the plaintiffs lacked standing. The Trump Administration’s effort to overturn it failed on procedural grounds, because the Administration didn’t adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

        All of those are technical matters. DACA has not yet been addressed on its merits by the nation’s courts.

        1. 1. Somehow, these Obama/leftist judges always manage to pull standing out of their rears every time some leftist sues for an injunction against a Trump EO (see the case I mentioned regarding the immigration halt EO); but we can’t seem to obtain standing when attempting to stop Obama. Weird. I wonder why that is besides good ole’ activist judges on the left who are willing to imagine standing whenever they need it?

          2. Administrative Procedures Act, my behind. DACA was a pure fabrication and abuse of executive power that should have been as easy to stop as it was to start.

          The Administrative Procedures Act is so vaguely worded that there was no amount of explanation that the Trump administration could have given to get past one of these activist judges.
          http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/over-a-trump-judges-dissent-a-win-for-daca-at-the-4th-circuit/

          As Judge Albert Diaz explained for the majority, this came nowhere near an agency’s obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Without a reasoned explanation for its action, the rescission was “arbitrary and capricious” and could not be enforced.

          Yeah, a “satisfactory explanation” was always going to be a subjective requirement that wasn’t going to be met by the Trump EO.

          1. @trytothink The “arbitrary and capricious” standard is the epitome of the problem. It often amounts to a judge declaring that the president’s reason for acting is insufficient, or unproven, even when a statute makes it very clear that it is the president’s right to determine when such an action is necessary.

            A classic example was issuing a nationwide injunction against immigration restrictions because the judge said the president couldn’t prove banning immigrants from particular nations would have enough impact on national security. Even though the statute in question made it very clear that the president had the power to determine when or under what conditions immigration could be restricted for national security.

            No surprise that SCOTUS shot that down, since that reasoning effectively meant the president had no power to make a decision at all. And, of course, judges are not at all equipped to make national security decisions, and were never given that job in the Constitution. SCOTUS itself has emphasized repeatedly that decisions like this should be made by those politically accountable to the voters.

          2. I mean the chief problem is that they didn’t really offer any explanation at all. The APA arbitrary and capricious standard is almost stupidly easy to satisfy, and the idea that the admin was never going to live up to it is a fantasy.

            1. @slantry Are you saying that this was all administrative and if the Trump administration had *only* put a little extra argumentation in their EO, the court would have said, “okie dokie”? So your defense of the arbitrary nature of the way these judges ruled is that a little extra paperwork would have smoothed it over?

              The reality is that these judges were going to see DACA continued regardless. The political motivation for the courts to make the decision on DACA was in the ruling.

              https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-daca-and-what-does-the-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it

              “The Executive wields awesome power in the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws,” the ruling said. “Our decision today does not curb that power, but rather enables its exercise in a manner that is free from legal misconceptions and is democratically accountable to the public.”

              So one day, the federal government through an EO of the executive has plenary power to regulate immigration as it sees fit – even when the states were simply trying to enforce existing federal immigration laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States)… then the next day, the executive is hamstrung by a “stupidly easy to satisfy” standard in how it presents its EO?

              Given the deference to the federal government given by Arizona vs United States, wouldn’t the judge(s) simply have asked a few questions to clarify and satisfy the APA standard? Wouldn’t Sessions’ DOJ have provided any clarifying legal arguments?

              When Justice Roberts rewrote the ACA to be a tax despite the fact that it clearly wasn’t a tax and that the authors of Obamacare swore up and down that it wasn’t a tax, that was okay? But these other when ruling on the Trump administration’s ability to end a program that was clearly against immigration statutes on the books – they were “pencils down, stop writing” assessment of a lack of detail in the EO?

              It’s pretty easy to see when the judiciary uses different standards to decide issues on the law. It’s not hard to understand why that happens when you realize that these judges are being judicial activists.

              Edit: Oh, another great example of the capricious nature of these rulings was when the Trump administration tried to limit immigration from certain terrorist-heavy countries, the judge allowed the use of Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail to determine intent of the EO. But in the Obamacare ruling, Obama’s direct statements about the non-tax nature of Obamacare wasn’t considered. People have a right to be upset by the activist nature of these decisions and how different standards are used.

              1. 1) the federal government’s plenary power over immigration law is unrelated to any executive order, and your discussion of the “deference to the federal government” in the context of Arizona v US and then linking the same to this case doesn’t make any sense, since recognition of federal supremacy in an area does not equal deference to the executive branch in that area.

                2) At least one of the judges who issued a DACA ruling is about as no nonsense as they come. Your ignorance of the underlying legal issues should not be equated with any specific judge having political views.

                3) No, the asking of clarifying questions wouldn’t satisfy the APA standard because that standard must be satisfied based on the actual administrative record. And yeah, a little extra paperwork (as in, a little more expansive of a record) would have smoothed those things over because APA cases go to the sufficiency of an explanation. The administrative record behind the DACA repeal wasn’t pretty much nonexistent, and the failure of that record to satisfy the meager standard that Congress has made the executive subject to isn’t that surprising.

                Let me try to put it this way: a Martian who happens to know a good deal about American Administrative law but literally nothing else about our society/politics would have ruled against the admin.

        2. In the case of DACA, the Trump administration rescinded the law because they believe it was Constitutionally invalid. The Ninth Circuit then claimed that Constitutional concerns were “arbitrary and capricious.”

          A belief that a predecessor’s executive memo is unconstitutional and should be changed is the opposite of “arbitrary and capricious.” Which just goes to show that these judges are treating “arbitrary and capricious” as a pretext to assert their own opinions.

          Just to be clear, even if you accept hypothetically that DACA is Constitutionally permitted, you can’t even come close to arguing that it is Constitutionally mandated.

          The DACA example encapsulates the problem. It’s Obama that far exceeded statutory and Constitutional grounds to create his own policy, and activist judges are literally preventing the next president from changing the policy, even though he has the exact same presidential power that Obama had.

            1. More than what I mentioned in a few paragraphs? Shocker!!

              My statements were accurate as far as they went. The core reason they rejected the DACA rescission was because they argued his reasons weren’t sufficient, and therefore were arbitrary. But that turns “arbitrary and capricious” into a standard it was never meant to be.

              You can twist around it all you want, but district courts are not supposed to set national policy on immigration. Policy is set by Congress, with the president having a certain amount of power because of his responsibility to execute the laws, national security responsibilities, and specific provisions of statutes.

              Judges are instead second-guessing every decision they don’t like, and inventing pretexts to strip the president of the power that he clearly has according to the Constitution AND statutes passed by Congress.

              It’s the judicial activism here that is “arbitrary and capricious.” And that’s not Trump’s fault at all.

              1. The decision had nothing to do with “constitutional concerns” being “arbitrary and capricious.” What was “arbitrary and capricious” was the Administration’s failure to provide a notice-and-comment period for potentially aggrieved parties to weigh in, as is required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Attempted imposition of the policy change was “arbitrary and capricious,” because the implementation was carried out in a fashion that ignored the interests of potentially aggrieved parties.

                1. They literally rejected the president’s stated concerns about the DACA policy not being Constitutional as a valid reason to withdraw the policy.

                2. That actually isn’t what the opinion says nor is it the underlying legal reasoning, and your attempts to explain it have been, to a one, wrong.

            1. If it’s not Constitutionally mandated, and it’s not established by actual statute, then it rests only on presidential authority, which it no longer has.

              1. Evidently it does, since he has had years to rescind it now and still hasn’t. Nothing is stopping him from doing it the correct way.

      2. @trytothink Exactly! That’s what I tried to say (albeit somewhat clumsily) above.

    5. It’s an issue of use and abuse. There’s a use for the occasional nationwide injunction, even by a district judge, when a particular executive order oversteps statutory authority or separation of powers.

      But we’re seeing substantial abuse now, where someone politically opposed to the president’s nationwide policy goes shopping for a friendly federal judge in a particular district, and gets a nationwide injunction that amounts to political activism.

      What we’re seeing now are federal judges who were sympathetic to Obama’s policies using their judicial power to put blocks on President Trump’s executive orders, not because the executive orders are lawless or flawed, but because the judges don’t like the fact that the new president is changing federal policies.

      And because this kind of abuse can’t go on forever, we’re eventually going to see severe restrictions put on district courts issuing nationwide injunctions.

      The left — and you — will scream bloody murder, but it’s inevitable

      TL;DR: Short term abuse of power leads to long-term restrictions on power. It’s inevitable.

  25. I think Trump should have ignored the judge who ruled against him on DACA. I don’t think he had authority or power to stop Trump. Courts can not make law they can only rule on it’s constitutionality. In Iowa the court ruled that the law that defined marriage as a man and a women was unconstitutional and suddenly gay marriage was said to be the law. The politicians allowed the court to change the law by not standing up and saying if that law is unconstitutional we will write a new one since it is our job to do so. Ignoring the courts is a step that has potential hazards like executive branch just doing whatever they want but a lawless executive should be held in check by the electorate. I’m rambling and only have my opinion which counts for next to nothing. This frustrates the crap out of me.

    1. In CA, voters approved Prop 8 overwhelmingly (68%) that said marriage should be between one man and one woman, a single Mayor of LA over ruled the law and began marrying couples against a court order and the LAW. He is now the Governor of the state of CA. Go figure.

      1. Also there was prop 187 to stop giving benefits to illegals which passed by almost 60% of the voters! Whatever happened to that? The legislators essentially over-ruled the people and passed laws to allow illegals to get benefits!!

      2. I know, this has been the worst era in American history for democracy. Voting hardly seems worth it. They just do what they want anyway.

        It’s the media, they have the media and people never get real information.

  26. I saw that yesterday. He has a great sense of humor, yet gave a very compelling speech against nationwide injunctions.

    Some interesting stats he threw out:

    20th century had a total of 27 nationwide injunctions
    Since Trump took office, there have been 37 nationwide injunctions against him
    While Obama’s first two years, had only two nationwide injunctions related to DACA.

    It shows that it’s only the left that abuses the power of the judiciary to fight Conservative agenda.

  27. DACA was an Obama Executive Order… and the incoming POTUS may overturn. Why did the judicial branch intervene? Judicial activism.

      1. He’s been there, done that. Nothing scares him like it would a newbie AG. Trump was smart to pick him.

  28. One way to look at it is that these judges were completely silent during the Obama administration while he enacted unlawful policies like DACA. Hence…asymmetric. They are activist judges.

      1. @slantry Either they are overstepping their bounds or they aren’t. I side with Barr on this one. One judge shouldn’t have that much power at a lower level.

        1. @kong1967 You could’ve just left that last sentence at “One judge shouldn’t have that much power.”

          1. @squirrelly You’re right, because no one (individually) in the Supreme Court even has that kind of power.

        2. Let’s see, 37 times since Trump came along vs 27 in the entire 20th century – seems a little out of balance to me.

            1. Indeed it is. And yet how many people even know about it? Can’t protest what you don’t know which is why the “media” that we have is such a disaster.

              A strong, free country has journalists who inform the people. We have media types with agendas who parrot the latest Democrat talking points.

      2. Nationwide injunctions should be rare, and limited to clear abuses of presidential authority. Obama was particularly bad about abusing his authority, such as effectively rewriting Obamacare whenever he thought following the law would be politically awkward.

        Note that Obama’s record on abuse of power was so bad that he was on the receiving end of several unanimous SCOTUS decisions against him. That means that even the most liberal justices were not about to accept his untrammeled abuses of power.

        And now, nationwide injunctions have become commonplace. The injunctions against the so-called Muslim Travel Ban was shot down by SCOTUS for the simple reason that President Trump was clearly within the bounds of the Constitution and the statute, and it was the court that was being lawless in issuing nationwide injunctions just because they didn’t agree with his policies.

        If nationwide injunctions had remained rare, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. It’s their abuse and overuse that is forcing everyone to accept that this is a problem that will have to be dealt with.

      3. “Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch — that’s more than one a month,” Barr said during a Tuesday evening speech to the American Law Institute.

        “According to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century

    1. let’s put the judicial system under the O administration in perspective…everything they did was with the underlying premise that the next President of the United States of America was NOT going to be Donald J. Trump. Praise the Lord for miracles! Hildebeast would have been welcomed with open arms to continue the fundamental transformation of America.

      1. @joyfulgiver Yes, and even if Trump had more liberal leanings I would still be glad to have him over her because she is so corrupt it’s not funny.

  29. If my memory is correct, Obama ruled on DACA with an “executive order”, not by legislation. How then can a judge or a court then stop Trump from issuing an executive order rescinding Obama’s illegal EO?

    The blame lies explicitly on Congress which has the authority to overrule any judgement of any court including the Supreme Court. The people, through their representatives retain the right to establish the laws they deem necessary and repeal the laws they deem harmful to the explicit “will of the people”. Congress has abdicated its responsibility out of pure cowardice to take a stand for liberty, it’s easier for them to point the finger of blame at the courts than it is to have the spine to do the right thing.

    Black robed tyranny is what has been allowed to fester, and it will ultimately lead to our downfall as a constitutional republic if we allow it to continue. The founders gave us the tools, do we have the courage to use them?

    1. Both the executive and legislative are far too wedded to the notion that a low level federal judge has more power than the combined weight of the executive and legislative branches.

      1. Yep and regardless of Barr’s comments they still believe this notion because their answer is to settle it in court.

        You can’t make this stuff up.

    2. @rwrad Exactly, and it’s what Barr referred to. They were completely silent while Obama issued unlawful executive orders but crawl out of the woodwork to stop Trump from reversing the illegal executive order. He could have summed it up by saying they are “activist judges” that overstep their constitutional authority.

  30. About GD time somebody stood up for the constitution with a public proclamation. The GOP should be ashamed of itself that they’ve remained dutifully mute on this subject over the last many years.

  31. You know, I wondered how a district judge could issue a nationwide injunction. Their abuse of power needs to be reigned in.

    1. The best way to rein it in, perhaps the only way, is for a president to declare that the judiciary has overstepped its mandate, and ignore insipid and vapid rulings.

      1. That would set an extremely dangerous precedent. After all, if a President can freely ignore judicial decisions despite the Constitutional framework, he or she can freely ignore Congress or even any other aspect of the Constitution by will. That’s anything but a republican framework. The appropriate and constitutional remedy is to seek legislative changes.

        1. It would indeed be a bad thing. And yet it may at some point become necessary. When the courts don’t show the proper restraint and start trying to set the president’s policy, they become the Constitutional violators. And unless we have some way to set limits on judicial abuses, we’ll reach a point where the only recourse is for a president to start ignoring rulings that go too far.

          We’re already stepping dangerously close to that line. And not just during the Trump administration. Congress actually issued a statute that restricted the ability of the federal courts to issue rulings on military prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. If you know the Constitution at all, you know that Congress gets to decide the jurisdiction of all federal courts, and the law they passed declared that the DC court had exclusive power of judicial review.

          SCOTUS essentially ignored their statutory lack of jurisdiction to declare that prisoners of war must be allowed to file Habeas Corpus claims. Regardless of whether their decision was correct, they simply ignored their lack of jurisdiction.

          There was an excellent case to be made that Bush should have ignored their decision, because civilian judges don’t have jurisdiction over prisoners of war.

          But no president wants to go down in the history books as the first one to refuse to accept a SCOTUS decision So they keep trying to work within the legal system.

        2. Don…..the courts are not sole and final arbiter of constitutionality. They are nt supreme. So tell us why the other two branches and also the states must adhere to the edicts of an unconstitutional rogue court? Our Republic was never designed to operate in this manner. It’s a legal centric canard that even conservatives have unfortunately accepted.

          1. I recognize that. The legislative process can lead to changes in law that overcome court decisions related to existing law. Even the Constitution can be amended.

      2. Drkjk….you nailed it. Until our side understands that the final arbitrator of constitutionality is the people, not the courts we’re destined to lose. I still amazed at how conservatives are so judiciary centric….”We’ll reign in the courts by taking them to court! Yeah that’ll show them!”

        Face palm.

    2. @dr-strangelove How? I would say that he should ignore their rulings and take it to the Supreme Court.

      If judges are allowed to issue injunctions it shouldn’t go beyond the reaches of their districts. There will always be a judge that will oppose Trump and be able to stop him. No way can that be the intent of judicial system. It cripples the executive branch and one judge shouldn’t have the power to do that.

      1. @kong1967 I have often wondered if in order to go against high level Executive decisions, the ruling must come from the Supreme Court, or at a minimum, an Circuit Court.

        1. @paladin I have never known the specifics of which judges can do what, but if Barr says they are overstepping their authority and abusing their power then I believe him. I have thought for years that it’s a bunch of BS that a leftist judge in a lower court has more authority than the President of the United States.

      2. @kong1967 I believe that it was Andrew Jackson who said, “The Supreme Court ruled, now let them enforce it.” Good advice to deal with the lower courts. It’s a lot nicer in El Dorado today than Monday. Holy cow, I haven’t seen rain like that in a long time.

        1. @dr-strangelove Could you imagine the threats of impeachment if Trump started ignoring the lower courts? They’d go berzerk.

          Yeah, my back yard has standing water. I wanted to mow the lawn today but I can’t. Hopefully we will get a break for a few days with none or next to no rain. Thankfully my grass isn’t that tall yet.

          1. I got a load to Phoenix and I’m going to spend the weekend with my sister. I’ve been using True Green and my lawn is going to be a jungle when I get back. I went across KS yesterday on US 54. Remember the joke about the state tree of Kansas being the electric pole? Change that to windmill, those things are taking over the whole country.

            1. @dr-strangelove Lol, I’ve lived in Kansas my whole life and not once have I heard the joke about the state tree being the electric pole. Are there a lot of windmills on US 54? Haven’t been that way in a long time.

              1. @kong1967 I’m pretty sure that I told you that one a few years back. Probably in ’14, the last time I was out this way. I rarely get west of the 35 anymore, I love the west. I can’t complain, I work for good people, make decent money and I’m in a fast truck. It’s pretty funny, someone here accused me of driving a Volvo, the implication of course being that I’m a Safety Sally. I actually do drive a Volvo rated at 425 horsepower (before a couple engine mods) and I pass 98% of the other trucks on the road.

                1. Nothing wrong with being safe, especially with what you’re driving.

                  Let me see what I remember from 2014…..
                  ……
                  ……
                  …..
                  2013, 2014,2015…it’s all a blur.

                2. @kong1967 Don’t feel bad, I have to look at my shirt to see what I had for breakfast.

      3. So we should ignore the rulings of the courts by settling it in court????

        Say it with me…..judicial supremacy does not exist.

        Just ignore the court’s unconstitutional edicts and move on. Then as Thomas Jefferson stated, it is the people who will be the final arbiter of constitutionality.

  32. There’s so much left over from the lawless obama days that is yet to be undone. I’m glad Barr and Trump are tackling this grotesque and unlawful abuse of power.

  33. I don’t know what’s worse. Not knowing the problem or knowing it and watching nothing being done to change it

  34. I wish AG Barr and the Trump Administration good luck in getting the Courts back under control. Of course it could easily happen if Congress would do their job and join the Executive Branch in reigning in the Judicial Branch.

  35. Just like in the movie A Christmas Story, you need to take the fight to the bullies. I like this going on offense strategy that Barr and the Trump Administration are taking. It’s a step in the right direction, and needs to happen more often.

  36. Liberal activist judges who are not constrained by the constitution are the dems favorites as the dems many times can by pass the voters and go to these judges to get what they can’t get at the ballot box.

  37. I like Barr. He is a champion of the rule of law. Not something that is seen amongst the DC swamp crowd.

  38. Isn’t it John Roberts responsibility to oversee these Federal Judges and those terrible and illegal injunctions they are rendering.

    1. He is responsible for the FISA judges and courts. Not sure about the regular federal judges.

      1. The Chief Justice appoints the judges to the FISA court.

        It is reported that ten of the court’s 11 current judges, all selected by Chief Justice John G. Roberts were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents, as were 86 percent of all Roberts’ designees to the court.

  39. My husband and I have often questioned how a judge rules nationwide. I’m glad AG Barr spoke about it and the Trump administration is challenging it. This seems so wrong and it’s time it was made right.

    1. You challenge them by ignoring their unconstitutional edicts, not by taking the power of courts……to court. Until they start ignoring these rogue courts nothing will change. sorry.

  40. About time someone with legal expertise in the administration stood up and said how screwed up the judiciary is. This legislating from the bench crap has been going on for decades as well as intentionally misconstruing and ignoring the laws on the books. The judiciary needs a good housecleaning, and about 20 good flushes.

  41. “Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch — that’s more than one a month,” Barr said during a Tuesday evening speech to the American Law Institute.

    “According to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century,” he added, before bristling at the notion that the disparity is a function of the president’s “lawlessness.”

    😯 😡

  42. There is unrest in the forest,
    There is trouble with the trees.
    For the maples want more sunlight,
    And the oaks ignore their pleas.

    The trouble with the maples,
    And they’re quite convinced they’re right.
    They say the oaks are just too lofty,
    And they grab up all the light.
    But the oaks can’t help their feelings,
    If they like the way they’re made.
    And they wonder why the maples,
    Can’t be happy in their shade?

    There is trouble in the forest,
    And the creatures all have fled.
    As the maples scream ‘oppression!’,
    And the oaks, just shake their heads.

    So the maples formed a union,
    And demanded equal rights.
    ‘The oaks are just too greedy,
    We will make them give us light.
    Now there’s no more oak oppression,
    For they passed a noble law.
    And the trees are all kept equal
    By hatchet…
    Axe…
    And saw.

  43. I think Trump should have ignored the judge who ruled against him on DACA. I don’t think he had authority or power to stop Trump. Courts can not make law they can only rule on it’s constitutionality. In Iowa the court ruled that the law that defined marriage as a man and a women was unconstitutional and suddenly gay marriage was said to be the law. The politicians allowed the court to change the law by not standing up and saying if that law is unconstitutional we will write a new one since it is our job to do so. Ignoring the courts is a step that has potential hazards like executive branch just doing whatever they want but a lawless executive should be held in check by the electorate. I’m rambling and only have my opinion which counts for next to nothing. This frustrates the crap out of me.

    1. In CA, voters approved Prop 8 overwhelmingly (68%) that said marriage should be between one man and one woman, a single Mayor of LA over ruled the law and began marrying couples against a court order and the LAW. He is now the Governor of the state of CA. Go figure.

      1. Also there was prop 187 to stop giving benefits to illegals which passed by almost 60% of the voters! Whatever happened to that? The legislators essentially over-ruled the people and passed laws to allow illegals to get benefits!!

      2. I know, this has been the worst era in American history for democracy. Voting hardly seems worth it. They just do what they want anyway.

        It’s the media, they have the media and people never get real information.

  44. I saw that yesterday. He has a great sense of humor, yet gave a very compelling speech against nationwide injunctions.

    Some interesting stats he threw out:

    20th century had a total of 27 nationwide injunctions
    Since Trump took office, there have been 37 nationwide injunctions against him
    While Obama’s first two years, had only two nationwide injunctions related to DACA.

    It shows that it’s only the left that abuses the power of the judiciary to fight Conservative agenda.

  45. DACA was an Obama Executive Order… and the incoming POTUS may overturn. Why did the judicial branch intervene? Judicial activism.

      1. He’s been there, done that. Nothing scares him like it would a newbie AG. Trump was smart to pick him.

  46. One way to look at it is that these judges were completely silent during the Obama administration while he enacted unlawful policies like DACA. Hence…asymmetric. They are activist judges.

      1. @slantry Either they are overstepping their bounds or they aren’t. I side with Barr on this one. One judge shouldn’t have that much power at a lower level.

      2. Nationwide injunctions should be rare, and limited to clear abuses of presidential authority. Obama was particularly bad about abusing his authority, such as effectively rewriting Obamacare whenever he thought following the law would be politically awkward.

        Note that Obama’s record on abuse of power was so bad that he was on the receiving end of several unanimous SCOTUS decisions against him. That means that even the most liberal justices were not about to accept his untrammeled abuses of power.

        And now, nationwide injunctions have become commonplace. The injunctions against the so-called Muslim Travel Ban was shot down by SCOTUS for the simple reason that President Trump was clearly within the bounds of the Constitution and the statute, and it was the court that was being lawless in issuing nationwide injunctions just because they didn’t agree with his policies.

        If nationwide injunctions had remained rare, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. It’s their abuse and overuse that is forcing everyone to accept that this is a problem that will have to be dealt with.

      3. “Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch — that’s more than one a month,” Barr said during a Tuesday evening speech to the American Law Institute.

        “According to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century

    1. let’s put the judicial system under the O administration in perspective…everything they did was with the underlying premise that the next President of the United States of America was NOT going to be Donald J. Trump. Praise the Lord for miracles! Hildebeast would have been welcomed with open arms to continue the fundamental transformation of America.

      1. @joyfulgiver Yes, and even if Trump had more liberal leanings I would still be glad to have him over her because she is so corrupt it’s not funny.

  47. If my memory is correct, Obama ruled on DACA with an “executive order”, not by legislation. How then can a judge or a court then stop Trump from issuing an executive order rescinding Obama’s illegal EO?

    The blame lies explicitly on Congress which has the authority to overrule any judgement of any court including the Supreme Court. The people, through their representatives retain the right to establish the laws they deem necessary and repeal the laws they deem harmful to the explicit “will of the people”. Congress has abdicated its responsibility out of pure cowardice to take a stand for liberty, it’s easier for them to point the finger of blame at the courts than it is to have the spine to do the right thing.

    Black robed tyranny is what has been allowed to fester, and it will ultimately lead to our downfall as a constitutional republic if we allow it to continue. The founders gave us the tools, do we have the courage to use them?

    1. @rwrad Exactly, and it’s what Barr referred to. They were completely silent while Obama issued unlawful executive orders but crawl out of the woodwork to stop Trump from reversing the illegal executive order. He could have summed it up by saying they are “activist judges” that overstep their constitutional authority.

    2. Both the executive and legislative are far too wedded to the notion that a low level federal judge has more power than the combined weight of the executive and legislative branches.

      1. Yep and regardless of Barr’s comments they still believe this notion because their answer is to settle it in court.

        You can’t make this stuff up.

  48. About GD time somebody stood up for the constitution with a public proclamation. The GOP should be ashamed of itself that they’ve remained dutifully mute on this subject over the last many years.

  49. You know, I wondered how a district judge could issue a nationwide injunction. Their abuse of power needs to be reigned in.

    1. @dr-strangelove How? I would say that he should ignore their rulings and take it to the Supreme Court.

      If judges are allowed to issue injunctions it shouldn’t go beyond the reaches of their districts. There will always be a judge that will oppose Trump and be able to stop him. No way can that be the intent of judicial system. It cripples the executive branch and one judge shouldn’t have the power to do that.

      1. So we should ignore the rulings of the courts by settling it in court????

        Say it with me…..judicial supremacy does not exist.

        Just ignore the court’s unconstitutional edicts and move on. Then as Thomas Jefferson stated, it is the people who will be the final arbiter of constitutionality.

      2. @kong1967 I believe that it was Andrew Jackson who said, “The Supreme Court ruled, now let them enforce it.” Good advice to deal with the lower courts. It’s a lot nicer in El Dorado today than Monday. Holy cow, I haven’t seen rain like that in a long time.

        1. @dr-strangelove Could you imagine the threats of impeachment if Trump started ignoring the lower courts? They’d go berzerk.

          Yeah, my back yard has standing water. I wanted to mow the lawn today but I can’t. Hopefully we will get a break for a few days with none or next to no rain. Thankfully my grass isn’t that tall yet.

          1. I got a load to Phoenix and I’m going to spend the weekend with my sister. I’ve been using True Green and my lawn is going to be a jungle when I get back. I went across KS yesterday on US 54. Remember the joke about the state tree of Kansas being the electric pole? Change that to windmill, those things are taking over the whole country.

      3. @kong1967 I have often wondered if in order to go against high level Executive decisions, the ruling must come from the Supreme Court, or at a minimum, an Circuit Court.

        1. @paladin I have never known the specifics of which judges can do what, but if Barr says they are overstepping their authority and abusing their power then I believe him. I have thought for years that it’s a bunch of BS that a leftist judge in a lower court has more authority than the President of the United States.

    2. The best way to rein it in, perhaps the only way, is for a president to declare that the judiciary has overstepped its mandate, and ignore insipid and vapid rulings.

      1. That would set an extremely dangerous precedent. After all, if a President can freely ignore judicial decisions despite the Constitutional framework, he or she can freely ignore Congress or even any other aspect of the Constitution by will. That’s anything but a republican framework. The appropriate and constitutional remedy is to seek legislative changes.

        1. Don…..the courts are not sole and final arbiter of constitutionality. They are nt supreme. So tell us why the other two branches and also the states must adhere to the edicts of an unconstitutional rogue court? Our Republic was never designed to operate in this manner. It’s a legal centric canard that even conservatives have unfortunately accepted.

          1. I recognize that. The legislative process can lead to changes in law that overcome court decisions related to existing law. Even the Constitution can be amended.

        2. It would indeed be a bad thing. And yet it may at some point become necessary. When the courts don’t show the proper restraint and start trying to set the president’s policy, they become the Constitutional violators. And unless we have some way to set limits on judicial abuses, we’ll reach a point where the only recourse is for a president to start ignoring rulings that go too far.

          We’re already stepping dangerously close to that line. And not just during the Trump administration. Congress actually issued a statute that restricted the ability of the federal courts to issue rulings on military prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. If you know the Constitution at all, you know that Congress gets to decide the jurisdiction of all federal courts, and the law they passed declared that the DC court had exclusive power of judicial review.

          SCOTUS essentially ignored their statutory lack of jurisdiction to declare that prisoners of war must be allowed to file Habeas Corpus claims. Regardless of whether their decision was correct, they simply ignored their lack of jurisdiction.

          There was an excellent case to be made that Bush should have ignored their decision, because civilian judges don’t have jurisdiction over prisoners of war.

          But no president wants to go down in the history books as the first one to refuse to accept a SCOTUS decision So they keep trying to work within the legal system.

      2. Drkjk….you nailed it. Until our side understands that the final arbitrator of constitutionality is the people, not the courts we’re destined to lose. I still amazed at how conservatives are so judiciary centric….”We’ll reign in the courts by taking them to court! Yeah that’ll show them!”

        Face palm.

  50. There’s so much left over from the lawless obama days that is yet to be undone. I’m glad Barr and Trump are tackling this grotesque and unlawful abuse of power.

  51. I wish AG Barr and the Trump Administration good luck in getting the Courts back under control. Of course it could easily happen if Congress would do their job and join the Executive Branch in reigning in the Judicial Branch.

  52. Just like in the movie A Christmas Story, you need to take the fight to the bullies. I like this going on offense strategy that Barr and the Trump Administration are taking. It’s a step in the right direction, and needs to happen more often.

  53. Liberal activist judges who are not constrained by the constitution are the dems favorites as the dems many times can by pass the voters and go to these judges to get what they can’t get at the ballot box.

  54. My husband and I have often questioned how a judge rules nationwide. I’m glad AG Barr spoke about it and the Trump administration is challenging it. This seems so wrong and it’s time it was made right.

Comments are closed.