Posts
Okay guys, let's get ready for another episode of "Judges Gone Wild!"
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who’s been around longer than most of the Capitol’s furniture, and has a voice like a cartoon character, is fed up with federal judges playing emperor with nationwide injunctions that ripple way beyond their little courtrooms. He told Fox News Digital he’s betting this judicial power trip will eventually crash and burn.
"Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power," Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s head honcho, said. No kidding, Chuck. These black-robed overlords are tossing out rulings like they’re auditioning for a reboot of Legally Blonde: The Dictatorship Edition.
Case in point: "Just this past week, a D.C. district judge issued a universal injunction blocking the president’s executive order requiring voter ID or proof-of-citizenship prior to voting in national elections." Because apparently, asking people to prove they’re eligible to vote is now a constitutional crisis for the Democrats. After all, they were hoping for the illegal alien wife-beater vote.
Grassley’s not mincing words here. That kind of ruling spits in the face of the quaint notion that "judges are not policymakers," he said. "Allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous."
With the Supreme Court gearing up to tackle this mess on May 15 over President Trump’s birthright citizenship order, Grassley’s hopeful the justices will drop the hammer. The case digs into the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, which gave us a super-sized version of birthright citizenship after a child of Chinese immigrants got the cold shoulder coming back from China. Trump’s order tweaking that precedent got slapped with nationwide injunctions from judges in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington state—because why not let a few unelected folks in robes run the country?
Grassley’s not just sitting on his hands. "In the meantime, I'm continuing to work with my colleagues to advance my critical Judicial Relief Clarification Act (JRCA) and put an end to universal injunctions," he said, sounding a bit like the lady in the automat.
Grassley’s been sounding the alarm on this judicial overreach since March, when Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin tried to ram through a resolution demanding Trump bow to every federal court ruling. Durbin, by the way, is not running for reelection.
Ever the optimist, Grassley even tried to find common ground: "I happen to agree with some Democrats that in previous years have said some judges have gone way beyond what a judge should do on national injunctions. I hope to find a solution for that, and I hope that you and I could work on that together." Aw, Chuck, you sweet summer child. Bipartisanship on this? That’s like expecting a vegan to grill you a burger.
So here we are, watching judges act like they’ve got a divine right to rule. Grassley’s fighting the good fight, but until the Supreme Court or Congress puts these robed renegades back in their lane, we’re stuck with a system where one activist judge can derail the will of millions. Stay tuned, patriots—this one’s gonna get spicy.
"Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power," Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s head honcho, said. No kidding, Chuck. These black-robed overlords are tossing out rulings like they’re auditioning for a reboot of Legally Blonde: The Dictatorship Edition.
Case in point: "Just this past week, a D.C. district judge issued a universal injunction blocking the president’s executive order requiring voter ID or proof-of-citizenship prior to voting in national elections." Because apparently, asking people to prove they’re eligible to vote is now a constitutional crisis for the Democrats. After all, they were hoping for the illegal alien wife-beater vote.
Grassley’s not mincing words here. That kind of ruling spits in the face of the quaint notion that "judges are not policymakers," he said. "Allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous."
Ya think? When one judge in a cozy D.C. office can hit the pause button on an entire administration’s agenda, we’re not exactly living in a republic anymore--we're living in George Soros heaven.
With the Supreme Court gearing up to tackle this mess on May 15 over President Trump’s birthright citizenship order, Grassley’s hopeful the justices will drop the hammer. The case digs into the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, which gave us a super-sized version of birthright citizenship after a child of Chinese immigrants got the cold shoulder coming back from China. Trump’s order tweaking that precedent got slapped with nationwide injunctions from judges in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington state—because why not let a few unelected folks in robes run the country?
Trump’s pushing back, arguing the 14th Amendment was about former slaves, not a free-for-all citizenship buffet.
Grassley’s not just sitting on his hands. "In the meantime, I'm continuing to work with my colleagues to advance my critical Judicial Relief Clarification Act (JRCA) and put an end to universal injunctions," he said, sounding a bit like the lady in the automat.
Good luck with that, senator. Some bright sparks thought they could sneak the JRCA through via reconciliation in a Senate tighter than a hipster’s skinny jeans, but the "Byrd Rule" says no dice—non-financial bills can’t hitch a ride on that train, per someone who actually understands the process.
Grassley’s been sounding the alarm on this judicial overreach since March, when Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin tried to ram through a resolution demanding Trump bow to every federal court ruling. Durbin, by the way, is not running for reelection.
Grassley wasn’t having it. "The President of the United States shouldn’t have to ask permission from more than 600 different district judges to manage the executive branch he was elected to lead," he fired back. Preach, senator.
Ever the optimist, Grassley even tried to find common ground: "I happen to agree with some Democrats that in previous years have said some judges have gone way beyond what a judge should do on national injunctions. I hope to find a solution for that, and I hope that you and I could work on that together." Aw, Chuck, you sweet summer child. Bipartisanship on this? That’s like expecting a vegan to grill you a burger.
So here we are, watching judges act like they’ve got a divine right to rule. Grassley’s fighting the good fight, but until the Supreme Court or Congress puts these robed renegades back in their lane, we’re stuck with a system where one activist judge can derail the will of millions. Stay tuned, patriots—this one’s gonna get spicy.
If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine! No pressure, it's your call.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment