There is a certain point at which a system becomes so saturated with corruption that there is no normal remedy.  The more we learn from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the more aware the public becomes that the corruption is worse than we imagined it could be.  We have been living in a kleptocracy.  President Trump’s efforts to remedy that are being repeatedly thwarted by leftist judges who are usurping executive power.  It is imperative to take back from them that illicit power.  But how?

Normally, we would depend on using the system, but what does one do when the system itself has become the instrument of institutional corruption?  What does one do when activist, anti-Trump judges violate the Constitution?

The principle of judicial restraint has governed the actions of federal courts ever since another president, Andrew Jackson, ignored an order from the Supreme court (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832).  Although the Court’s ruling was arguably correct, even commendable, Jackson’s defiance demonstrated that the Court, while having authority, has no power of enforcement. Without that power, the Court relies on the willingness of the other two branches of government to uphold its rulings.  Unlike the Court, the elected branches are directly responsible to the voters.  Thus, the will of the people is imposed over the court, as a check against judicial tyranny.

Under this principle of restraint, the courts have, until recently, avoided what has come to be referred to as “judicial activism,” the propensity for some judges to tailor their rulings to conform more with their personal political ideology than with the evidence and the law. 

Until recently.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sarcastically commented that the U.S. has “67 presidents,” referring to the many activist judges who seek to overturn policy decisions of President Trump.

As these rulings accumulate, the result is that the president is being told by various federal courts that he cannot exercise his powers under the Constitution if any judge can be found to restrict him from doing so.  It has become clear that “judge-shopping” has been in play, as anti-Trump activists are electing to file their challenges only in courts where they believe that the judge has an anti-Trump bias.

For now, Trump has permitted the rulings to stand until he can appeal them, presumably to (eventually) the U.S. Supreme Court.  The question looms large: What will happen if the USSC upholds the lower courts, especially if by a 5-to-4 vote?  What will happen if Trump, as did Jackson before him, defies the court?

Many factors come into play, not the least of which is (ahem) yet another impeachment trial in the Senate.

Trump will probably not brazenly defy the USSC unless and until his hand is forced, but it is almost certain that he will not acquiesce to being rendered powerless to achieve his agenda.  With each unlawful judicial ruling, Trump is ratcheting up his subtle warnings.  With each added warning, the stage is being set for the inevitable climactic moment of outright defiance.

If push comes to shove, Trump will carefully choose the right case, and the right moment, when he believes that the American public will, by a large margin, decisively support him, the courts be damned.

When that happens (and, I believe, not “if,”) there will be a truly dramatic constitutional crisis.  The question for now is, are the courts going to force his hand?

Andrew Jackson rides again...

Picryl.

" captext="Picryl" src="https://images.americanthinker.com/wt/wtoicffngxhe5sutlk2c_640.jpg" />

Image via Picryl.