Lawfare Pushback – Republicans Prepare REAL Justice

Liberals dominate the legal profession, ranging from law schools and litigious NGOs to bar groups and judges (many of whom are Republican appointments). Judicial supremacy, through the use of “universal injunctions,” enables any liberal legal organization to select any one of the 670 district judges in 94 district courts to make decisions on a wide variety of public issues, which the ruling class then interprets as “law.”

The good news is that evidence suggests that at least three Supreme Court justices want to discontinue this absurd practice.

Governors should vehemently oppose judges who overreach and think they have veto authority, even if we only have three justices on our side.

The president or the governor do not require a court to approve a statute. Judges, including the Supreme Court justices, do not have veto power; this includes the justices of the Supreme Court. Rather, a judge may award relief to a single plaintiff who is requesting authorization for specific conduct if he feels that a statute breaches constitutional rights (in a case where the court has the right to hear it).

It is false to think that a federal judge’s ruling is final and obligatory on all departments of government, requiring them to abide by it even if they disagree with the interpretation of the constitution. This misperception stems from an incorrect notion of the exclusive and supreme authority of the judiciary.

In other words, unlike the president or governor, who may enact new legislation, courts cannot reverse or reject existing laws. The “Council of Revision” was a potential strategy explored by the Constitution’s writers. It would have replaced the president’s autonomous veto power rather than increased it.

Therefore, a judge may rule in favor of the organization that filed the lawsuit when leftist nonprofits—or conservatives, challenge a state or federal statute in district court. However, this limits the district judge’s authority to only issue an order that the plaintiff needs in order to pursue their complaint in court.

This takes us to the case of Labrador v. Poe, one more in the expanding list of instances where district courts are consistently staying the execution of legally established laws that outlaw the physical and chemical castration of children. With overwhelming support from both chambers of the state legislature, Idaho passed a bill last year making it unlawful for medical professionals to conduct or recommend procedures that “change” a minor’s sex.

Subsequently, that year, two families filed a lawsuit in district court, requesting estrogen treatment and puberty blockers for their children. DD Judge Lynn Winmill enjoined the entire law on the grounds that it probably violated the 14th Amendment since Congress had clearly attempted to protect castration in 1867 while granting freed black slaves due process. Idaho officials filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to suspend the order after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals logically agreed with the district court.

Clearly, Winmill’s decision is ludicrous. The right to castrate minors is unaffected by the 14th Amendment. In any case, one should only apply the judge’s instructions to the specific plaintiffs and their case, not to veto the entire legislation, especially before a complete trial has taken place. It is irrational to believe that a court may swiftly and easily invalidate a statute in its entirety, particularly provisions that are unrelated to the case, such as the prohibition against physical castration.

Fortunately, in this instance, a minimum of five judges declared their intention to reverse the injunction and allow Idaho’s legislation to go into force. Judge Neil Gorsuch, on the other hand, vehemently disagreed with the notion that courts had the authority to grant nationwide injunctions against lawfully enacted legislation in a crucially significant concurring opinion. He was joined by Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

Gorsuch complains, “In recent years, several district judges across the country have aspired to control a whole state or perhaps the whole nation from their courtrooms, instead of contenting themselves with making equitable rulings that repair the injuries of the plaintiffs before them.” “One of these universal injunctions remains in effect today in Idaho, but recently the federal government has frequently been the target.”

Gorsuch draws attention to the fact that countrywide and universal injunctions that impact parties outside of a court’s geographic jurisdiction, as well as the initial plaintiffs, are relatively recent in American history. He also admits that this method has political sway. We all remember how Hawaiian judges, acting for unknown reasons, halted Trump’s national initiatives with their injunctions. This occurred just 19 times in Obama’s eight years in office, but 55 times in Trump’s first three years in office, according to Gorsuch.

The liberal judges bemoan the overwhelming number of emergency injunctions that various government actors have filed with the court in relation to well-known public policy problems. Gorsuch, however, correctly points the finger at lower court global injunctions, pointing out that the practice evades standard legal procedures and “tends to drive courts into making hasty, high-stakes, low-information decisions” at all levels.

Gorsuch addresses one of the most important policy shifts we need. Without ending universal injunctions, hurried troll lawsuits and ludicrous liberal judges concocting bogus constitutional defenses will unnecessarily impede red-state governments and the incoming Republican administration, knowing full well that their actions can erode legislation for years even if they ultimately fail on the merits.

In his 2018 concurrence in the Trump “travel ban” case (Trump v. Hawaii), Clarence Thomas has previously denounced such injunctions. Thomas began by pointing out that lower courts lack the ability to impose nationwide injunctions in the absence of statutory authority from Congress. As Thomas stated in a footnote, the courts “would need to assess whether that legislation fits with the constraints that Article III lays on the jurisdiction of federal courts” even if Congress granted them such authority.

Thomas came to the conclusion that “universal injunctions are legally and historically questionable.” “This Court is duty-bound to adjudicate federal courts’ power to issue them if they so choose.”

Certainly, this tactic helps conservatives occasionally oppose Democratic presidents and blue state legislatures. But as I have long seen, the injunctions from lower courts far too frequently work against us. Despite the Idaho case, the Supreme Court frequently declines to overturn injunctions issued by lower courts. Even if there are only three justices on our side, governors should still vehemently oppose judges who overreach and think they have the authority to veto decisions.